Passengers are NOT required to Show ID to Police!

[theplaya1012]

He's Mad! Lolz

[erieejustice911]

This is what happenes when you shoot a relative of a cop while on 911 asking for help. If you go to you tube Erie Parties /Joel Atkin there is the 911 call which is missing 20 to 30 seconds,a video of me telling what I want answers to,and below the video is the link to Face Book which has all the papers supporting my questions and what my son said happened that day. If you see self defence please send to as many people as you can.Stay safe out there. Thank You and God Bless!

[TaylorPerigo]

hhahahahahahaha he got mad

[rsjr1632]

@dancerooster. u cant cross a border checkpoint and refuse a search. a policeman, u absolutely can. this is to my knowledge. just like u cant go on a military base and treat an sp as you would a policeman. thts all im saying. whether i agree with the terms or not, this is how it goes. chill out, love. i wldnt speak on something i havnet educated myself about.

[DanceRooster]

@rsjr1632 This is not at the border and the 4th amendment protects us from the government doing this.

[gsp139]

@DanceRooster Better check your state and county laws as well as federal because some states require I.D. to be on you at all time ( Again All Time ). But Period Your a criminal or an idiot posting Anti-Law Enforcement videos and nothing else. How long do you think you cushy little peaceful world would last without these people enforcing laws? How long would your panzi ass live in a world like that?

[gsp139]

@gsp139 Now with that being said law enforcement officers are human and humans are not without error. Debting the Interputation of laws is not for the side off the road but court rooms that is what their made for. As far as I can see the only mistake these Officers made was not taking tou to jail for obstruction . I would love to see the end of these vids because i beat every time it ends with this dipshit in cuffs for poss. or warrents.

[gsp139]

@gsp139 And as for The Well officer I didn't know my friend had those drugs or this is my buddys car I didn't know about that. Well It's Your responsability to know Plain and simlpe. By Weaking these laws and this System all we do is make it easier for true hardend criminals to get away with bad things, I'm sorry if your hippie ass gets busted with a joint tuff shit. If you don't Like it do something run for office change these laws Don't Spew lies and Propaganda .Go ahead Delete Truth

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139 said: "some states require I.D. to be on you at all time ( Again All Time ). "

Quote and cite just one law that requires me to have I.D. on me at all times.

Not just more of your words.

Thanks.

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1

Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object.

In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest.

[gsp139]

@gsp139 Six states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.

Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”. Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.

There are many other states that have “stop and identify” laws

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: Thanks for the quote that verifies that you were wrong.

Maybe next time you make a comment that is false, like "some states require I.D. to be on you at all time ( Again All Time ) " you'll research first...

And save us the time debunking it.

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 Listen this doesn't prove I am wrong just didn't have enough room to place every detail in. Stop and Identify laws in each state are different some states just giving you name is sufficient others require some piece of identifing information, What constitutes a valid piece of identifing information is set by that states legislative. Some states are stricter than others arizona and georgia I belive being 2 of the strictest. There are several sources to find out this info.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: Your cite didn't say that "some states require I.D. to be on you at all time ( Again All Time ) "

If you have independently verifiable proof that some states require that I carry I.D. at all times, or that I have to then please present it.

Until then, I think you are wrong.

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 I don't care what you believe, I'm not going to sift through state laws to find something that convinces you. Besides do you not remember arizona state Bill 1070 all over the news not to long ago it was passed now I don't know it's current status (If its still a law or not) but look it up it caused a lot of media coverage. whether or not you belive me is not important nor do i care. Also just because I give this info does not mean i agree with it. it just is

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: OK, without proof or a retraction, then I am also free to call you a liar.

The United States Supreme Court, in 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that a person is not required to carry a physical form of identification at all times in the U.S. when that affirmed that:

"... does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means"

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 And if you keep reading about HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV. you will also see As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, and 24 states have done so. Also what you stated is a case not a law a supreme court case.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: Some states have enacted stop and identify laws. None of these laws "require I.D. to be on you at all time" as you falsely assert.

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 like I said its up to the state to determine what identifying yourself constitutes. So if identifing yourself constitutes showing legal id in that state and at the time of ? you can not produce said id you can't identify yourself.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: Why all the talk?

All you have to so is provide proof of your guess that "some states require I.D. to be on you at all time ( Again All Time ) ".

You would know that the Supreme Court has already answered your last question, had you taken the time to research before spouting an untruth here:

"If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3-6." (Hiibel)

Where's that proof?

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 All this qoute means is if you choose to state or communicate your name by any means to a officer he(the officer) has in no way violatied your federal rights .Again this is a supreme court ruling not law. If you understood it you would see it only says Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 But this held that states could enact such laws to stop and identify. and under this Ruling that persons detained by police jurisdictions with “stop and identify” laws listed are obligated to identify themselves. this ruling strenghens my case not yours.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: They sure can pass laws that make obligated to identify themselves under certain circumstances.

Where's that law that states: "require I.D. to be on you at all time ( Again All Time ) ".

liar?

[1775novten]

@gsp139 But only if the citizen is under the suspicion of having committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime are you required to identify yourself to a LEO if asked - otherwise you are not obliged to.

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 If you read more about this decision you will se that they upheld a Nevada Law Requiring Citizens to Identify Themselves to the Police, so stop using Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada as some defense to what your saying

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: They sure did, but they also said that verbal ID is sufficient.

Defense of what? I'm not the one that lied here.

You are.

I'm just making sure no-one else here believes it.

All I asked is that you provide proof of your guess that "some states require I.D. to be on you at all time ( Again All Time ) ".

Where is it, liar?

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 Again this pertains to a nevada law and nevada law only, which states in the law that verbal id is sufficient i never said this ruling made you have to carry id , but you said this ruling states you don't , that being true if in nevada. look at Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 if you want a law

[Pafoofnik1]

@gsp139: Where in bill 1070 does it require me to carry I.D. at all times?

[gsp139]

@Pafoofnik1 I'm done man it's there if you want to know look it up yourself . Hell if you want look it and prove me wrong I don't care.

[DanceRooster]

@gsp139 They cant require you to have an ID on you at all times, that violates the constitution.

[DanceRooster]

@gsp139 I am free to post what ever I want, that does not make me a criminal or an idiot. These are just videos, its you that has interpreted them as anti law enforcement. Are you so naive as to think that the cops are all that stands between society and chaos? Mankind got along for thousands of years without them, and we have not had any trend of crime reduction since they have been established making the US the most incarcerating nation on earth.

[gsp139]

@DanceRooster Hate to tell you Law enforcment has been around for a long time Most civilization's had some form or anothe,r city guards or what have you. and before that weak people unable or unwilling to protect them selves where victims. Does Law enforcment solve all the problems no but they do help, the sole purpose is not to stricly annoy or inconvenience you. Given the are human and make mistakes thats what courts are for.And you don't like US policies there is many solutions

[DanceRooster]

@gsp139 Cops stop less then 1 % of crimes. They really dont do as much as you think they do. Where I live we are required by law to have a gun and ammo. See Kennesaw GA gun law. Our crime rate dropped so low that we were able to reduce the number of cops in our city. Armed educated citizens are 100 times better then any number of cops. Dont believe it? look at Washington DC where the cops are thick as flies and guns are illegal. They have the highest crime rate in the country.

[gsp139]

@DanceRooster This is absolutely correct I have read alot about the kennesaw gun laws and aplaude them for this. Not exactly sure how i feel about making or forcing all citizens arm themselves but the sititistics are there stricter gun regs = higher crime and yes i do belive Armed educated citizens make a huge huge difference but law enforcment is still necessary in some areas the impact or need my be less than others but still some need.

[arctic105]

@DanceRooster you need to check your geographic

population 28k vs 600k in DC

its obvious there will be less crime

but are you willing to give everyone in DC guns?

what if something will go wrong, would you take the blame?

think not

[DanceRooster]

@arctic105 Maybe you should go look up how statistics work, when guns are banned crime increases, when they are mandatory crime decreases. The total population does not matter.

[DanceRooster]

@gsp139 List the source of this law you just made up, epically the federal one that would be in violation of the constitution.

[DanceRooster]

@rsjr1632 And these people were just driving down the road minding their own business. Not breaking any laws or bothering any one. Nice police state your advocating for.

[agenthelios1]

@DanceRooster Sorry ass cop!

[DanceRooster]

@rsjr1632 This was ot at a checkpoint or the border, its on a road inside the US.

[ElGatoLoco698]

You are not required to carry ID unless you are driving a commercial vehicle, in a liquor store, in possession of alcohol, or in possession of a gun. If you are not doing these things, you are under no legal requirement to present ID to anyone. Cops will have you believe it is illegal but it's not.  As of 2006 it was like that in every state. Remember, cops can (and will) lie to you. However, you must give him your name and birthdate. And even then, you must be suspected of commiting a crime.

[Pafoofnik1]

@ElGatoLoco698: You are spot on. Please let me add... there is no requirement for me to possess ID when carrying a gun in my state. All I have to do is be "traveling'.

Here is how I say it:

Here is the complete list of all forms of identification that one is required to carry in the United States:

1) None

Any questions?

[sashmuscle]

Faggot cop, that's right close that door you stupid bitch. Run away with their tail between their legs.

[1775novten]

haha, this is classic! You know this officer is thinking "I hate these fucking educated citizens". No ransom collected tonight buddy!

[PercyBeanProductions]

Haha! Briilliant! This guy asking for ID has NO CLUE, and he knows it judging by how quickly he gave up asking - if only they were all like this.

[mitchboo1984]

I find it fucking amazing that in the number one terrorist target in the world its (the united states, and b4 ye annoy me, i with you), own citizens are activly trying to iritate police into making errors of judgement to turn themselves into mini Michael Mooreson youtube. I just wish the 99.9% of US people shut out that tiny minority that makes you look so silly.

[DanceRooster]

@mitchboo1984 The biggest threat is from our government not from terrorist. You can not believe what some one that is authorized to lie to you says.

[DanceRooster]

Are you under the impression that this is protecting you? There are 20,000,000 illegals in the US, the 911 terrorist were invited here by our government & they do not want to win the war on drugs because it gives them confiscatory power & makes them $ billions. Our borders are not controlled & while this guy is harassing people Mexicans are crossing into the country. How does harassing law abiding citizens driving inside the US accomplish anything? Wake up,

[1775novten]

@mitchboo1984 What do you recommend? That we just be good little sheep and do as we are told - even though it's not legal? No one was irritating the police here - the police approached and harassed them. And you're saying just because these citizens knew their rights that they were instigating an error of judgement with this officer? This country was founded by people who didn't just do what they were told and instead stood up for what was right - remember that.

[WannaExpressYourSelf]

lol he got mad xD

[GWBsucksMonkeyNuts]

@OFFICIALpsp786

you should probably check if this guy is a lawyer and check your state laws before taking advice from somebody on YouTube

[allancbacon]

COPS OUT OF CONTROL

[777newworldlove]

The only good cop is a dead cop. RIP New World Order Scum bags. Fight for your rights & non-consent, non-compliance.

[ECTBWHO]

: )

[DavidForthoffer]

You are also required to show ID when VOLUNTARILY engaging in certain activities, such as notarizing your signature, donating blood, applying for a loan, paying with credit card (sometimes), applying for a driver's license or passport, buying certain prescription drugs, etc..

Of course, if you want to avoid such activities, you don't have to show ID.

[DanceRooster]

@DavidForthoffer That is correct, but it is voluntary, The mandatory requirements by states to carry and show ID have been struck down in by the Supreme Court.

[DavidForthoffer]

Also, not even DRIVERS are required to show ID, etc., if the stop is made without reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity and is not at a constitutional checkpoint.

[DavidForthoffer]

FYI, I removed my comment from 24 minutes ago because YouTube showed I had double posted. Then BOTH comments disappeared!

[DanceRooster]

@DavidForthoffer You are never required to show an ID to anyone except when you are boarding a flight, driving a car, or crossing an international border. The cops can request it all day long but you are not required under the 4th amendment to prove anything to anyone.

[DavidForthoffer]

@DanceRooster: Oops! I missed the fact that the PASSENGER was asked to show ID. I agree that this passenger was under no legal compulsion to show ID.

But your blanket statement about showing ID is not quite correct. You can be legally punished for not showing ID if the police have only a reasonable and articulable suspicion you are involved in criminal activity AND the state has a constitutional stop-and-ID law, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada.

[DanceRooster]

@DavidForthoffer You have the right to remain silent that includes showing them papers. 

[DavidForthoffer]

@DanceRooster said, "You have the right to remain silent that includes showing them papers."

Not so. Not only are a person's Fourth Amendment rights not violated as I described 11 hours ago, the U.S. Supreme held in Hiibel v. Nevada that a person revealing their name and identification does not incriminate them, and therefore the person cannot refuse on Fifth Amendment grounds, unless there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would be incriminating.

[DanceRooster]

@DavidForthoffer Yes, but in this case no crime had been committed, so U.S. Supreme held in Hiibel v. Nevada does not apply. Interrogating people to find out if a crime has been committed is against the 4th amendment because no probable cause existed before the inquiry began. Note that the U.S. Supreme held in Hiibel v. Nevada that, "The legitimate need " must exist which it clearly does not in this stop. Nice try but you Fail!

[DavidForthoffer]

@DanceRooster: So it sounds like we agree that the passengers here are under no legal compulsion to show ID, but that in SOME situations in certain states, passengers may be punished for not identifying themselves.

[DanceRooster]

@DavidForthoffer I agree with you but not the law, I think I would stand up for my rights and let a court decide if Im right or not. I just dont trust the cops or believe what they say, so I usually dont do it their way. No offense toward you intended.

[DavidForthoffer]

@DanceRooster: I understand.

People in certain states do sometimes face a dilemma. A Nevada police officer can punish a person for failing to identify himself if he has reasonable and articulable suspicion (RAS) of criminal activity. However, the officer is not required to tell the PERSON what that suspicion is. Furthermore, some police do punish people for failure to identify even when the officers do not have RAS. I suppose the solution is to find out later if they had RAS, and sue if not...

[DanceRooster]

@DavidForthoffer Actually its the courts job to punish, not the cops, dont get me started on that one, I understand what you are saying though.

[CheckpointUSA]

A slight correction DavidForthoffer. In Hiibel v. Nevada, SCOTUS ruled that an individual only has to provide a name when a police officer demands it based upon reasonable suspicion & the state has a stop & identify law on the books. The ruling did not include a requirement to show ID.

Even more interesting is the court indicated there may be a 5th amendment interest in not providing a name but since the argument hadn't been raised in the lower courts, it wouldn't be considered by them.

[DavidForthoffer]

@CheckpointUSA: I reaffirm: You CAN be punished for not showing ID in stop-and-ID states. A 500-word limit does not allow one to be much more precise than "CAN". I agree that in Nevada, one need not SHOW identification, since the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the Nevada law as only needing state one's name. But the U.S. Supreme Court did not limit itself to just Nevada's "identify". It confirmed the right to "check identification", and even fingerprint. So "CAN" depends on state law.

[CheckpointUSA]

I agree with you insofar as an individual being stopped & detained is driving a vehicle DavidForthoffer. In those case, police may "check identification". Additionally, police can check identification when it is voluntarily offered. I don't find anything in Hiibel however that allows police to compel an ID from individuals not driving. In fact the case used by SCOTUS in relation to the "check identification reference was one involving someone driving at the time - see 469 U.S. 221, 229

[CheckpointUSA]

I found the fingerprint reference which is somewhat disturbing although it appears that the court placed a higher bar on fingerprint checks then it did for a name DavidForthoffer. Specifically, the court stated

"The Court...suggested that Terry may permit an officer to determine a suspect’s identity by compelling the suspect to submit to fingerprinting only if there is “a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect’s connection with that crime.”

[DavidForthoffer]

@CheckpointUSA: Also, the Court DID consider Hiibel's 5th Amendment claim, and rejected it not because the argument hadn't been raised in the lower courts, but because they held that he had to have had an articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it "would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute" him. Even at the U.S. Supreme Court hearing, Hiibel could not articulate any such fear.

[CheckpointUSA]

I stand corrected DavidForthoffer. I do note however that the court has left open the possibility that an individual can refuse to provide a name based upon 5th amendment interests if it's based upon a legitimate fear of self-incrimination. I wrote a blog entry regarding this subject on my website as it applies to Arizona's recent immigration law when combined with Arizona's stop and identify statute.