OHIO LAW..ILLEGAL TO NOT ID YOURSELF

[Nevada]

not sure how I feel about this one.....



Thursday, March 10, 2005
Senate OKs bill requiring Ohioans to reveal identity
Anti-terrorism package would expand police powers

By Andrew Welsh-Huggins
The Associated Press


COLUMBUS - Lawmakers say an anti-terrorism bill beefs up the state's ability to respond to terrorism while civil liberties groups worry it goes too far.

The Senate unanimously approved legislation Wednesday that for the first time would allow Ohioans to be arrested for not telling police officers their name, address and age. The bill heads next to the House.

The constitutionality of such laws was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.

Under current law, police could arrest someone if they suspected the person had committed a crime, but they couldn't force the person to identify himself.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Jacobson, a Dayton-area Republican, would also place new limits on the state open records law by prohibiting public disclosure of assessments of security risks by chemical companies and other "critical infrastructure facilities."

Prosecutors and judges would be required to inform the federal government if a person convicted of a crime is also an illegal alien. And villages, cities and other municipalities would be banned from passing laws that hinder terrorism investigations.

The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called the bill an unnecessary expansion of police powers and said it wrongly links terrorism with immigrants.

Senate Democrats dropped opposition because the latest version narrows the list of questions that applicants for certain state licenses must answer regarding potential connections to terrorist groups, including an exception reinstating the application if the person "does not pose a risk to the residents of the state."

The bill creates a new misdemeanor crime that allows police to arrest individuals for not identifying themselves if police believe the person committed a crime or witnessed one. The crime carries a punishment of up to one month in jail.

The bill makes clear that police officers can help federal agents respond to terrorist acts, said Sen. Marc Dann of Youngstown, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top-ranking Democrat.

"I'm not sure that the case has been made that there's a compelling need for the bill," he said. "But there are some individual aspects that will help law enforcement that may be enough to get me to vote for the bill."

[Pathos]

I'm not sure how I feel about this either. I actually thought we were already supposed to give police our names if asked. I didn't have a license for awhile several years ago and there were many times the police asked my name and I didn't hesitate to tell them each time. Again...I'm not sure how this exactly qualifies as a violation of our civil liberites.

[Apropos]

IF you don't have anything to hide, did not do anything wrong, or aren't ashamed of who you are what's the big deal in giving out your name? I think it's just a common sense law.

[Eric McTavish]

IF you don't have anything to hide, did not do anything wrong, or aren't ashamed of who you are what's the big deal in giving out your name? I think it's just a common sense law.

but what happens if I ran out to the store and left my wallet (or ID) in my other pants?
the way this law is worded I could be arested for not having the proper ID to back up my claim of who I am

[Apropos]

Sorry to disagree...it says

The Senate unanimously approved legislation Wednesday that for the first time would allow Ohioans to be arrested for not telling police officers their name, address and age. The bill heads next to the House.

The constitutionality of such laws was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.


It says nothing about showing proper ID. [/u]

[Apropos]

Sorry to disagree...it says

The Senate unanimously approved legislation Wednesday that for the first time would allow Ohioans to be arrested for not telling police officers their name, address and age. The bill heads next to the House.

The constitutionality of such laws was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.


It says nothing about showing proper ID.

[Jessa]

We seriously need to stop passing "terrorism" laws. Terrorism is either never defined, defined so broadly that most crimes can be counted as terrorism. Blowing up a building is illegal. There is no ambiguity about that. We don't need to make it "more" illegal by claiming its terrorism. If the punishment for doing it is not severe enough, then the punishment should be changed, but not the definition of the law.

Terrorism laws have now made thoughtcrime a reality here. Different laws, penalities and procedures will apply to a person who is suspected of the thoughtcrime of terrorism, regaurdless of what their actions have been. Someone commiting the same actions without the thoughtcrime gets a totally different trial (whereas the "terrorist" might not get one at all).

[Eric McTavish]

Sorry to disagree...it says

The Senate unanimously approved legislation Wednesday that for the first time would allow Ohioans to be arrested for not telling police officers their name, address and age. The bill heads next to the House.

The constitutionality of such laws was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.


It says nothing about showing proper ID. [/u]

Thats how the news story isworded the bill require somone asked ti Identift to "prove with proper authority" that they are who they claim to be...

[Apropos]

Growing up with a father who was a judge, I see the law totally different than most. I have seen too many cases thrown out on technicalities and too many laws protecting the criminals. Although the arguement you have is just, running out of a store with no ID and running smack into needing to prove who you are is extreme. Most police agencies are now equipped with proper high tech gadgets that can verify the name you "give" with the picture on your ID. These laws are not made to harass individuals. These laws, that are labeled "terrorism" laws are created just for that. Terrorist. They have lawyers who do nothing but train them on how to get around our legal system. Instead of seeing laws as what they do, they see laws for what they don't. Law is not black and white. It is gray. WIth so many lawyers finding loopholes in the system, we now have to write laws to take out the loopholes, make it iron clad and protect us as well as our law enforcement. IMHO.

[Eric McTavish]

running out of a store with no ID and running smack into needing to prove who you are is extreme.

Oh I know, my problem is I have a habit of seeing how things are likely to be mis-used and abused...

[WenchLadyKate]

running out of a store with no ID and running smack into needing to prove who you are is extreme.

Oh I know, my problem is I have a habit of seeing how things are likely to be mis-used and abused...

I'm the same way. I didn't give ID to an officer after getting pulled over. Funny, I actually did just run out to go to the store and forgot my wallet. I got an extra ticket for not having it even though the officer looked me up. I tried to contest it, but had to pay anyway, with a scolding from the judge. Sometimes, I just feel that the "system" is abusing me. I really can't back this up though. Just observations. I've spent some time in municipal courts lately.

In this case, I'm in agreement with at least a part of all voiced opinions. The terrorism laws are going a bit far, but some are definately needed. Blowing up a buliding by anyone is considered terrorism and is most definately illegal and would have the same punishment for everyone (I think, I have not verified this to be fact, it's just what I understand). But the terrorism laws are for those that are considered to be terrorists who try to buy guns and the like. I'm all for treating them more severely than say, me. IMHO, certain assumptions are OK to make, just be able to prove them in court.

I hope you guys know what I'm trying to say. I'm not particularly good at writing how I feel. This is why I am in a writing class!

[KissMeKate]

NAME! RANK! SERIAL NUMBER!

After growing up in the country, I don't recall ever keeping any kind of ID on my person for years (I usually leave the house without my wallet at least once a week, just ask my SO). I don't think I even had a key to the house, besides that it was never locked, even if no one was home. I know I kept my student ID in my bookbag, so I would know where it was when I needed a student discount for something.

Now, I have store savings cards, credit cards, 2 forms of ID, bank cards, plus a billion forms of ID for my job. I can see one place this is all going. Subcutaneous chips under a finger (just like your pet!), confirmed by fingerprint or retinal scan, will get you into your house, start your car, pay for your commute or groceries or anything else, plus be a semi-permanent form of ID. Sigh. Not something I would want to have.

[Lady Laurel]

I feel like some of the anti-terrorism laws that keep getting passed are widdeling away our civil liberties. Whereas this is kinda a common sense type law. I always thought you had to give your name to an officer if asked. It does not bother me so much . I have been pulled over and given a ticket for not having my drivers license ( was at a club night before and left it in the back off my jeans How many off us has done that) I was a little peeved at the time.

[Pathos]

Iwas at a club night before and left it in the back off my jeans How many off us has done that

So...you left your jeans at the club? Makes for an interesting ride home! 8)

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

I believe that in New York City (and maybe statewide too, I'm not sure), it is illegal to be in public without being in possesion of identification. Even if you don't have a drivers license (which is not all that uncommon in NYC) you need to have some kind of ID and have it on you.

[Lady Laurel]

So...you left your jeans at the club? Makes for an interesting ride home!

You know what I mean. Geeze pick on the blonde girl :oops: :lol:

[FairieTink]

If you're driving, and you have no ID, then you get a ticket. Not for not showing or telling them who you are but no Drivers lic.

[I'Cin]

In some places, if you get stopped (for, say, a taillight out) and don't have your license, they'll give you 24 hours to bring it by the station and show it.

And at my office, we sign in and out using a "bioscan" - it uses our fingerprint. I can't ever decide if I'm offended by it or not -- especially since its only the non-legal staff that has to do it; the attorneys don't.

I'Cin

[Bean]

I can understand that the legislators are TRYING to protect the citizens (who they think can't even use the toilet without help from the government....), but I hate to be the one to point out that there is always some a@$hole of a cop out there who is going to abuse this new law. We all know the "good old boys". Just look at the news lately, 2 cops in NYC were doing hits for the mob while they were on the city payroll, and a sheriff in Youngstown was just convicted of conspiracy or something for ordering the beating of an inmate. Yes, these are the sterling examples I speak of.

Besides, it's not just if you are suspected of a crime, it also said if the authorities suspect you are a WITNESS to a crime they can arrest you for not ID-ing yourself. I don't know..... I gotta' think about this one for a bit......

[Jessa]

Showing ID not unreasonable or undully invasive.

Prosecutors and judges would be required to inform the federal government if a person convicted of a crime is also an illegal alien. And villages, cities and other municipalities would be banned from passing laws that hinder terrorism investigations.
This is exactly what I was talking about. The supremacy of federal over state laws should already prevent local governments from passing ANY laws that hinder federal activities. This is a basic part of the goverment/legal system. Why do we need to re-state it, and just for cases labeled as terrorism?

This Ohio bill goes from redundant to threatening when the new federal terrorism laws come into the picture. The feds have passed a battery of laws, PATRIOT Act (worst name ever!) the most prominent, that attack civil liberties in the name of better security. These laws leave the door wide open for abuse. The definition of a terrorist is broad. Almost any kind of lawbreaking can be labeled as such, and almost anyone with the thinnest thread of an accusation can be labeled a terror suspect. Suspects are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and deserve thier full civil liberities. But, not any more.

A federal investigation just needs a claim they have a hunch that someone might maybe be a terrorist, and they can to get investigate, and wiretap without judicial oversight. It give police a free reigne, no checks and balances. No way to ensure that investiations and arrests aren't just being done to target personal enemies or political revials.

So, by passing a state law in Ohio that says "villages, cities and other municipalities would be banned from passing laws that hinder terrorism investigations", Ohio is making a formal declartion of support to the above mentiontioned crimes against our liberty and privacy.

This provision of the law only merits one little sentance in the article, which is focused upon an issue (showing ID) that is not directly related. I'm willing to bet that the law is writen similarly. Legislators who support the anti-liberty adgenda of our most extreme neo-cons probably added this little bit onto an otherwise reasonable crime bill. They make a good choice, because the main focus of the bill is a perfect red herring. Its something that isn't that bad, makes sense, but will upset some people and get press for it.

While everyone is worrying about having to carry ID, they aren't paying a bit of attention to this subtle reinforcement of unconstitutional federal anti-terror laws. It wouldn't surprise me if similar little riders are getting slipped into state laws all over the country. Its just an little slip in the wrong direction. I wonder when we will fall?

[AllieSutherland]

This issue hits very close to home for me.

A dear friend of mine, who was an on-duty deputy sheriff, was killed in Ohio 10/14/04. He was taken from this world at 29 years old, from his wife, two little boys ages 4 and 2, a loving father, mother, and brother, and countless friends and other family. He was a third generation Law Enforcement Officer. His grandfather, father, brother, and he were all LEO's.

The suspected gunman had accomplices, and some of the accomplices (and there is speculation that the suspected gunman) would not give their correct ID, address, or information.

These men were also illegal aliens.

For two days, my hometown was in a panic because no definite arrests had been made, and the family of my friend had to live in even more agony because of this.

This bill would make situations like this easier to arrest on base charges like this while further proof/evidence is documented in cases like these. I'm all for it.

We're not in the same world anymore. I never thought that we'd *need* National ID, but now, I do. I'm all for it. Most European countires require it, and I think it would be a step to better security here.

[Jamianne]

I believe that in New York City (and maybe statewide too, I'm not sure), it is illegal to be in public without being in possesion of identification. Even if you don't have a drivers license (which is not all that uncommon in NYC) you need to have some kind of ID and have it on you.

It is. At one of my stations, the police will ticket and/or arrest people who don't show proper id. They don't just randomly go up to people and ask for id...the person has already done something to draw their attention (like jumping a turnstile, using an improper pass, etc.). The other day we had a platform closed for construction and about fifteen people decided to duck under the barricades and warning signs and come up anyway. As we were attempting to clear the people off, several police officers came up, asked for id from everyone, and arrested three people who didn't have any. It seemed a little extreme at the time, and I asked one of the officers about it later. He looked me straight in the eye and told me to think about how high-traffic and high-profile the station is and asked me if I really want people who can't prove who they are wandering around in unauthorized areas without challenge. He had a point. Then again, I'm so used to having to carry id at all times -- nature of the job -- that it's something I've never given a second thought to.

[daBaroness]

There was a time when I would have agreed wholeheartedly with the notion that if you didn't have anything to hide and weren't doing anything illegal or otherwise wrong, you had nothing to fear in terms of cooperating completely with law enforcement officials. That's when I was a suburban white girl who believed completely in the notion of Officer Friendly. And for most middle class, suburban whites, the cops will always be Officer Friendly - courteous even when giving you a ticket for speeding or expired tags - almost apologizing even.

But because cops are humans, susceptible to all the temptations and flaws we're all susceptible to - I no longer believe in the infallibly honest and and true, boy scout nature of cops. I fully understand and appreciate that a majority of law enforcement officers are in the profession because of a sincere desire to be of service. They put their lives on the line each time they go on duty - and even off-duty they accept a greater burden of responsibility and risk than civilians. Without them, we would most certainly live in chaos. I do understand that ... truely!

But there's another side of law enforcement that I've seen since I became the parent of a mixed-race teen-ager living in a southern, conservative, predominantly white community - and it's ugly! Through my oldest son I've seen rabid profiling, blatent harrassment, bogus charges and completely lawless behavior on the part of the people who are supposed to be enforcing it. I'd even have thought I was just overly sensitive had it not been for the fact my parents, without me saying a word about it, commented on what they were seeing from cops and the courts and how it really opened their eyes.

I'm the first one to say that I know stereotypes exist for a reason. Profiling exists for a reason. They're generalizations that often fit a segment of society and are pretty accurate predictors of behavior. But generalizations are often dangerous - especially to the large number of people who just don't fit into the category assigned them. I've seen police reports of several incidents involving my son and several of his white friends. If Cam wasn't blamed outright for the infraction, he certainly wasn't given the benefit of any doubt as were his white friends.

In fact, in one rather serious incident - it was his white friend who'd exercised seriously poor judgement and impulse control and was the leader of a group of guys who all got into hot water over the same incident. But it was my mixed-race, dark-skinned son who got the bulk of the suspicion, the bulk of the investigation, the bulk of the harrassment and threats and the harsher of consequences than his friend. And his friend openly admitted he was the one who'd committed the actual illegal acts and it was my son who kept telling him it was wrong.

Ask any average person of color in this country about how they feel towards the police - and 95% of them will tell you they're terrified of 'em and don't trust 'em. Granted, some have plenty to hide - but most of them are just good people who've experienced a level of harrassment and selective law enforcement that most white folks can't even fathom.

I'm personally terrified of any legislation or mentality in favor of limiting our civil rights in the name of national security or anything of like kind. It removes one more barrier in the delicate system of checks and balances and puts us all at risk of losing even more of our constitutional rights. We cannot afford the luxury of thinking that banning of gay unions, for example, doesn't have anything to do with us. It absolutely has everything to do with us - when the rights and priviledges of any subgroup of our society are abriged it sets the wheel of precedence in motion and threatens the rights of all of us.

United we stand, divided we fall. And if anyone thinks the powers that be haven't carefully calculated creation and perpetuation of societal and class differences to keep power, they're fools. I never felt animosity towards the republican party past, even when I became a democrat I still respected the differences in philosophy and policy. But starting with Ronald Regan and escalated to dangerous levels by W, I can honestly saw the republican agenda as put forth by the president and his handlers honestly terrifies me. Thus far they've been able to rally some very strange bedfellows together and generate fear and loathing towards the GLBT community. It's already resulted in not only the diminishing of basic civil liberties granted every American under the Constitution - it's encouraging violence and hate-mongering against our fellow citizens through lies and fear.

I have to admit, even though I consider myself one of the least nationality, ethnically, culturally and religously tolerant of people, I find myself more suspicious of Arab people since 9/11. I hate that. I have a number of muslim friends and I know better, but it still makes me leary. Did I mention I hate feeling that way?

So short answer long - I really don't like all the state-generated legislation going on that robs the rights of society's subgroups in the name of national security. I know, statisticaly speaking that I'm in greater danger of being unfairly accused of something by trigger-happy, gung-ho zealots than I am of being gunned down by a muslim terrorist. My fear with a Bush administration from the beginning is the proliferation of intolerance and the diminishment of our rights.

I just hope it doesn't continue to spiral down the fear factor slippery slope.

[Pathos]

Good commentary...to be sure. But with regards to the basic point of the post...how does being required to give the police your name when asked qualify as a violation of ones basic civil liberties?

[Apropos]

I discussed this with my father on the weekend. His point I think he was trying to get thru to me was to think of this as a way to defend who you ARE instead of who you aren't. It's easy to not have ID and to stand behind anominity and scream civil rights. It's much tougher to have to give a real name and the trials and tribulations that come with that name. Since everyone seems to be so eager to fight about something. Fight for the right to be who you are, identify yourself and start breaking down the profiles. Stand up and fight for what you want or what you believe in without closets, without masks, without a uniform or a number. Just be who you are. The one thing no one can take away from you. Your name. Everything we have in this country is based on the name we were given at birth. Even if it was changed thru marriage or by choice, that original name is still traceable. No one can take that from anyone. If everyone, no matter what race, color, mixture, preference or gender stands up and says this is who I am, now you just try to take that away from me. I have done nothing wrong and here's my name to prove it.

[daBaroness]

Pathos:

Under normal circumstances I would say giving my name would bring no harm to me. But I now know differently - once you're in the system - the rule of past behavior predicting future behavior is strictly applied. Once you're in the system, you can be doing nothing wrong ... minding your own business, hanging out with friends and if by chance the police come 'round - maybe on a noise complaint or because the kid driving the car in which you're a passenger, did the California stop thing - once you give the cops your name and they run it ... depending on the cop, they're not going to let you go without first doing everything in their power to find you guilty of something ... anything.

Here in Kansas City there is a seldom-enforced curfew law that says anyone under 18 cannot be on the streets after 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on Friday and Saturday except when traveling to or from work, or in documentable emergencies. Like I said, it's so seldom enforced, most people don't even know about the law. We do. When my son was a junior in high school a friend of his was showing him the car he was considering purchasing at a local used car lot. Granted, it was after-hours and the lot was closed, but the cop who happened by went way overboard. When he couldn't get the owner of lot to press trespassing or tampering charges against the boys (because he knew the kid who was buying the car) he charged two of the three of them with curfew violation.

One of the boys was over 18, but because he wasn't the car driver, he was taken to the police station, too. My son's car was towed and empounded - they wouldn't let me come get it though it was only five blocks away - cost to get the car out of impound? One hundred sixty dollars! Two of the boys were charged with the curfew violation - bail was $150; we had to go to court where my son plead guilty and was fined (get this) $1 and got a pointless lecture from the judge that just pissed me off because the whole thing was so blatently racist.

Not giving your name or giving a fake name is often the practice of people of color because they know to give their real name means being dragged through a fuster-cluck of crap their white counterparts don't go through unless they're known repeat offenders. They'd rather risk being caught in a lie than what might happen to them if they give the correct information.

Sadly this happens more often than I'd have ever believed. I've had to coach my son that while it's not fair, it's a fact that he's going to singled out, made suspect and probably harrassed or hassled more than his white peers and for that reason his behavior and choices have to be far above those of his peers. It's very difficult for him even though he knows this is a fact he must live with. On a number of occasions he's caught more hell for being a passive accessory than the one who actually committed the unlawful act - whether it was related to marijuana or just being a passenger in a car driven by someone else.

Cops also assume he's withholding information or blatently lying to them about whatever they're querying him on - I've witnessed them tell him he was lying about something I knew he was absolutely NOT lying about - and once I provided concrete evidence proving his innocese - I could see in their faces they'd just been trying to intimidate him into confessing something he didn't do.

Finally, I was speaking with my psychiatrist (who is originally from Nigeria) about my frustration with law enforcement and the courts in my county when it comes to matters of racial profiling and harrassment and he confirmed a number of his patients have had the same problems. Even he, a medical doctor and highly-respected psychiatrist has been hassled by cops from several municipalities in the county. His advice was to move out of the county as soon as possible - even Johnson County, KS - one of the wealthiest counties in the country and predominantly white is more fair and equitable in it's law enforcement.

So - that is why giving one's name where I live, and I suspect in possibly hundreds of other counties in this country, may not be the best or safest policy for everyone.

[Isabella]

Whoa, what about folks that are dealing with Crime Stoppers that don't to tell their idenity. You are reporting tips to the police to help with on going investigations. It's hard to believe it's coming to the point where we could be arrested for not telling them who we are. This is getting a little out of hand. It's my choice to tell a stranger, in uniform or not my name and address.

Looks like I'll have to finally renew my ID, but again laws have created problems with that. California passed a law two years ago that you have to fill out a form, have it stamped by a notery republic (7 - 10.00) and then mail it to the county of your birth, and wait 7 to 14 days, hoping that they find you, or they get to keep your 10.00 I understand it's to protect us from idenity theft, but sheez, so many steps to get a piece of paper, that I know is mine, because it's not a typical birth certificate. Thems the breaks I guess.