Now even DDs are harrassed by the cops...

[Flyndaran]

I assume you mean there has been some kind of miscommunication. If so, could you clarify?

Just that I misread what seemed obvious to me. I'm annoyed because it happens alot.

[Slytovhand]

As far as the ID debate, and police requesting it, I'm totally with Flyn on that. Unless - and only unless - you are doing something that could be considered 'suspicious', there is absolutely no reason why a police officer should be requesting your ID. I have a 'right' to my anonymity. Sure, there might be a good reason to carry ID, but that's different to being 'forced' to carry it.

I think that police officer in Blas' OP was out of line... especially with the other passenger in the car. The driver doing a 'field test' for alcohol... what??? You still have that??? Sure, check the ID of the driver (cos, technically, they've committed an offence... I hope the cop can prove that 5 miles over )... but otherwise, it sounds like one pushy bastard who needs his toes clipped...

Over where I am, the cops need a reason to be checking your ID, and you've got every right (that's enshrined in law... given I've just come of Nyoibo's thread ) to ask why they're asking for it, and to also get the full ID of the cop asking for it.

There are great cops who do their job in perhaps an over-zealous manner. There are bad cops... and then there's the rest... and I do believe all of them are human...


ETA: From BK's post, a bit further down, it also has:

However, the Court has identified a constitutional difficulty with many modern vagrancy laws. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), the Court held that a traditional vagrancy law was void for vagueness because its “broad scope and imprecise terms denied proper notice to potential offenders and permitted police officers to exercise unfettered discretion in the enforcement of the law.” In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), the Court struck down Texas’s stop-and-identify law as violating the Fourth Amendment because it allowed police officers to stop individuals without “specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity.” And in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), the Court struck down a California stop-and-identify law that required a suspect to provide “credible and reliable identification” upon request.[4] The words “credible and reliable” were vague because they "provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with [the law], resulting in virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation."

Precisely the stuff Flyn and I are on about