Can the government require you to have an ID to exercise your rights?

[PeacefulWarrior]

Basically, any law that demands a citizen identifies himself/herself to any LEO, is wrong.

If a cop asks me for ID, they're going to get ID.

I have no fight with the police. No law abiding citizen does. No reason to make an issue of it.
Always happy to assist an officer of the law. Showing ID means they can plainly see I'm a law abiding citizen with no wants or warrants, then they can go on their way getting after whoever they are after. Have a nice day Officers...thanks for keeping us safe!

 

[Rich2018]

If a cop asks me for ID, they're going to get ID.

If you want to avoid hasstle you might want to do that.
But there's no telling what they'll do with your details - you might find yourself on a terrorist watch list and get denied access to fly.

I have no fight with the police. No law abiding citizen does. No reason to make an issue of it.
Always happy to assist an officer of the law. Showing ID means they can plainly see I'm a law abiding citizen with no wants or warrants, then they can go on their way getting after whoever they are after. Have a nice day Officers...thanks for keeping us safe!

You should watch videos of people videoing buildings from a public place, like a side walk
Many a time the police have tried to strong arm people who are doing nothing but exercising their rights.

Have you ever seen video of Homeland Security stopping cars on a highway and demanding ID, like it was Nazi Germany ?

I have a big issue with all that.

#1 rule when approached by the police: Don't talk to them.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

If you want to avoid hasstle you might want to do that.

Yes. I like to avoid hassles.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Be patient.

Such a card is coming -- whether under a Democratic or Republican government.

Just look at all the cards one already carries in one's wallet or purse.

A national ID card is just logical in this increasingly authoritarian world.

Well we do have a national ID card, I in fact possess such a card

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If you want to avoid hasstle you might want to do that.
But there's no telling what they'll do with your details - you might find yourself on a terrorist watch list and get denied access to fly.

I mean if that’s your concern you’re not helping yourself by refusing to show ID

You should watch videos of people videoing buildings from a public place, like a side walk
Many a time the police have tried to strong arm people who are doing nothing but exercising their rights.

Have you ever seen video of Homeland Security stopping cars on a highway and demanding ID, like it was Nazi Germany ?

I have a big issue with all that.

#1 rule when approached by the police: Don't talk to them.

Yeah but those people are attention hounds, and so if these “first amendment auditors” (which is what the people who film buildings call themselves) succeed in refusing to show ID the cops can just look up their videos on YouTube later and identify them that way

 

[Rich2018]

I mean if that’s your concern you’re not helping yourself by refusing to show ID

Absolutely you are....unless you've committed a crime. Then you can ID yourself.
But say nothing else
Nothing you say to the police can help you.

Yeah but those people are attention hounds, and so if these “first amendment auditors” (which is what the people who film buildings call themselves) succeed in refusing to show ID the cops can just look up their videos on YouTube later and identify them that way

If you absolutely have to talk to the police, do so in front of a witness. Preferably your lawyer.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Can the government require you to have an ID to exercise your rights?​

How else can the government ensure that you actually have the rights?

The ID issue is best left up to the states. Let's keep as much control away from the federal government as possible.

Like the right to bear arms? Do you think that a state should require ID to make a gun purchase and that ID, along with the specifics of the purchase go into a government database? What about folks who have guns and move into a state with such a requirement? Should they be required to produce ID to possess firearms?

Or do you think that such government overreach should be reserved solely for the much more dangerous voter?

 

[Mycroft]

Like the right to bear arms?

No.

That is a right EVERY American citizen has...with or without an ID card.

 

[Rich2018]

Well we do have a national ID card, I in fact possess such a card

Otherwise known as a Driver's License ?

 

[Rich2018]

No.

That is a right EVERY American citizen has...with or without an ID card.

Not the mentally unbalanced, convicted felons or minors...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Otherwise known as a Driver's License ?

Passport card, it’s a national identification card proving citizenship

 

[Rich2018]

Passport card, it’s a national identification card proving citizenship

I just had to look it up as I'd never heard of them. Why not just use a standard passport ?

 

[DCCougar]

DCCougar said:
I thought that WAS a law -- that you had to identify yourself -- regardless of circumstance. Apparently that's not the case (if wikipedia is correct).

No, not unless the police arrest you for a crime.

I think it's just "reasonable suspicion." They need more than a "hunch," but less than probable cause (which is enough for an arrest).

 

[Rich2018]

I think it's just "reasonable suspicion." They need more than a "hunch," but less than probable cause (which is enough for an arrest).

They can indeed arrest you for "reasonable suspicion" of committing a crime.

 

[DCCougar]

They can indeed arrest you for "reasonable suspicion" of committing a crime.

No, I think that's incorrect. They need probable cause to arrest. I know that reasonable suspicion enables them to search your car. A hunch does not translate to reasonable suspicion. The smell of weed does though. If they find something illegal, that gives them probable cause ==> arrest.

 

[Rich2018]

No, I think that's incorrect. They need probable cause to arrest. I know that reasonable suspicion enables them to search your car. A hunch does not translate to reasonable suspicion. The smell of weed does though. If they find something illegal, that gives them probable cause ==> arrest.

You are correct, reasonable suspicion is enough to detain a suspect (to be questioned), but not arrest them. Whereas probable cause is. My mistake.

 

[DCCougar]

You are correct, reasonable suspicion is enough to detain a suspect (to be questioned), but not arrest them. Whereas probable cause is. My mistake.

That's correct, but I also made a mistake saying that reasonable suspicion was enough to search a car, which is incorrect. A cop needs probable cause to search. It's been a while since I used to work in this area of the law as a paralegal. I used to be totally up on this stuff and could cite you the case law about it and everything. Now I'm just concerned with relaxing, fishing, etc., LOL. But here is a case I worked on and helped write the briefs for. This is the 10th Circuit Appeals Court denying the appeal by one of the cops. (Note one of the justices at the time was Neil Gorsuch, now on the Supreme Court.) That cop later appealed to the Supreme Court, which responded with a one-page denial.

 

[Rich2018]

That's correct, but I also made a mistake saying that reasonable suspicion was enough to search a car, which is incorrect. A cop needs probable cause to search. It's been a while since I used to work in this area of the law as a paralegal. I used to be totally up on this stuff and could cite you the case law about it and everything. Now I'm just concerned with relaxing, fishing, etc., LOL. But here is a case I worked on and helped write the briefs for. This is the 10th Circuit Appeals Court denying the appeal by one of the cops. (Note one of the justices at the time was Neil Gorsuch, now on the Supreme Court.) That cop later appealed to the Supreme Court, which responded with a one-page denial.

If you watch videos of people filming locations from a public place, you'll be horrified to learn how little ordinary cops know about the law.

 

[Glitch]

If so then why don't we have a single mandatory universal national ID system? It would save billions and simplify everything.

A national ID would be unconstitutional, since the US Constitution never granted Congress that authority. However, States can mandate identification be shown in certain circumstances. You need to check with each State, obviously, but half of the States are "Stop & Identify" States.

In those States that have "Stop & Identify" laws you must provide identification when asked by law enforcement. However, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) the Supreme Court held that in this particular case the Nevada statute did not require a driver's license or any other form of documentation.

As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means—a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make—the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206–1207.

So it is important to know what your State's "Stop & Identify" law actually says.

Alaska is not one of those States with a "Stop & Identify" law. Therefore, I can completely ignore any requests for my identification by law enforcement, unless they have articulable probable cause that I have committed a crime, or I am operating a motorized vehicle on public roads.

 

[Glitch]

Can the government require you to have an ID to exercise your rights?​

How else can the government ensure that you actually have the rights?

Simple. Rights belong to the people, not just citizens. Therefore, everyone within the borders of the US, regardless whether they are a citizen or not, legal or not, has the same constitutionally protected rights as everyone else.

The ID issue is best left up to the states. Let's keep as much control away from the federal government as possible.

The ID issue can only be determined by the States, since the US Constitution never gave that authority to the federal government. Any attempts to create a national ID would be unconstitutional.

 

[Glitch]

You have to show ID to enter a federal court building or to get on a plane.
Best leave the states to handle ID issues. Real ID.

Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution Congress has the authority to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Which is what made the Real ID Act of 2005 constitutional.

States create the IDs, but Congress determines what is required and how they will be accepted in each of the States.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Try getting on an airplane, checking into a hotel, cashing a check or sitting up a bank account, receiving healthcare, buying beer or cigarettes, shipping FedEx or UPS, obtaining credit, renting a house or apartment, getting a job, or a million other mundane daily affairs.

There's only one reason that Democrats don't want an ID used on Election Day and it rhymes with FRAUD.

Tell you what, I'll agree to requiring an ID for voting when you agree to using proper ID to help with universal background checks for firearms.

And if you say that doing so violates the 2nd Amendment, then I can use the same reasoning for requiring and ID for voting, and probably for the same reasons.

 

[Rich2018]

Tell you what, I'll agree to requiring an ID for voting when you agree to using proper ID to help with universal background checks for firearms.

And if you say that doing so violates the 2nd Amendment, then I can use the same reasoning for requiring and ID for voting, and probably for the same reasons.

Absolutely...Republicans demand ID when it suits them (voting), but recoil in horror when it doesn't (guns).

 

[Roadvirus]

Tell you what, I'll agree to requiring an ID for voting when you agree to using proper ID to help with universal background checks for firearms.

And if you say that doing so violates the 2nd Amendment, then I can use the same reasoning for requiring and ID for voting, and probably for the same reasons.

IDs are already required to buy a gun as well as a background check...at least in Tennessee it is. As does Arizona. I'm betting government-issued IDs are required in all 50 states to buy a gun before the background check step.

 

[Rich2018]

IDs are already required to buy a gun as well as a background check...at least in Tennessee it is. As does Arizona. I'm betting government-issued IDs are required in all 50 states to buy a gun before the background check step.

You mean from licensed gun dealers.