From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr@together.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:55:35 +0800
To: <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part  I of II
Message-ID: <199712160446.XAA29704@mx02.together.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On 12/15/97 11:13 PM, Greg Broiles (gbroiles@netbox.com)  passed this 
wisdom:

>>>But note that there absolutely is no requirement in the United 
>>>States for ageneral form of identification. Non-drivers need not 
>>>have any form of I.D. And as we have seen in court cases, a la 
>>>Lawson v. Kolender (where a blackman in dreadlocks used to like to 
>>>walk the streets of San Diego...the copsstopped him many times and 
>>>jailed him for not having I.D. on him...the court ruled that people 
>>>don't have to present credentials issued by the state to walk the 
>>>public streets). 
>>
>>  In New Jersey there is a criminal offense called "failure to
>>properly identify" ... I don't know if its ever been tested, or if it
>>is still on the books, but as of ten years ago it was there. I think
>>it was a misdemeanor (in NJ the term is "petty disorderly persons
>>offense) I cannot imagine it as a felony.
>
>There's an important distinction between a requirement that you identify
>yourself accurately, and a requirement that you carry a particular form of
>identification. It is constitutional for the police to ask you what your
>name is, under certain circumstances - and you can face criminal charges if
>you lie. It is not, however, constitutional to require that you keep or
>carry identity cards or documents. (Modulo, of course, participation in
>activities like carrying a concealed weapon or driving. There are some
>people who believe that carrying special credentials should not be required
>when undertaking those activities, but very few or none of those people sit
>as judges, so their beliefs are comforting or pleasing but also
>insufficient to prevent conviction.) 

  I guess I am curious about being required to identify yourself ... if 
the cops have no probable cause to arrest you then what right do they 
have to know who you are? ... and should they have probable cause, why 
should you have to help them know who you are. I could see circumstances 
where forcing you to identify yourself would come under 
self-incrimination. I am sure they have ways of dealing with this ... 
what legal precedents are there concerning this?



Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr
 For PGP Keys  <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key>

  "One of the deep mysteries to me is our logo, the symbol of lust
   and knowledge, bitten into, all crossed with in the colors of the
   rainbow in the wrong order. You couldn't dream of a more 
   appropriate logo: lust, knowledge, hope, and anarchy."
   -- Gassee - Apple Logo