- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 9:36 am
Posted on 10/29/14 at 9:36 am
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 9:09 am
Posted on 10/29/14 at 9:42 am to Papercutninja
quote:
may briefly detain a person upon reasonable suspicion, which is a pretty low threshold.
I wouldn't think that threshold is low at all. Acting nervous, sitting in a car in an empty parking lot @ 3am, wearing a ski mask into a store - those types of things are quite reasonably suspicious IMO.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 9:57 am to idlewatcher
It's basically defined as something more than a hunch based upon specific articulable facts.
I guess my point was that this would likely be a big problem for the same minority demographic that these voter id laws are purported to affect. So wouldn't having an ID help hedge off the victimization of the minority base by the police and reduce detentions and arrests?
I guess my point was that this would likely be a big problem for the same minority demographic that these voter id laws are purported to affect. So wouldn't having an ID help hedge off the victimization of the minority base by the police and reduce detentions and arrests?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 10:52 am to Papercutninja
Did Terry say whether that ID had to be documented, or whether it could be articulated (verbal)? I think that's the key (that one can identify themselves verbally unless driving a car - "driving with no license" charge) - and satisfy Terry.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 10:57 am to texashorn
The talking is where 'further suspicion' can be raised - slurred speech, smelled alcohol, etc.
This is where these guys who have the cards with ID, registration and request to put ticket under wipers come in. They don't roll the window down either. Hold up card and remain silent.
This is where these guys who have the cards with ID, registration and request to put ticket under wipers come in. They don't roll the window down either. Hold up card and remain silent.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 11:20 am to Papercutninja
Name, Address and DOB are all that's required in most cases.
If the alleged crime relates to age, DOB isn't required.
physical ID isn't required
If the alleged crime relates to age, DOB isn't required.
physical ID isn't required
Posted on 10/29/14 at 11:20 am to texashorn
quote:You've got it. Terry (more specifically, Hiibel) only requires that you verbally identify yourself. Actual ID is not a requirement.
Did Terry say whether that ID had to be documented, or whether it could be articulated (verbal)? I think that's the key (that one can identify themselves verbally unless driving a car - "driving with no license" charge) - and satisfy Terry.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 11:21 am
Posted on 10/29/14 at 12:46 pm to Iosh
Yep, and you don't even have to be honest about it.
You could even say Puddin'tain...
but I wouldn't recommend it.
You could even say Puddin'tain...
but I wouldn't recommend it.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 1:12 pm to Papercutninja
The burden it's reasonable suspicion that is determined by a totality of the circumstances. Which the officer must be able to articulate. The officer's experience and training is relevant if the stop is challenged.
No ID?
Do you have a state issued ID in this state our any other state?
Name, dob, social security#. If you have/had an ID you will be in the system.
Simple.
No ID?
Do you have a state issued ID in this state our any other state?
Name, dob, social security#. If you have/had an ID you will be in the system.
Simple.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 1:18 pm to Five0
Also relevant to the discussion:
United States v. Burleson, No. 10-2060, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18820
(10th Cir. Decided September 12, 2011)
[I]t is well-settled in the traffic-stop context that while an investigative detention is ongoing, a police officer may obtain an individual's name and check that name for outstanding warrants. United States v. Villa, 589 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2009) It is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer who performs a Terry stop on a pedestrian suspected of engaging in criminal activity to obtain that individual's identity and perform a warrants check. Permitting a warrants check during a Terry stop on the street also promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice. United States v. Villagrana-Flores, 467 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Burleson, No. 10-2060, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18820
(10th Cir. Decided September 12, 2011)
[I]t is well-settled in the traffic-stop context that while an investigative detention is ongoing, a police officer may obtain an individual's name and check that name for outstanding warrants. United States v. Villa, 589 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2009) It is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer who performs a Terry stop on a pedestrian suspected of engaging in criminal activity to obtain that individual's identity and perform a warrants check. Permitting a warrants check during a Terry stop on the street also promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice. United States v. Villagrana-Flores, 467 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006)
Posted on 10/29/14 at 1:43 pm to Papercutninja
quote:
So wouldn't having an ID help hedge off the victimization of the minority base by the police and reduce detentions and arrests?
Unfortunately, you're missing the point. Having a voter ID law means it's more difficult to vote multiple times.
ID = 1 Democrat or Republican vote.
No ID = many Democrat votes.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News