Grab your jackboots and practice your heal clicks if you plan to be in Pennsylvania. Senate Bill #573 is working its way through the process and is on its way to becoming law. 573 makes it a 3rd degree misdemeanor to fail to provide proof of identity upon demand to anyone identifying themselves as a law enforcement officer. It empowers law enforcement officials to detain any a person until such time as proof of their identity can be established.
This power, of course, is limited.....sort of. The bill provides that you have to produce papers upon demand if a law enforcement officer believes you may have, may be or may be preparing to commit a crime of any type. Stopping someone as a matter of investigating a crime is one thing, but on suspicion that you might be about to commit a crime is another. I think you might be about to litter or might be about to jaywalk or might be about to pick-pocket therefore I can demand you present papers and if you don't I can lock you up until you or someone on your behalf does present identification documents.
Maybe that doesn't sound so bad to you. Perhaps you don't see the harm in making it a crime to refuse to provide personal information to someone claiming to be a police officer when you have not done anything wrong nor are suspected of actually having done anything wrong. Imagine if you will going to a peaceful protest rally and having the police decide that you might be about to become unruly and line everyone up and demand to see ID to record each person present. If you refuse, then off to jail you go until you comply. The proposed law says that would be OK.
You could be pulled over and forced to show identification if an officer suspected you might be about to violate the speed limit or might be about to fail to signal or might be about to drive recklessly. If you don't pull over and show ID, you go to jail until you comply. The proposed law says that would be OK.
What evidence is needed to suspect you might be about to commit a crime? None. What have you done that was illegal and warranted being stopped by the police if you are only suspected of being about to commit a crime? Nothing. If you refuse to comply because the request is baseless, you are now a criminal. If you do comply on the baseless request, you are now officially recorded as a suspect in police records for a crime that never even happened. Either way, you lose.
Further, this violation of civil liberties is totally unwarranted. A robbery suspect will be detained whether he shows ID or not. The same goes for any other suspected criminal in which there is any valid evidence or other grounds to investigate that person. Adding an additional misdemeanor crime for failing to show ID is unnecessary for the real criminals.
Lastly, the biggest victims of this proposed law might be potential witnesses to street crimes and juveniles living in higher crime areas. A person the police think may have seen something can be suspected of obstructing justice or being an accessory after the fact by "withholding information" and thus forced to provide ID and be recorded by the police. If they refuse to provide ID or don't have any ID on their person at the time, off to jail they go as part of coercion to extract testimony. Random juveniles can be detained and forced to show ID - something they likely won't have if below driving age - because they could be suspected of being about to sell drugs or about to commit vandalism or about to cross the street when the light isn't green.
This is an unnecessary law to address a problem that really doesn't exist. All it does is open the door to abuse and strip law-abiding citizens of their rights. Actual evidence of a crime committed, in progress or about to be committed serves to detain suspects without resorting to ambiguous open ended laws such as this that basically allow police or anyone representing themselves as police to stop any person for suspicion of being about to do something without any evidence and demanding them to present ID under penalty of indefinite incarceration.
The saddest thing is that this bill got out of the State Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous vote. It will likely pass when voted upon since it has complete bipartisan committee support. If passed, it is a federal lawsuit waiting to happen and once again the courts will get a chance to support or erode civil liberties at the whim of a few people in black robes that no one elected because the elected representatives passed a really stupid bill.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
The key word is MIGHT. That one should go in the Outragous file. I can't believe any legislator would vote for that.
While the law does sound draconian, Mike, I think you are overreacting to it somewhat. As you say, this law would make failure to produce ID a misdemeanor. This means that jail time is unlikely, especially for a first offence, and especially in the case of a 3rd class misdemeanor. Usually only 1st and 2nd class misdemeanors warrant any jail time and then it is less than a year and usually in the local jail rather than prison. Criminal records for misdemeanors are also usually expunged easily.
But I don't like the law either.
Hmm, could have sworn this was already the way of things.
A person who cannot or will not produce identification upon demand of a law enforcement officer already finds themselves detained; because not having ID is considered suspicious.
Cripes, it's been this way since WWII, hasn't it?
providence Rhode Island has an ordinance that you can be given a ticket for not putting your dome light on when stopped at night.
I think if the public remains sleeping much longer as they chip away at what use to be called free Americans we are going to wake up in a state of military control.
But its just a little thing? So was the patriot act that has taken all your freedom to travel at will and create domestic spying on innocent people and their libraries.
Of course, 9/11 changed out country, but these laws are not necessary.
We need to be more watchful, and we need to contact our law makers more often to voice or opinions.
I think what we need is more of us contacting our elected officials because only a handful of us do it now on a regular basis.
I live in PA and actually thought it was the law that anyone over 18 had to carry photo identification (except people within certain Amish communities). Anyone who doesn't have a drivers license is supposed to have a state id card. So it wouldn't be a problem for anyone who was following the original law (if I am right about it being a law).
Why would you be forced to carry an ID? Sounds pretty Nazi to me.
yawn....
this power already exist for federal law enforcement under provisions of the Patriot Act.
The patriot act is only for cowards that suck up to it.
TYhe only way to fight this is find out which state legislator sponsored the bill. Don't carry ID. If questioned use his/her name.
It is already here in the State of Idaho. If police cannot determine who a suspect is, it's jail time.
A 13 year old suspect had his head smashed in front of 4 witnesses (my own 13 yr. old son witnessed it) becaused he dared questioned why a cop needed to know his name.
Anyone charged with a crime should be executed immediately. That would solve the financial difficulties we face post haste. No trial, no fines, no probation, no jail time, no problem.
Euthanasia for those over 45, anyone with a disability and all minorities, gays, lesbians, anyone over 200 pounds and those with thinning hair and/or acne.
Mandatory common cold vaccines at birth and 15 years military conscription at the age of 18 as well.
This is my platform. I'm running for Congress and want to thank you in advance for your continued support.
Peace.
My check is in the mail.
As far as I knew, here in Texas it's been that way all my life. I've always carried my I.D. with me, whenever I leave my property, but I am amazed as to how many in Texas go around without their I.D. or drivers license.