Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou4b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou4b!mat
From: mat@hou4b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: ID
Message-ID: <1123@hou4b.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 15:25:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou4b.1123
Posted: Wed Aug 29 15:25:22 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 02:23:02 EDT
References: <1260@bmcg.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 27

>	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.'

>	Not only that, but I'm old enough to remember what my draft card said
>	on it--that it must be kept on my person, and shown, on demand, to
>	duly constituted authorities, like the government policeman.

But don't the courts hold that there must be a reason for the demand?  If
you are asked to produce ID when the police are investigating a bona fide
``disturbance'', it is so that you can be found later if that is needed.  If
it isn't possible to find someone who may have knowledge needed to enforce
the laws that we do need, what are the laws worth.  There is an implication
that you have a duty to be able to let someone find you if necessary.  There
is no implication of guilt here ... only a need to discharge a responsibility.

If you wish to argue that responsibility, that is another matter.

						Mark Terribile
						hou4b!mat
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	hou5d!mat
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.  (soon hou4b!mat)