It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
We are the only country who is expected to have open borders. Try traipsing into Mexico and see what it gets you. Everyone talks open borders trash when it only applies to the United States.
Not one to be told what to do, Crash stayed in the United States about 15 minutes, he said. He then walked back across into Tijuana and, as is the case with most Americans, no official asked him for identification to get in.
Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by whatukno
Can you please show, and highlight, the portion of the law that allows the police to stop anybody and ask for identification?
As I have read it, the police need to have already detained you for a crime before they can ask for identification.
Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by K J Gunderson
The point of the law is to allow the state police to do a job the federal government is neglecting.
If the feds had just done what they are supposed to do, by their own laws!, there would never have been a need for Arizona's law in the first place.
States with “stop and identify” statutes There is no federal law requiring that an individual identify herself during a Terry stop. Hiibel merely established that states and localities have the power to require people to identify themselves under those conditions. As of 2009, the following 24 states have “stop and identify” laws, sometimes incorporating them into their loitering and prowling statutes (Florida as an example):
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering statute)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2
New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1 Utah
Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24
WASHINGTON June 21, 2004 ? The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names. The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.