Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:ags
From: ags@pucc-i (Seaman)
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: ID
Message-ID: <400@pucc-i>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 10:32:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.400
Posted: Wed Aug 22 10:32:21 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Aug-84 03:51:01 EDT
References: <151@whuxl.UUCP>, <1593@ucbvax.UUCP>, <466@tty3b.UUCP> <1260@bmcg.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 20

>  Over the weeks that this conversation has been going on, I have yet to see
>  anyone point out that, right here in the good old U S of A, the Supreme Court
>  of the land has held it to be proper use of the police power of the State, to
>  'detain' anyone who does not produce sufficient identification, at the demand
>  of a 'peace officer.'

The police cannot arbitrarily ask people for identification and "detain"
them if they fail to produce it.  This practice was challenged by a man
in California a year or two ago, who made a habit of travelling on foot.
He was somewhat unconventional in appearance, and therefore was constantly
being hasselled by the police.  He refused to produce identification when
he was asked (pointing out that he was not being charged with anything)
and his claim stood when he was taken to court.  The police have to leave
him alone unless they have probable cause to suspect that a crime has
been committed.
-- 
[This is my bugkiller line.  It may appear to be misplaced, but it works.]

Dave Seaman			My hovercraft is no longer full of 
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags		eels (thanks to my confused cat).