He is being arrested for what now?

[smileyeagle1021]

What age is normal for even *having* ID? I didn't have one until I got my learner's permit at 15.

I always figured about middle school was the typical age to get a state ID. I know the local transit authority where I grew up required you to have a photo ID to use a bus pass, so I got my first ID at 13 when I got my own bus pass. Of course in my years of living in Reno and Salt Lake (Logan doesn't require passes, or IDs, or even that you pay a fare, I miss some things about that town) I have never actually been asked to show an ID with my bus pass, but theoretically they could, and they would be well within their rights to refuse me boarding if I couldn't prove I was the person the bus pass belonged to.

[jackfaire]

they would be well within their rights to refuse me boarding if I couldn't prove I was the person the bus pass belonged to.

Are you talking like a special bus pass?

In my city a normal bus pass can be used by anyone if you let someone borrow your bus pass it isn't illegal because all they care about is that the trip has been paid for.

[smileyeagle1021]

jackfaire, in Reno it may be because I was on a youth pass and I needed to prove age, and in Utah in my case it is a student pass, but even the normal passes have a disclaimer requiring ID for use, UTA's rules are One pass, One person.

[jackfaire]

jackfaire, in Reno it may be because I was on a youth pass and I needed to prove age, and in Utah in my case it is a student pass, but even the normal passes have a disclaimer requiring ID for use, UTA's rules are One pass, One person.

Okay cool wasn't saying you were wrong just surprised me. Here they figure it doesn't matter if it is a full fare pass because only one person can use it at a time.

[BlaqueKatt]

Here is an interesting article about "stop and identify" laws. Looks like in most places in the US, you are not obligated to show papers, and even if you are, there is no penalty for doing so

SCOTUS trumps Wikipedia:

police article on HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY

In sum, Hiibel holds a state may criminalize a refusal to produce identification as long as the detention is predicated on a valid Terry stop (i.e., reasonable suspicion). In other words, police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrest an individual after the individual refuses to provide identification during a lawful detention pursuant to their state's stop-and-identify statute.

So yeah they can arrest you-and SCOTUS agrees it's perfectly legal-so think twice before you leave the house without valid ID.

the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where in a 5-4 decision, it held that the Nevada stop-and-identify statute did not violate Hiibel's rights under the Fourth Amendment (or the Fifth Amendment either).
The court observed that asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. It further stated that asking a question relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, violate the Fourth Amendment: "[Q]uestions concerning a suspect's identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops."

The court stated that obtaining a suspect's name during a Terry stop serves important government interests, such as possibly identifying whether the suspect is wanted for another offense or has a record of violence or mental illness. On the flip side, knowledge of one's identity may help clear the suspect and, therefore, direct the police investigation elsewhere.

While the court found that police officers are entitled to ask a suspect about his identity, it admitted that it had never before decided whether a suspect's failure to answer those questions could give rise to an arrest and criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, the Court found the principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect provide ID during the stop. First, the Court concluded, after balancing the intrusion of the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests, the statute's contribution to efficient law enforcement outweighed any interference with Hiibel's right to privacy.

[Boozy]

So yeah they can arrest you-and SCOTUS agrees it's perfectly legal-so think twice before you leave the house without valid ID.

Your link does not invalidate RK's.

Looks like in most places in the US, you are not obligated to show papers, and even if you are, there is no penalty for doing so

SCOTUS determined that laws criminalizing a refusal to produce identification are not constitutionally invalid. But looking at RK's link, it appears that most states have not passed any such law.

[BlaqueKatt]

Your link does not invalidate RK's.
SCOTUS determined that laws criminalizing a refusal to produce identification are not constitutionally invalid. But looking at RK's link, it appears that most states have not passed any such law.

the state of nevada does not have any such law-SCOTUS determined that it is perfectly legal to arrest someone who refuses to identify themselves, regardless of there not being a law for it-Wiki says the can't arrest you for it, SCOTUS says yup they sure can-with our without a law.

the nevada law in question: (part 3 is the relevant section-note it does not state refusing to identify is a criminal act*-however SCOTUS said it was a legal arrest)
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of his parole or probation.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.


*Criminalization in criminology, is "the process by which behaviors and individuals are transformed into crime and criminals". Previously legal acts may be transformed into crimes by legislation or judicial decision.

[Nyoibo]

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

"Pursuant to this section" Meaning they must be under suspicion of either about to, committing or comitted a crime, or breaking parole.

There are restrictions on what it applies to.

[Slytovhand]

Just curious, and slightly OT - what if you lie about your identity? Is it illegal to give a false name?

[fireheart17]

And that the cops are probably boned as a result of the kid knowing his rights.

Probably after he was hauled off, a lawyer was brought in to commence with said boning.

My mind immediately hit the gutter on the word "Boning."

As for this situation, I'd probably agree, it does sound like someone's on a power trip. HOWEVER, I can recall a few passages from my sociology class about something like this, but with a slightly different context.

Here's a couple of short passages, to give you an idea:

For many young people, the conflicts associated with their presence in the public domain are linked to their lack of youth-specific public space (i.e. spaces designed with their particular interests in mind) and lack of youth-friendly space (i.e. spaces designed with their particular activity needs in mind). The fight for a space of their own manifests itself in resentment at the intervention of authority figuresd in their activities, especially when no law has actually been broken.

And further down:

A big issue for young people, therefore, is that they are constantly made to feel that they are 'outsiders.' This is confirmed daily in the form of exclusionary policies, and coercive security and policing measures that are designed precisely to remove them from the public domain. For young people, this is often seen as unfair (nowhere else to go) and unwarranted (given that they have not done anything wrong.)

Those two passages came from a book called Youth and Society by R. White and J. Wyn, Oxford Uni Press, Melbourne, 2004, p. 142.

[jackfaire]

Those two passages came from a book called Youth and Society by R. White and J. Wyn, Oxford Uni Press, Melbourne, 2004, p. 142.

Thanks I am always interested in Sociology. In this case however his youth did have something to do with it but on the part of the Security guard. Around here bike riding is not only common it's almost a freaking religion. I am farily certain that if the kid had been much older the security guard wouldn't have (and frequently they don't) said anything about him if he decided to ride up and down the platform.

Train platforms in our area are as youth friendly (as in between gathering places) as they are for any other area. It is actually uncommon for stops to be patrolled by security. Normally they ride the train.

[Shangri-laschild]

"Pursuant to this section" Meaning they must be under suspicion of either about to, committing or comitted a crime, or breaking parole.

There are restrictions on what it applies to.

While I agree it looks like the guard was just on a power trip, if he says the kid can't ride, then couldn't the kid get in trouble for trying to get on anyway? I'm not saying arrest level of trouble, just that in theory that might have been enough for the police to question him.

[jackfaire]

I'm not saying arrest level of trouble, just that in theory that might have been enough for the police to question him.

Except the kid wasn't riding his bike. There were no empty benches so the kid was sitting on his bike using it as a chair. Stationary. It was very clear the kid wasn't even intending to ride.

The security guard at one point even admitted he knew the kid wasn't riding or going to but, "He could ride it". There was 0 reason to even talk to the kid.

[Shangri-laschild]

Except the kid wasn't riding his bike. There were no empty benches so the kid was sitting on his bike using it as a chair. Stationary. It was very clear the kid wasn't even intending to ride.

The security guard at one point even admitted he knew the kid wasn't riding or going to but, "He could ride it". There was 0 reason to even talk to the kid.

I'm not saying that he was riding the bike or that there was any reason to bar him from riding the train other than the security guard was on a power trip. I'm saying that despite that, whether he had valid reason or not, he told the kid that he couldn't ride the train and the kid tried to anyway. And if you mean the officers had zero reason to talk to the kid, then that's not true. Security guard called them and it's their job to figure out what was going on by talking to the involved parties. The had a valid reason to talk to him. He was an involved party in a reported incident. Even if they know he probably didn't do anything wrong they still have to investigate since someone reported a problem.

Also, even if the guard was out of line, he told the kid he wasn't riding the train. That could make trying to ride it anyway trespassing. Does it change that the guard was out of line? No. But it does mean that even though the guard was out of line, legally the kid was trespassing. If you're in a store and a manager thinks you're stealing and orders you to leave, even if they are on a power trip and you weren't stealing, you still have to leave. Yeah it sucks and yeah it shouldn't have happened but they still have that authority even if they're using it wrong. Whether the guard can legally tell someone to not ride the train and if he should be able to because of his issues are two different things. Legally he can tell someone not to ride.

[jackfaire]

1) The cops were called well before the kid was told he couldn't ride the train they were called while the guy was harrassing the kid while the kid was still ignoring him. "You can't ride the train" was yelled at the kid as he was walking away.

2) According to the rules that the company that employs the security guard has to follow he cannot ban him from riding the train just because he feels like it thus the kid was not trespassing.

3) The cops weren't investigating they refused to speak to me until it was clear I wouldn't go away until they took my statement. They didn't ask the kid for his side. They were clearly friends of said security guard as they were on a first name basis and their behavior was that of friends. They took his words as gospel mine as shit and didn't investigate anything.