1995-10-25 - Re: Mandatory ID in California?

Header Data

From: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Message Hash: 81928ae05e3bbb66dbcc71b7ac13dab18a3d338e1c33dda3a290f3bae8eb4e27
Message ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.951025152409.3136C-100000@larry.infi.net>
Reply To: <199510251617.MAA23789@panix.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-25 20:54:51 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 13:54:51 PDT

Raw message

From: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 13:54:51 PDT
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Mandatory ID in California?
In-Reply-To: <199510251617.MAA23789@panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.951025152409.3136C-100000@larry.infi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..."
       Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)

"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave 
after a reasonable brief period of time...."  - - ibid


California is the Ninth Circuit, no?  See, inter alia,  Martinelli v. 
City of Beaumont, 820 F.2nd 1491 (1987).

Alan Horowitz
alanh@infi.net

Thread

• Return to October 1995

• Return to “Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>”
• Return to “Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>”
• Return to “Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>”

• Return to “Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>”

• 1995-10-25 (Wed, 25 Oct 95 09:20:01 PDT) - Re: Mandatory ID in California? - Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
  • 1995-10-25 (Wed, 25 Oct 95 13:54:51 PDT) - Re: Mandatory ID in California? - Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
    • 1995-10-26 (Thu, 26 Oct 1995 16:34:02 +0800) - Re: Mandatory ID in California? - Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
      • 1995-10-26 (Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:31:40 +0800) - Re: Mandatory ID in California? - Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
      • 1995-10-27 (Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:11:24 +0800) - Re: Mandatory ID in California? - Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>