On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:45 PM, sjl:
Bill wrote:
Police can do that now, ask you for id just walking down the street.
Then Buck wrote:
No they can't.
Buck -
The ID part depends on whether you are exercising the /privilege/ of
driving.
It's an odd sort of driving that involves walking down the street :-)
In any case, [depending on state law] under most circumstances you are
required to identify yourself by at least giving your name and address if
you don't have an identification document.
See article below...
Yes, Hiibel defined that much. Terry is the next level lower;
answering how far a police officer can go without probable cause. The
Supreme Court is weighing the benefit vs the loss of freedom in Terry,
and the problem there is the immediacy issue. That is, we haven't any
issue with pulling over when a police cruiser runs by with lights
flashing - we can all see it's an emergency, a life may be at stake.
We willingly, voluntarily give priority to the police officers.
It's less clear that a Terry stop of all vehicles at an alcohol
checkpoint serves an immediate public safety need. Many drunk driver
checkpoints catch no drunks at all, but the argument is that the
inconvenience is so slight that we can be compelled, forced! to be
pulled aside and answer a few questions, en masse without a search
warrant, without probable cause despite the Fourth Amendment's
protection against exactly that sort of behaviour.
It's even less clear what immediate public safety need is being
addressed by questioning people coming out of a market, or as Bill so
quaintly put it, walking down the street, as if anyone but the povera
walk anymore. Oh, I suppose yuppies might - do they power walk for
fun and exercise there? I retract my not walking remark.
At any rate, it's becoming ever more in vogue to enable police powers
at the expense of more evident loss of freedom. That goes against the
grain of the whole notion of limited government.
Your note about Terry stops is a very good reference. Everyone should
read it or something like it so they can form their own opinion as to
why trading off freedom for police enablement may be a good or bad
thing.
