Bend over, folks...

Alan Baker wrote:
The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
my wallet along; what then?

In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.

In article ,
john smith wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
my wallet along; what then?

In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.

And what happens if you don't have it?

john smith wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even
if they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does
*not* give them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just
haven't brought my wallet along; what then?

In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.

It's not so simple. There are three relevant SCOTUS cases wherein the broad
perimeters of the grey area have been identified by the court:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Terry v. Ohio
Brown v. Texas

In Brown v. Texas, the court held that absent reasonable suspicion of
criminality, the police may not simply stop people on the street and ask
for their names. The other two cases definitely chewed away at the Brown
decision, though, making it rarely relevant, IMHO. "Reasonable suspicion"
is so subjectively defined that in a "war on terrorism" anything may be so
classified. Here's an article that references the above three cases and
what they lead to:

"Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police"
by Michael C. Dorf
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/do....id/index.html

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
john smith wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
my wallet along; what then?
In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.

And what happens if you don't have it?

They take you in and hold you until you can prove who you are.

Editor's note: This archive story was originally published May 31, 2005.

DES MOINES - Cecilia Beaman is a 57-year-old grandmother, a principal at
Pacific Middle School in Des Moines, and as of Sunday is also a
suspected terrorist.

"This is not right," she told us. It's not right!"

This past weekend she and several other chaperones took 37 middle school
students to a Heritage Festival band competition in California. The trip
included two days at Disneyland.

During the stay she made sandwiches for the kids and was careful to pack
the knives she used to prepare those sandwiches in her checked luggage.
She says she even alerted security screeners that the knives were in her
checked bags and they told her that was OK.

But Beaman says she couldn't find a third knife. It was a 5 1/2 inch
bread knife with a rounded tip and a serrated edge. She thought she
might have lost or misplaced it during the trip.

On the trip home, screeners with the Transportation Security
Administration at Los Angeles International Airport found it deep in the
outside pocket of a carry-on cooler. Beaman apologized and told them it
was a mistake.

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener announced.
"And you're considered a terrorist."

Beaman says she was told her name would go on a terrorist watch-list and
that she would have to pay a $500 fine.

"I'm a 57-year-old woman who is taking care of 37 kids," she told them.
"I'm not gonna commit a terrorist act." Beaman says they took
information from her Washington drivers license and confiscated and
photographed the knife according to standard operating procedure.

She says screeners refused to give her paperwork or documentation of her
violation, documentation of the pending fine, or a copy of the
photograph of the knife.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I said
what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this point
.... you don't have any'."

KOMO News did reach a spokesperson with the Transportation Security
Administration for comment. They said they did not have record of
Beaman's confrontation but did admit that TSA screeners are, by design,
becoming more strict.

Despite continued warnings to passengers, TSA screeners say travelers
continue to bring banned items in their carry-on luggage. Knives, guns,
and other weapons are found and confiscated daily.

Fines issued for knives and other sharp objects range from $250 to
$1,500. Fines issued for firearms discovered in carry-on luggage range
from $1,500 to $7,500.

The TSA web site also indicates firearms violations will be referred for
potential criminal prosecution. The same site does not propose the same
criminal referral for knives like the one Cecilia Beaman was carrying.

"This is not the way my country should be treating me," she said. My
concern is that if that's the way they're treating American citizens I
would hate to think how they're treating other people. It's crazy."

The TSA reminds travelers that is has the authority to impose civil
penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

"TSA needs the help of the traveling public in reducing the number of
prohibited items brought to airport screening checkpoints," reads the
Sanction Guidelines section of the TSA web site. "TSA recognizes that
most passengers who carry prohibited items do so without any ill intent.
TSA does not impose fines on the vast number of passengers who
inadvertently carry prohibited items. Dealing with any prohibited item,
however, adds time to the screening process both for the traveler who
brought the item and for other travelers as well."

You can find a complete list of banned items, range of fines levied for
violations, and information on how to plead your case with the TSA at
www.tsa.gov.

http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4153866.html

the guidelines are published.

http://www.tsa.gov/

cavelamb himself wrote:
"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
point ... you don't have any'."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse - unless of course you are a security
screener, in which case it is expected. Maybe the TSA should also train its
screeners in the law - assuming they are doing any training at all.

Jim Logajan wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:
"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
point ... you don't have any'."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

And hearsay evidence is not admissable. Nobody got a quote from the TSA
screener, and this woman's account of the incident is clearly
dramatized. She's not smart enough to count to three. Why give credence
to her account?
BTW, this was Des Moines, WASHINGTON...not the better-known one.

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."


I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.


I actually had one of those people tell me, "if you want to fly you
have to give up some of your constitutional rights" as an excuse for
hassling me.

This was in Phoenix - three years before 9/11.

I went to the American Airlines office and filed a complaint.

Together we went back and he customer advocate lady confronted the guy.

WHOLE different tune this time.


I'm going to start a new conspiracy theory!
The 9/11 attack was not orchestrated by CIA, but by a rogue faction of
airline security, and the trade center was brought down with hair spray
bombs!


"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
point ... you don't have any'."


Ignorance of the law is no excuse - unless of course you are a security
screener, in which case it is expected. Maybe the TSA should also train its
screeners in the law - assuming they are doing any training at all.


Hell, ignorance is the ONLY excuse for most of them -
except maybe greed.

FWIW

Stella Starr wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."


I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
point ... you don't have any'."


Ignorance of the law is no excuse


And hearsay evidence is not admissable. Nobody got a quote from the TSA
screener, and this woman's account of the incident is clearly
dramatized. She's not smart enough to count to three. Why give credence
to her account?
BTW, this was Des Moines, WASHINGTON...not the better-known one.


Stella, dear, please see MY previous post...