Re: Mandatory ID in California?
At 08:45 AM 10/25/95 -0700, Ian Goldberg wrote:
"The officer, in accordance with police policy, arrested Burton for refusing to properly identify himself." <snip>
That last sentence seemed ominous to me...
This has been chatted about for years. Under California law, failure to identify yourself is a minor violation. They always dismiss the next day at your hearing. You don't have to carry ID, you just have to identify yourself (there's a difference). "my name Jose Jimenez." You still don't need ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle on public streets and roads (or maybe catching a plane). DCF "The average seasoned citizen pays a higher percentage of his income for medical expenses today than he did in 1964 before the passage of Medicaid."
"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..." Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983) "...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonable brief period of time...." - - ibid California is the Ninth Circuit, no? See, inter alia, Martinelli v. City of Beaumont, 820 F.2nd 1491 (1987). Alan Horowitz alanh@infi.net
"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..." Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonable brief period of time...." - - ibid
How about INS coming into the equation? Do they have additional powers which let them put your butt in a bad imitation of a farday cage? Mark mark@lochard.com.au
On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Mark wrote:
"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..." Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonable brief period of time...." - - ibid
How about INS coming into the equation? Do they have additional powers which let them put your butt in a bad imitation of a farday cage?
The powers of the INS have been the subject of much litigation. I used to study immigration law and policy, but that part of my brain has fallen into disuse in the last five years. I could probably dig up some references from old papers, though. I believe the INS has its own special definitions of probable cause. Section 10 of Proposition 187, which was passed by the ever-so-enlightened people of California last November, empowers the police to incarcerate without charge anyone who can not produce the two forms of identification required to prove legal residence. Fortunately, 187 is so Unconstitutional on its face that multiple injunctions against the enforcement of every one of provisions were ordered within 30 minutes of 187's receiving the Governor's signature. Today, many jurisdictions in California prohibit state & local officials from turning people over to the INS. It's not good for public health and safety for the alleged illegal people to be afraid to call the cops, or a doctor. -rich
How about INS coming into the equation? Do they have additional powers which let them put your butt in a bad imitation of a farday cage?
It is well-settled, that the area around the borders is "special" with respect to immigration-related enforcement.
participants (4)
-
Alan Horowitz -
Duncan Frissell -
Mark -
Rich Graves