Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:26:47 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

He means:

https://tinyurl.com/guv7sqt

Aside, I don't need a Youtube video to explain my rights.
--
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

On 16/12/2016 19:10, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:26:47 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

He means:

https://tinyurl.com/guv7sqt

Aside, I don't need a Youtube video to explain my rights.

Fair enough.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:48:17 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 19:10, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:26:47 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

He means:

https://tinyurl.com/guv7sqt

Aside, I don't need a Youtube video to explain my rights.

Fair enough.

The problem is cops are human and they assume only guilty people need
rights. A truly innocent person can answer all of these questions
honestly. True or not, that is probably the right thing for an
innocent person to do.
The fact remains your real rights only start when you can play your
recording to a lawyer. Great if you are guilty of something but stupid
if you aren't.
They can still make you want for a dog to have a sniff, make everyone
in the car produce ID, search for weapons, impound your car and hold
you until you produce the collateral for the traffic offense.
That is the offence they are willing to write up, not really anything
they can prove in court.
The cop is god on the side of the road with the power of life and
death. Guilty people want to get to the station as fast as possible
and innocent people should just comply and get away safe, maybe with
just a warning.

On 12/16/2016 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:48:17 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 19:10, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:26:47 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

He means:

https://tinyurl.com/guv7sqt

Aside, I don't need a Youtube video to explain my rights.

Fair enough.

The problem is cops are human and they assume only guilty people need
rights. A truly innocent person can answer all of these questions
honestly. True or not, that is probably the right thing for an
innocent person to do.
The fact remains your real rights only start when you can play your
recording to a lawyer. Great if you are guilty of something but stupid
if you aren't.
They can still make you want for a dog to have a sniff, make everyone
in the car produce ID, search for weapons, impound your car and hold
you until you produce the collateral for the traffic offense.
That is the offence they are willing to write up, not really anything
they can prove in court.
The cop is god on the side of the road with the power of life and
death. Guilty people want to get to the station as fast as possible
and innocent people should just comply and get away safe, maybe with
just a warning.


why can they make everyone, other than the driver, produce ID?

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:54:06 -0800, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 12/16/2016 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:48:17 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 19:10, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:26:47 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

He means:

https://tinyurl.com/guv7sqt

Aside, I don't need a Youtube video to explain my rights.

Fair enough.

The problem is cops are human and they assume only guilty people need
rights. A truly innocent person can answer all of these questions
honestly. True or not, that is probably the right thing for an
innocent person to do.
The fact remains your real rights only start when you can play your
recording to a lawyer. Great if you are guilty of something but stupid
if you aren't.
They can still make you want for a dog to have a sniff, make everyone
in the car produce ID, search for weapons, impound your car and hold
you until you produce the collateral for the traffic offense.
That is the offence they are willing to write up, not really anything
they can prove in court.
The cop is god on the side of the road with the power of life and
death. Guilty people want to get to the station as fast as possible
and innocent people should just comply and get away safe, maybe with
just a warning.


why can they make everyone, other than the driver, produce ID?

Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.

On 12/16/2016 8:37 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:54:06 -0800, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 12/16/2016 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:48:17 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 19:10, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:26:47 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

He means:

https://tinyurl.com/guv7sqt

Aside, I don't need a Youtube video to explain my rights.

Fair enough.

The problem is cops are human and they assume only guilty people need
rights. A truly innocent person can answer all of these questions
honestly. True or not, that is probably the right thing for an
innocent person to do.
The fact remains your real rights only start when you can play your
recording to a lawyer. Great if you are guilty of something but stupid
if you aren't.
They can still make you want for a dog to have a sniff, make everyone
in the car produce ID, search for weapons, impound your car and hold
you until you produce the collateral for the traffic offense.
That is the offence they are willing to write up, not really anything
they can prove in court.
The cop is god on the side of the road with the power of life and
death. Guilty people want to get to the station as fast as possible
and innocent people should just comply and get away safe, maybe with
just a warning.


why can they make everyone, other than the driver, produce ID?

Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.


Maryland v. Wilson says nothing about passenger ID. Got any cites for
cases "building on that"?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:04:21 -0800, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

why can they make everyone, other than the driver, produce ID?

Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.


Maryland v. Wilson says nothing about passenger ID. Got any cites for
cases "building on that"?

My son in law was telling me about it while he was in law school and
no I do not have all the citations but it was Wilson that opened the
door. It really gets down to what happens after the cop has everyone
with their hands on the car and their legs spread apart.
By then there will usually be a few of them there. None of them care
about your rights by then and it is your word against theirs about
consent to a search.
Cops will be the first ones to say a lot of, if not most, felony busts
come from a traffic stop, particularly drug charges.
What they don't tell you is it is the easiest way to profit from an
illegal wire tap or other inadmissible source of info. They certainly
don't just "get lucky" that often.

On 12/17/2016 10:04 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:


Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.


Maryland v. Wilson says nothing about passenger ID. Got any cites for
cases "building on that"?

Depends on the state. 24 states have what they call "stop and Identify
laws" which simply provides authorization for police to legally obtain
the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed
a crime. Regardless of your state’s law, police can never compel you to
identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re
involved in criminal activity. To determine if they have RS, ask "am I
being detained?" and/or "I'm I free to go?". If an officer states you're
being detained, he is obligated to tell you what the suspicion/charges
are. If he states you are not free to go, then ask again "am I being
detained?" If he/she says you're free to go, STFU and walk away from the
scene. If the driver is released from the original stop, then get back in.

Overall, an officer can ask for your ID as a passenger and you can
refuse unless it's for an investigation of a crime such as witnesses to
an accident or the passenger has committed an infraction such as not
wearing a seat belt.

Per Meanie:
Overall, an officer can ask for your ID as a passenger and you can
refuse unless it's for an investigation of a crime such as witnesses to
an accident or the passenger has committed an infraction such as not
wearing a seat belt.

What happens if the person cannot produce any ID?

I grew up being taught that, in the USA, having "to show one's papers"
did not happen. Sounds to me like I have had it wrong.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:38:30 -0500, Meanie wrote:

On 12/17/2016 10:04 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:


Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.


Maryland v. Wilson says nothing about passenger ID. Got any cites for
cases "building on that"?

Depends on the state. 24 states have what they call "stop and Identify
laws" which simply provides authorization for police to legally obtain
the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed
a crime. Regardless of your states law, police can never compel you to
identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe youre
involved in criminal activity. To determine if they have RS, ask "am I
being detained?" and/or "I'm I free to go?". If an officer states you're
being detained, he is obligated to tell you what the suspicion/charges
are. If he states you are not free to go, then ask again "am I being
detained?" If he/she says you're free to go, STFU and walk away from the
scene. If the driver is released from the original stop, then get back in.

Overall, an officer can ask for your ID as a passenger and you can
refuse unless it's for an investigation of a crime such as witnesses to
an accident or the passenger has committed an infraction such as not
wearing a seat belt.

The answer is going to be "do you want to be detained"?
They can haul you in for the most minor traffic violation and have you
post collateral to a magistrate. It is just the cops discretion that
allows him to let you promise to pay the ticket.
Arguing with a cop on the side of the road is the most unproductive
thing you can possibly do. They have the gun and all the power.
Your rights really do not show up until your lawyer does. Certainly
you can beat most bad busts and the cop might even get in *a little*
trouble but you still have to pay the lawyer tax. Is being a smart ass
really worth a few thousand bucks and hours of your time in cuffs?
They might just beat the **** out of you and say you resisted arrest
.... if you don't catch a bullet.

Unfortunately the shade of your skin may have more influence than your
innocence.

On 12/17/2016 1:04 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Meanie:
Overall, an officer can ask for your ID as a passenger and you can
refuse unless it's for an investigation of a crime such as witnesses to
an accident or the passenger has committed an infraction such as not
wearing a seat belt.

What happens if the person cannot produce any ID?

I grew up being taught that, in the USA, having "to show one's papers"
did not happen. Sounds to me like I have had it wrong.


Depending on the issue (infraction or investigation), will ask for
personal info, then verify with records. If it's an infraction, they can
actually detain until they verify the info. If an investigation, they
can also verify but can't detain until verification.

On 12/17/2016 1:10 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:38:30 -0500, Meanie wrote:

On 12/17/2016 10:04 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:


Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.


Maryland v. Wilson says nothing about passenger ID. Got any cites for
cases "building on that"?

Depends on the state. 24 states have what they call "stop and Identify
laws" which simply provides authorization for police to legally obtain
the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed
a crime. Regardless of your states law, police can never compel you to
identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe youre
involved in criminal activity. To determine if they have RS, ask "am I
being detained?" and/or "I'm I free to go?". If an officer states you're
being detained, he is obligated to tell you what the suspicion/charges
are. If he states you are not free to go, then ask again "am I being
detained?" If he/she says you're free to go, STFU and walk away from the
scene. If the driver is released from the original stop, then get back in.

Overall, an officer can ask for your ID as a passenger and you can
refuse unless it's for an investigation of a crime such as witnesses to
an accident or the passenger has committed an infraction such as not
wearing a seat belt.

The answer is going to be "do you want to be detained"?
They can haul you in for the most minor traffic violation and have you
post collateral to a magistrate. It is just the cops discretion that
allows him to let you promise to pay the ticket.
Arguing with a cop on the side of the road is the most unproductive
thing you can possibly do. They have the gun and all the power.
Your rights really do not show up until your lawyer does. Certainly
you can beat most bad busts and the cop might even get in *a little*
trouble but you still have to pay the lawyer tax. Is being a smart ass
really worth a few thousand bucks and hours of your time in cuffs?
They might just beat the **** out of you and say you resisted arrest
... if you don't catch a bullet.

Unfortunately the shade of your skin may have more influence than your
innocence.



KNOWING the law actually does help and one doesn't need to be a smart
ass to stand up for their rights. You'd be surprised how infrequent your
scenario partakes. It is also best to ALWAYS record the event for your
own evidence.

I often view the stopped by police videos people post online and how the
majority of them think they know the law and smart off to the cop
especially with "I know my rights". I wish I could tell them "no you
don't". It's their way of being an attention whore but don't realize how
asinine they really are.

In article , says...

KNOWING the law actually does help and one doesn't need to be a smart
ass to stand up for their rights. You'd be surprised how infrequent your
scenario partakes. It is also best to ALWAYS record the event for your
own evidence.

I often view the stopped by police videos people post online and how the
majority of them think they know the law and smart off to the cop
especially with "I know my rights". I wish I could tell them "no you
don't". It's their way of being an attention whore but don't realize how
asinine they really are.

I don't understand why people cannot just do as the lawman request them
to do. That is what gets them shot. If there is anything the lawman
does that is not correct, then sue the heck out of him and the town.

I have the thoughts that if you do as the law says,he should not be
allowed to touch you with very much force. Just enought to put the hand
cuffs on you if he wants to. If you do not do as he requests you, then
he can just shoot you on the spot if he wants.
Solves lots of problems.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:55:22 -0500, Meanie wrote:

I often view the stopped by police videos people post online and how the
majority of them think they know the law and smart off to the cop
especially with "I know my rights". I wish I could tell them "no you
don't". It's their way of being an attention whore but don't realize how
asinine they really are.

Steve's videos crack me up :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95qZtwJNjxk

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:11:36 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

I have the thoughts that if you do as the law says,he should not be
allowed to touch you with very much force. Just enought to put the hand
cuffs on you if he wants to. If you do not do as he requests you, then
he can just shoot you on the spot if he wants.
Solves lots of problems.

He could slam you into the kegs :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KCJep5RV1E

Per Meanie:
Depending on the issue (infraction or investigation), will ask for
personal info, then verify with records. If it's an infraction, they can
actually detain until they verify the info. If an investigation, they
can also verify but can't detain until verification.

I am guessing that the issue will soon become moot because of
electronic/biometric means of identification: point the camera, push the
button, and back comes the person's info.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Oren:

He could slam you into the kegs :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KCJep5RV1E

I can't figure out if that vid is a joke or real.

The sound seems too good - but there's no "Punch Line".

Could it possibly be real?
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Oren:
Steve's videos crack me up :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95qZtwJNjxk


OK.... now I realize it's a joke.... but pretty good...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:11:36 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

I have the thoughts that if you do as the law says,he should not be
allowed to touch you with very much force. Just enought to put the hand
cuffs on you if he wants to. If you do not do as he requests you, then
he can just shoot you on the spot if he wants.
Solves lots of problems.

He could slam you into the kegs :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KCJep5RV1E

My favorite Steve vs Cops is this one. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30InBgGhiSo

[8~{} Uncle Lift Monster

On 12/17/2016 4:20 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Meanie:
Depending on the issue (infraction or investigation), will ask for
personal info, then verify with records. If it's an infraction, they can
actually detain until they verify the info. If an investigation, they
can also verify but can't detain until verification.

I am guessing that the issue will soon become moot because of
electronic/biometric means of identification: point the camera, push the
button, and back comes the person's info.


Almost but unless one has a criminal record, photos wouldn't be readily
available. Much other info is obtainable, which is why they will usually
discover if one is lying.

On 12/17/2016 3:11 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

KNOWING the law actually does help and one doesn't need to be a smart
ass to stand up for their rights. You'd be surprised how infrequent your
scenario partakes. It is also best to ALWAYS record the event for your
own evidence.

I often view the stopped by police videos people post online and how the
majority of them think they know the law and smart off to the cop
especially with "I know my rights". I wish I could tell them "no you
don't". It's their way of being an attention whore but don't realize how
asinine they really are.

I don't understand why people cannot just do as the lawman request them
to do. That is what gets them shot. If there is anything the lawman
does that is not correct, then sue the heck out of him and the town.

Which is why I always recommend to video the event. It's safe to assume
MOST people have smartphones with cameras nowadays. They should use them
more often.

I have the thoughts that if you do as the law says,he should not be
allowed to touch you with very much force. Just enought to put the hand
cuffs on you if he wants to. If you do not do as he requests you, then
he can just shoot you on the spot if he wants.
Solves lots of problems.



+1, though not necessarily the shooting part unless required.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:43:44 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:11:36 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

I have the thoughts that if you do as the law says,he should not be
allowed to touch you with very much force. Just enought to put the hand
cuffs on you if he wants to. If you do not do as he requests you, then
he can just shoot you on the spot if he wants.
Solves lots of problems.

He could slam you into the kegs :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KCJep5RV1E

My favorite Steve vs Cops is this one. ?(•?•)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30InBgGhiSo

[8~{} Uncle Lift Monster

They are funny, huh? "On the way to jail we're gonna stop by the
hospital."

They demonstrate how people respond to cops everyday and the
challenges cops face.

One of his videos -- "My wife said if I don't get her some beer, she's
going to stab me in the face." (paraphrased)

On 2016-12-17, wrote:
Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.

Not everyone carries ID. They can't make you produce something
that you don't have. I personally never carry ID when not driving.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 03:24:44 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-17, wrote:
Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.

Not everyone carries ID. They can't make you produce something
that you don't have. I personally never carry ID when not driving.

Certainly you don't have to produce what you don't have but it doesn't
stop them from asking and as the original poster pointed out, this is
really all about the interrogation in the first place. The cop is
looking for something more than a traffic ticket.
OTOH I am just honest with them, play the game and I have not actually
got a ticket in almost 3 decades but I get stopped every year or so,
usually that 10-11 over thing.
They see my old red Prelude and expect to see a kid. I am 70. ;-)
The only time a cop wanted to look around my car, after digging
through empty coffee cups and Burger King wrappers on the floor for a
while, he said I could go.

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 4:49:06 PM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
On 12/17/2016 4:20 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Meanie:
Depending on the issue (infraction or investigation), will ask for
personal info, then verify with records. If it's an infraction, they can
actually detain until they verify the info. If an investigation, they
can also verify but can't detain until verification.

I am guessing that the issue will soon become moot because of
electronic/biometric means of identification: point the camera, push the
button, and back comes the person's info.


Almost but unless one has a criminal record, photos wouldn't be readily
available. Much other info is obtainable, which is why they will usually
discover if one is lying.

I'm pretty sure that if they got Big Data involved, they could assemble
a pretty good database out of Facebook photos and whatnot, so they could
have a database that would include people without driver's licenses.

Cindy Hamilton

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:26:11 PM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-12-17, wrote:
Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.

Not everyone carries ID. They can't make you produce something
that you don't have. I personally never carry ID when not driving.

I always carry ID, even when I'm walking for exercise. Just in
case, y'know, I drop over from a heart attack. Then they'll know
where to send the body.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2016-12-18, wrote:
OTOH I am just honest with them, play the game and I have not actually
got a ticket in almost 3 decades but I get stopped every year or so,
usually that 10-11 over thing.

All I ever tell them (politely) is "I don't answer questions and I will
not consent to a search." Of course I do produce my papers as required,
don't raise my voice or become confrontational. Never had a problem.
(I'm no spring chicken either, BTW.

If I'm a passenger and they query me I simply inform them I do not
carry identification. (This is still America for the time being and
internal passports are not required.)

The only people who consider asserting rights to be radical or crazy
are slaves and tyrants.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 12/17/2016 10:24 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-12-17, wrote:
Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.

Not everyone carries ID. They can't make you produce something
that you don't have. I personally never carry ID when not driving.


I'm not paranoid enough to worry. Only time police have ever stopped me
was for traffic violations. Even then, if you are polite you may get
just a warning. No reason to push his buttons, at least not before he
hands you a ticket.

On 12/17/2016 4:52 PM, Meanie wrote:


I don't understand why people cannot just do as the lawman request them
to do. That is what gets them shot. If there is anything the lawman
does that is not correct, then sue the heck out of him and the town.

Which is why I always recommend to video the event. It's safe to assume
MOST people have smartphones with cameras nowadays. They should use them
more often.

Maybe. If it is a serious incident I can agree. OTOH, if you get
stopped for a traffic light violation that camera may turn a simple
warning into a full blown ticket.

I can see the cop thinking to himself, if this asshole want to record
it, I will carefully and politely issue a ticket just because I can.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 04:29:53 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:26:11 PM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-12-17, wrote:
Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.

Not everyone carries ID. They can't make you produce something
that you don't have. I personally never carry ID when not driving.

I always carry ID, even when I'm walking for exercise. Just in
case, y'know, I drop over from a heart attack. Then they'll know
where to send the body.

Cindy Hamilton

I am one of those people who does not carry ID all the time but only
when I am within walking distance of the house. I keep an expired
driver's license and CCW in my boat. In Florida the DL is exactly the
same document (picture etc) as the new one, they just change the date.
We used to just get a sticker for the back but the federal "real ID"
rules eliminated that.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:02:49 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-18, wrote:
OTOH I am just honest with them, play the game and I have not actually
got a ticket in almost 3 decades but I get stopped every year or so,
usually that 10-11 over thing.

All I ever tell them (politely) is "I don't answer questions and I will
not consent to a search." Of course I do produce my papers as required,
don't raise my voice or become confrontational. Never had a problem.
(I'm no spring chicken either, BTW.

If I'm a passenger and they query me I simply inform them I do not
carry identification. (This is still America for the time being and
internal passports are not required.)

The only people who consider asserting rights to be radical or crazy
are slaves and tyrants.

White people can usually get away with that, but not everyone ... or
so my black friends say. If a cop wants you to have a long day, he can
make your day pretty miserable and still be within the legal power we
give them. I still say the average cop will assume innocent people do
not need "rights" if they are doing nothing wrong. The words
"reasonable suspicion" keeps replacing "probable cause" in these
SCOTUS decisions and that opens up a huge gray area. They usually make
this a weapons search and if they get lucky and find other contraband
it is still admitted in court.
The worst example is TSA at the airport. They can virtually strip
search anyone who gets on a plane without any cause at all and if they
find a joint in your sock or simply "too much money" in your pocket
you can be prosecuted for the contraband or simply be forced to
forfeit the money and have to sue to get it back.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:59:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/17/2016 4:52 PM, Meanie wrote:


I don't understand why people cannot just do as the lawman request them
to do. That is what gets them shot. If there is anything the lawman
does that is not correct, then sue the heck out of him and the town.

Which is why I always recommend to video the event. It's safe to assume
MOST people have smartphones with cameras nowadays. They should use them
more often.

Maybe. If it is a serious incident I can agree. OTOH, if you get
stopped for a traffic light violation that camera may turn a simple
warning into a full blown ticket.

I can see the cop thinking to himself, if this asshole want to record
it, I will carefully and politely issue a ticket just because I can.

This is where you want to surreptitiously turn your "Dash Cam Pro"
toward the window. He might not even notice it is pointing at him
although the audio itself can be quite compelling.

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 4:49:06 PM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
On 12/17/2016 4:20 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Meanie:
Depending on the issue (infraction or investigation), will ask for
personal info, then verify with records. If it's an infraction, they can
actually detain until they verify the info. If an investigation, they
can also verify but can't detain until verification.

I am guessing that the issue will soon become moot because of
electronic/biometric means of identification: point the camera, push the
button, and back comes the person's info.


Almost but unless one has a criminal record, photos wouldn't be readily
available. Much other info is obtainable, which is why they will usually
discover if one is lying.

DRiver's licenses have photos and are readily available to LEO online.

On 12/18/2016 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 4:52 PM, Meanie wrote:


I don't understand why people cannot just do as the lawman request them
to do. That is what gets them shot. If there is anything the lawman
does that is not correct, then sue the heck out of him and the town.

Which is why I always recommend to video the event. It's safe to assume
MOST people have smartphones with cameras nowadays. They should use them
more often.

Maybe. If it is a serious incident I can agree. OTOH, if you get
stopped for a traffic light violation that camera may turn a simple
warning into a full blown ticket.

I can see the cop thinking to himself, if this asshole want to record
it, I will carefully and politely issue a ticket just because I can.


May or may not. Also depending on the state, one isn't obligated to
inform the officer of being recorded. Just hold the phone in your hand
and go along. In fact, 38 states openly allow citizens to record police
as long as they don't physically interfere with their work. Though
further, 48 states have what is called “expectation of privacy
provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply
to on-duty police and/or anyone in public. Simply put, one cannot have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public.
Thus, it's perfectly legal to record.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...g-them/391610/

On 12/18/2016 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:59:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/17/2016 4:52 PM, Meanie wrote:


I don't understand why people cannot just do as the lawman request them
to do. That is what gets them shot. If there is anything the lawman
does that is not correct, then sue the heck out of him and the town.

Which is why I always recommend to video the event. It's safe to assume
MOST people have smartphones with cameras nowadays. They should use them
more often.

Maybe. If it is a serious incident I can agree. OTOH, if you get
stopped for a traffic light violation that camera may turn a simple
warning into a full blown ticket.

I can see the cop thinking to himself, if this asshole want to record
it, I will carefully and politely issue a ticket just because I can.

This is where you want to surreptitiously turn your "Dash Cam Pro"
toward the window. He might not even notice it is pointing at him
although the audio itself can be quite compelling.


Another good idea for those using dash cams.

On 12/18/2016 11:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 4:49:06 PM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
On 12/17/2016 4:20 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Meanie:
Depending on the issue (infraction or investigation), will ask for
personal info, then verify with records. If it's an infraction, they can
actually detain until they verify the info. If an investigation, they
can also verify but can't detain until verification.

I am guessing that the issue will soon become moot because of
electronic/biometric means of identification: point the camera, push the
button, and back comes the person's info.


Almost but unless one has a criminal record, photos wouldn't be readily
available. Much other info is obtainable, which is why they will usually
discover if one is lying.

DRiver's licenses have photos and are readily available to LEO online.


Not true. The DMVs have the photos on file, not the police departments.
The photo ID is a simple method to confirm the info on the card and the
photo matches the person who possesses it.

Per trader_4:

DRiver's licenses have photos and are readily available to LEO online.

I don't claim any special knowledge, but it seems like facial
recognition is just one of several tools available.

Ad-hoc fingerprint scans, retina scans.... dunno what else... but it
seems pretty clear to me that the day is coming when physical ID becomes
pretty much irrelevant as long as there is an Internet connection
available.
--
Pete Cresswell