Motorist Refuses to Show ID at DUI Checkpoint: Do You Have To?

originally posted by: Restricted
a reply to: TzarChasm

No one can make you uncomfortable without you first believing it.

If you go into an encounter with the police with a negative mindset you'll get exactly what you thought you'd get.

The police have responsibilities they must meet. As a citizen, so do you.

i knew for a fact i was golden when they asked for my ID. the fact is, they didnt. and thats why they did it. it was tantamount to saying "lets see what dirt we can find in your file. maybe we'll have some birds to bring home to daddy and make him proud". i dont see what responsibilities demand that a random citizen eating in the park must be checked for warrants. because out of at least forty people in that park, NO ONE ELSE WAS CHECKED. just me and my friend.

responsibilities my ass. they want cred.

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

You are right. Buster and other can go ask a private attorney general, you don't even need a driver's license to drive on the roads. Now most AG's also have a license and wouldn't recommend you not have one, but they will tell you your rights/law/color of the law. etc.

I do have a problem showing an ID when out walking around. For years I never had an ID and even today walked around without an ID, usually only have it with me when I'm driving. When I go running I don't carry ID either.

originally posted by: semperfortis
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

If you are "DRIVING" and show up at my checkpoint, refuse to show a Drivers License, I will arrest you for "Driving without a license", tow your car, take you to a judge, place you on bond and either let you call someone to pick you up or hold you in lieu of paying the bond..

Easy
Peasy

Semper

refusing to show a drivers license is not the same thing as driving without a license. my license could easily be sitting in my wallet, im just not giving it to you because you dont have reason to ask me a damn thing except how im doing today.

a reply to: semperfortis

If you are "DRIVING" and show up at my checkpoint, refuse to show a Drivers License, I will arrest you for "Driving without a license", tow your car, take you to a judge, place you on bond and either let you call someone to pick you up or hold you in lieu of paying the bond..

You do see what I'm talk'n about here, right OP?

And semper is one of the nice guys. But look at him now?
Your thread has the poor man frothing at the mouth and
shooting flys with his sidearm. We need to go easy on
these people OP!

a reply to: semperfortis

So if I forget to bring or lose my wallet before pulling up to your checkpoint, I'm gonna be cuffed and taken to jail? Then have to deal with my car being impounded?

Um... I don't think so buddy. You can take someone to jail if their license is suspended, but all you can do is write a citation if they don't have their license.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Restricted
a reply to: TzarChasm

No one can make you uncomfortable without you first believing it.

If you go into an encounter with the police with a negative mindset you'll get exactly what you thought you'd get.

The police have responsibilities they must meet. As a citizen, so do you.

i knew for a fact i was golden when they asked for my ID. the fact is, they didnt. and thats why they did it. it was tantamount to saying "lets see what dirt we can find in your file. maybe we'll have some birds to bring home to daddy and make him proud". i dont see what responsibilities demand that a random citizen eating in the park must be checked for warrants. because out of at least forty people in that park, NO ONE ELSE WAS CHECKED. just me and my friend.

responsibilities my ass. they want cred.

For the most part, I agree...

"Probable cause" is such a joke, because any intelligent cop can articulate a few "legal phrases" to make an innocent action appear to be suspicious! And, I don't care what anyone says, their word has substantially more weight in a courtroom, than the average citizen's!

What it boils down to, is trust. And, the actions of far too many officers, have eroded that, to become practically non-existent!

Most average people do not see things the way that a LEO does. We aren't subjected to a specific element of society on a day to day, basis! This, unfortunately, begins to slant many officer's perception's of the general public. And, therein lies the rub...

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Restricted
a reply to: TzarChasm

No one can make you uncomfortable without you first believing it.

If you go into an encounter with the police with a negative mindset you'll get exactly what you thought you'd get.

The police have responsibilities they must meet. As a citizen, so do you.

i knew for a fact i was golden when they asked for my ID. the fact is, they didnt. and thats why they did it. it was tantamount to saying "lets see what dirt we can find in your file. maybe we'll have some birds to bring home to daddy and make him proud". i dont see what responsibilities demand that a random citizen eating in the park must be checked for warrants. because out of at least forty people in that park, NO ONE ELSE WAS CHECKED. just me and my friend.

responsibilities my ass. they want cred.

For the most part, I agree...

"Probable cause" is such a joke, because any intelligent cop can articulate a few "legal phrases" to make an innocent action appear to be suspicious! And, I don't care what anyone says, their word has substantially more weight in a courtroom, than the average citizen's!

What it boils down to, is trust. And, the actions of far too many officers, have eroded that, to become practically non-existent!

Most average people do not see things the way that a LEO does. We aren't subjected to a specific element of society on a day to day, basis! This, unfortunately, begins to slant many officer's perception's of the general public. And, therein lies the rub...

i dont call seeing danger and risks and threats in a bright sunny park full of children and dogs and happy people "being vigilant". i call that paranoia. i dont care what they have experienced elsewhere i have given them no reason to suspect that i might warrant their concern. CASE BY CASE BASIS please.

anyway, im going off topic. sorry.

originally posted by: tadaman
I never understood this. If you are running an armed resistance that is fighting a deployed army then don't show your id. Papers, what ever.

If you are just driving in your city and encounter a cop that grew up in your town or city and is just trying to figure out if you came from elsewhere to cause trouble, JUST SHOW HIM YOUR DUMB ID.

People get into far worse situations by being standoffish. I have never had real issues with cops. I have to admit that I have been caught breaking the law a few times too....never had a problem with cops being unreasonable. WHY be unreasonable with them?

The principle? Then by principle EVERY infraction you commit should be counted and you punished. How do you like that? Its the principle of it right?

US of A is at war, don't you know that? War time rules apply. Stop winning and get you ID ready.

It is going to get much more worse, imo. Retina scans, total identity screening, implants, cameras, you won't make a step unwatched, and you will be watched knowing about being watched under the premises I mention above.
The government wants you cooperate at difficult for the country times, why is it so hard to show your ID for the sake of peaceful night in town?
Am I wrong?

a reply to: Merlynn

You are right. Buster and other can go ask a private attorney general, you don't even need a driver's license to drive on the roads. Now most AG's also have a license and wouldn't recommend you not have one, but they will tell you your rights/law/color of the law. etc.

I believe I'm seeing this for exactly what it is.
Laws have to be in place for safety and they make
safety possible for officers doing their best to
compliment those laws. So what ever the rights of
the constitution are? Their rights that I wouldn't
give a bucket a p!ss for if a ten year old kid can
drive the wrong way down the freeway unmolested
and go head on with someones wife and kids.
I'll see my way past those rights K?

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

The site you got the four cases from is merely repeating the same tired and invalid arguments that a driver's licence is a violation of your rights. It is NOT. The video on that page is an entry by one Todd Foster in a "journalism" contest that was being run back in 2012 by Infowars and is rife with errors.

Case #1. Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
This case dealt with the question of whether or not the city of Chicago had the power to regulate a bus company, by requiring it obtain a permit from the city to operate on its streets, when it was already licensed by the State of Illinois. The court ruled that the CITY did not have that power. It had nothing to do with whether or not requiring one to possess a driver's licence before operating an automobile on public roads was constitutional.
The decision also stated "Even the Legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though THIS RIGHT MAY BE REGULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE."

Case #2 Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 (scholar.google.ca...).
Freeman/sovereign types insist on quoting one passage from this case without ever having actually read the decision. If they had, they would have read the two paragraphs that immediately followed that quotation.

"THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE CITY MAY, under its police power, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."

and

"THE REGULATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS OF THE CITY MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE CITY BY GRANTING, REFUSING, AND REVOKING, UNDER RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION, PERMITS TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia was ruling on the revoking of Mr Thompson's licence. It did not rule that the requirement of a driver's licence was unconstitutional.

Case #3. Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116 (supreme.justia.com...)
Mr Kent had been denied a passport and had challenged the constitutionality of that denial. He did not challenge the constitutionality of the requirement for a passport and the US Supreme Court did not rule on that matter.
The case had nothing to do with whether or not requiring one to possess a driver's licence before operating an automobile on public roads was unconstitutional.

Case #4. Shactman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938 (openjurist.org...)
Another case involving the denial of a passport that predates Kent v. Dulles. The US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ruled in its decision that the denial of a passport to Shactman violated his 5th Amendment right to due process.
The case had nothing to do with whether or not requiring one to possess a driver's licence before operating an automobile on public roads was unconstitutional.

Numerous cases that actually ruled on the constitutionality of a driver's licence requirement have come down on the side that it does not violate your right to travel. Such cases include:

State v. Skurdal (MT, 1988) - law.justia.com...

State v. Hirshberger (KS, 2000) - law.justia.com...

Popp v. Motor Vehicle Department, 211 Kan. 763, 766, 508 P.2d 991 (1973) - www.courtlistener.com...

City of Bismarck v. Stuart, 546 N.W.2d 366, 367 (N.D. 1996) - www.ndcourts.gov...

State v. Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953, 955-56 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) - caselaw.findlaw.com...

Carter v. State, 702 S.W.2d 774, 778 (Tex. App. 1986) - www.leagle.com...

Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 454-55, 374 A.2d 791 (1977) - scholar.google.ca...

In Reitz v. Mealey, 314 US 33 (supreme.justia.com...), the US Supreme Court stated the following:

"The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process."

Must admit I'm biased over this whole question of DUI-testing stops and showing ID.

Many years ago when I was still a really young dude, there was a girl I adored. Her name was Amy and she was just magical. No love affair between us or anything like that. We just worked in the same office and she was one of those rare people who make the whole place brighter by their presence. For everyone.

Well one Monday morning in the newspaper there was this report of a terrible accident that had happened on the Sunday afternoon. I'd heard a bit about the accident on TV on Sunday night but no names had been released. All they said was it was head-on crash and in one car, two women died and a man was badly injured. And that police had arrested the driver of the other car. He was basically unhurt but was drunk.

But in the Monday paper they had the names. And one was Amy.

Going to work that day was awful. Darned near everyone was crying. We were devastated.

How I wish a dui stop had caught that drunk driver!

Yes, I know we all have our own feelings about having our freedoms eroded. I know that things like DUI stops can be misused. But for all that, I'd rather comply, pull over and show them my ID.

Put it this way: if all those DUI stops do actually catch some drunk drivers, then it means that some innocent people might get a chance to live. I'm willing to accept the occasional inconvenience of a stop if it's helping to keep at least a few drunk drivers off the roads.

Being stopped while I'm just out walking? That irks me more as I think it's harder to justify.

a reply to: JustMike

Being stopped while I'm just out walking? That irks me more as I think it's harder to justify.

Thank you! also, sorry for your loss. terrible thing.

a reply to: erwalker

Hey, get out of here with your facts! This is about freedom and doing whatever the f* I want wherever I want because...well...because AMERICA!

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: semperfortis
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

If you are "DRIVING" and show up at my checkpoint, refuse to show a Drivers License, I will arrest you for "Driving without a license", tow your car, take you to a judge, place you on bond and either let you call someone to pick you up or hold you in lieu of paying the bond..

Easy
Peasy

Semper

refusing to show a drivers license is not the same thing as driving without a license. my license could easily be sitting in my wallet, im just not giving it to you because you dont have reason to ask me a damn thing except how im doing today.

Then after I tow your vehicle and transport you to the judge, you can either show it too him, or go to jail..


Again


Easy

Peasy


Semper

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: semperfortis

So if I forget to bring or lose my wallet before pulling up to your checkpoint, I'm gonna be cuffed and taken to jail? Then have to deal with my car being impounded?

Um... I don't think so buddy. You can take someone to jail if their license is suspended, but all you can do is write a citation if they don't have their license.

MASSIVE FAIL..

A citation is an arrest

I can "choose" to bond you before a judge or give a citation for ANY charge..

Surprise
Surprise

Semper

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

I see this as a couple of issues that really should be legally separate. On one hand, it is like fishing or anything else that requires a license. They should be able to verify that you are valid to be driving at any time you are operating a vehicle. Otherwise there would be no legal basis to ever ask for any kind of license (hunting, fishing etc.).

However, they should NOT be able to do ANYTHING further without probable cause of you committing a crime. In other words, if you hold your license and insurance up to the window and they can see it clearly as not expired, then that is it. If they see beer cans, or watched you drop your wallet three times while fumbling for your paperwork, that is probable cause for further action. Otherwise off you go.

Who knows, this would be a perfect situation to involve modern technology. They could easily chip your license so that your car has a reader that only allows it to drive with a valid license. This would give them no legal basis to ask for your ID as a sole reason to make contact and at the same time prevent illegal activity (driving while suspended).

Seems like a person doing this would at least end up with a ticket for no license. Might not be worth trying while being the driver.

a reply to: semperfortis

Well ain't that a bit!ch. You guys have way too much power.

The fact that you CAN take me to jail for forgetting my wallet at home if you feel like it is quite disturbing.