Americans – Like Nazi Germans – Don’t Notice that All of Our Rights Are Slipping Away

morfeeis said:
They don't have the right to ask for ID you missed the point, that is called a search. this is the difference between common sense and the rule of law. and after reading your comments i'm not even sure you read the article as it had nothing to do with the stuff you're talking about. Leos need a reason to stop someone, driving down the street is not a reason, at check points such as this you don't have to show Id as there is no pc to do so.

you know what never mind you have no clue what i'm talking about nor yourself, just go Google some more stuff and come up with some more bad assumptions.
Click to expand...


You're a fool if you think stops are illegal and are the same as searches.


Go fight it in a court law, and see how far you get.
It's not assumptions, it's facts. They have the legal right to stop and ID, that is a fact, not an assumption. A drivers license is state issued. You don't have the right to drive, that is a fact, not an assumption. Being asked for ID is not a search, that is a fact, not an assumption.



Go back up to whatever mountain you crawled down from and keep believing that drivel.
 
morfeeis said:
They don't have the right to ask for ID you missed the point, that is called a search.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. More likely falls under a "terry stop." cops can ask you for your id when ever they want. all they need is reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime, have committed one or are going to commit one. reasonable suspicion is a very low standard which pretty much gives cops the freedom to ask you for your id. a terry stop includes is a form of detainment and can include questioning and a frisk.

Automobiles are different and simply doing something dumb gives cops the ability to ask for your id. Actually, just them pulling you over gives them the ability to ask for your id.

Also, many states take it even further with stop and identify statutes. you can be arrested for refusing to show your id when ever a cops asks for it. no need for reasonable suspicion at all.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Morfeeis should read a bit more on what he links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception

And what's funny, is that the issue here, is being asked to show ID.

Bottom line, the ID belongs to the state. It is issued to prove that you can drive. Driving, a privilege, not a right. Asking for you to prove you can drive by displaying ID that isn't yours, is not against your constitutional rights. Believing so is r******d. The 4th is designed to protect you in your home, not to protect you from proving you are driving with the blessings of the state.
Good luck trying to prove otherwise.
 
Qbert said:
You're a fool if you think stops are illegal and are the same as searches.


Go fight it in a court law, and see how far you get.
It's not assumptions, it's facts. They have the legal right to stop and ID, that is a fact, not an assumption. A drivers license is state issued. You don't have the right to drive, that is a fact, not an assumption. Being asked for ID is not a search, that is a fact, not an assumption.



Go back up to whatever mountain you crawled down from and keep believing that drivel.
Click to expand...

probable cause look into it, as i said this is pointless.
 
ZombiesRUCrazy said:
Incorrect. More likely falls under a "terry stop." cops can ask you for your id when ever they want. all they need is reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime, have committed one or are going to commit one. reasonable suspicion is a very low standard which pretty much gives cops the freedom to ask you for your id. a terry stop includes is a form of detainment and can include questioning and a frisk.

Automobiles are different and simply doing something dumb gives cops the ability to ask for your id. Actually, just them pulling you over gives them the ability to ask for your id.

Also, many states take it even further with stop and identify statutes. you can be arrested for refusing to show your id when ever a cops asks for it. no need for reasonable suspicion at all.
Click to expand...

While you are correct that a terry stop was ruled ok in terry v ohio, they still have to be able to articulate what crime they feel you have or are about to commit.
As for the stop and id laws, you only have to id yourself, there is no law that says you have to show a state id (id being dob address and what not)
 
Qbert said:
. The 4th is designed to protect you in your home, .
Click to expand...

WOW!!!!!!

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're dead wrong and have missed the issue completely. You cant be pulled over just to show id. for the love of God man please educate yourself.
 
morfeeis said:
probable cause look into it, as i said this is pointless.
Click to expand...


He gave probably cause the minute he refused to show ID....which they have every right by law to ask for.
Period.


Also, auto checks are NOT subject to the same 4th protections as in your home. I even linked to it....from YOUR link.
Why? BECAUSE driving is NOT a right. You driver's ID is NOT technically yours. Since driving is NOT a right, but a PRIVILEGE, the law has the right to ask you to prove that you can legally drive by the permission of the state.
What part of any of that do you not understand?
 
morfeeis said:
WOW!!!!!!

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're dead wrong and have missed the issue completely. You cant be pulled over just to show id. for the love of God man please educate yourself.
Click to expand...


No dude, you educate yourself. I've provided links showing you that the law does have the right to ask for ID.
Seriously, go try to fight this in court if you think you're right. Watch how quick you'll get laughed back all the way up your mountain.
 
Qbert said:
He gave probably cause the minute he refused to show ID....which they have every right by law to ask for.
Period.


Also, auto checks are NOT subject to the same 4th protections as in your home. I even linked to it....from YOUR link.
Why? BECAUSE driving is NOT a right. You driver's ID is NOT technically yours. Since driving is NOT a right, but a PRIVILEGE, the law has the right to ask you to prove that you can legally drive by the permission of the state.
What part of any of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

so what was the cause to ask for id the first time? i already went over this with you. just stop.

Not showing id is not pc

The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States.[1] The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a search warrant as long as he or she has probable cause
Click to expand...

It even states PC in the wiki link you used. your own links prove you don't understand what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Since you're obviously not smart enough to do your own research....

The motor vehicle exception is a legal rule in the United States which allows the search of amotor vehicle without the search warrant normally required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

The scope of the search is limited to only what area the officer has probable cause to search. This area can encompass the entire vehicle including the trunk.
Click to expand...

He refused to show ID when asked, which the officers had every right by law to do. THAT gave them probably cause.
 
morfeeis said:
so what was the cause to ask for id the first time? i already went over this with you. just stop.

Not showing id is not pc
Click to expand...


It was a check point, which legally they have the right to perform. Asking to show ID is NOT something that you're protected by the 4th with, as you don't have the right to drive. All he had to do, was show his ID, and there would have been NO probably cause to search the car.
The ticket he received was for not showing ID. I already provided links showing that the law have the legal right to ask for ID....and why.


Period.
 
morfeeis said:
again your own link proves you're wrong.
Click to expand...


Pray tell, where in my link does it say police do not have the right to ask for ID?

Here, I'll link them for you:

“As for the license and registration, you gotta give it to them,” Anderson said. “They absolutely can ask for it and you’ve got to show it to them. And there’s a reason for that … the license belongs to the state, not you. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Secondly, they’re checking to make sure you’re not wanted or your license isn’t under suspension or anything like that. That’s part of their job and they have that right.”
Click to expand...

As specified by the U.S. Supreme Court, DUI checkpoints are designed to protect and deter drivers from operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Click to expand...

The motor vehicle exception is a legal rule in the United States which allows the search of amotor vehicle without the search warrantnormally required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...


PLEASEEEEEEE show me where it says I'm wrong? Stop talking out of your arse, and show me where it says that police have NO rights within the law to ask for ID.
 
More on exceptions to searches and seizures:
Exceptions
The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions. In Delaware v. Prouse (1979), the Court ruled an officer has made an illegal seizure when he stops an automobile and detains the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile, unless the officer has articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law.
Click to expand...

The moment he refused to show his ID, he made himself suspicious of being unlicensed.




Again, no where does it say that officers don't have the right to stop and ask for ID. Search and seizures and the 4th protection is just that, for searches and seizures. Asking to show ID is neither a search or a seizure.
 
Qbert said:
Pray tell, where in my link does it say police do not have the right to ask for ID?

Here, I'll link them for you:


PLEASEEEEEEE show me where it says I'm wrong? Stop talking out of your arse, and show me where it says that police have NO rights within the law to ask for ID.
Click to expand...


forgot something didn't you? i already posted this a few times.
The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States.[1] The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a search warrant as long as he or she has probable cause
Click to expand...
 
Qbert said:
More on exceptions to searches and seizures:


The moment he refused to show his ID, he made himself suspicious of being unlicensed.




Again, no where does it say that officers don't have the right to stop and ask for ID. Search and seizures and the 4th protection is just that, for searches and seizures. Asking to show ID is neither a search or a seizure.
Click to expand...


Again, you just continue to show that you have no idea how the law works. as i said a while ago. YOU ARE WRONG and now you're just silly too.
 
morfeeis said:
forgot something didn't you? i already posted this a few times.
Click to expand...


Wow, you posted it and you STILL fail to see what's right in your face.

Officers can NOT search without probably cause without a search warrant. He refused to show ID. That gave them probably cause. The officers have every right to ask for ID. Asking for ID is NOT a search.

There are 2 completely separate things that happened here.
1. He was asked for ID
2. His car was searched

4th does not protect against asking for ID. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
morfeeis said:
Again, you just continue to show that you have no idea how the law works. as i said a while ago. YOU ARE WRONG and now you're just silly too.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, I know how it works in this regard, and I've shown you over and over again.


AGAIN, if you think asking for ID while behind the wheel is illegal, prove it. You keep talking out of your arse and produce no results.
 
http://thompsonjustice.com/iowa-criminal-lawyer-procedure/if-stopped-by-the-police/
You must show your driver’s license and registration when stopped in a car
Click to expand...

If you are stopped in your car
  • Upon request, show them your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. In certain cases, your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause.
Click to expand...
(in this event, probably cause presented itself once driver refused to show documents that he is required to present)
 
I hope someone else can explain it to you in a way you understand.

My last attempt,
in order for a leo to ask for your id they must suspect that you have or are about to commit a crime, hence PC. At a DUI check point they do not request your id in most cases unless they think you are DUI.

The wiki link you posted is talking about a search of the car once they have pc and the lack of a warrant to do so. Go look at the video and read the article again, look at what they cited the guy for, you're over your head, you drowned days ago and don't even know it.
 
morfeeis said:
I hope someone else can explain it to you in a way you understand.

My last attempt,
in order for a leo to ask for your id they must suspect that you have or are about to commit a crime, hence PC. At a DUI check point they do not request your id in most cases unless they think you are DUI.

The wiki link you posted is talking about a search of the car once they have pc and the lack of a warrant to do so. Go look at the video and read the article again, look at what they cited the guy for, you're over your head, you drowned days ago and don't even know it.
Click to expand...


No, that is where you are wrong.
The need to suspect something to SEARCH your property. To ask for ID, they don't need to suspect it.


I'm going to post it again, since you seem to lack reading comprehension.
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’sFourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Click to expand...
If you are stopped in your car
  • Upon request, show them your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. In certain cases, your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause.
Click to expand...

Asking for ID while in a car during a check point, is legal, and the 4th does not protect against it, seeing as ID is NOT property. Get it?
The 4th protects against search and seizures. Together now, THE 4TH PROTECTS AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURES. Repeat that a few times, let it sink in.
 
I can do this all day, while you...still have yet to present anything saying that police can't ask for ID.
http://www.duicheckpoints.org/whattoexpect.html
The first thing you should do in this situation is open your window slightly and wait for the law enforcement agent to ask you any questions. As with any routine stop, you are required to provide identifying information such as your name, address, driver’s license and registration.
Click to expand...
 
Qbert said:
Since you're obviously not smart enough to do your own research....





He refused to show ID when asked, which the officers had every right by law to do. THAT gave them probably cause.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat correct. The carol doctrine (motor vehicle exception) is for warrantless searchs of a vehicle based on probable cause. If the guy doesn't show ID, that doesn't give officers a free for all to the vehicle. If the stop is legal, you have to show ID or identify yourself. You refuse to do so, that's interference or obstruct. An arrestible offense. At best, you could search the car for reasonable areas that an ID would be.

That said a cop can ask to speak with anyone at any given time. As long as the contact is consentual, you do not have to identify yourself. I never read the original article, so I don't know what you and morf are going back and forth about, but that's my two cents.
 
TheShocker said:
This is somewhat correct. The carol doctrine (motor vehicle exception) is for warrantless searchs of a vehicle based on probable cause. If the guy doesn't show ID, that doesn't give officers a free for all to the vehicle. If the stop is legal, you have to show ID or identify yourself. You refuse to do so, that's interference or obstruct. An arrestible offense. At best, you could search the car for reasonable areas that an ID would be.

That said a cop can ask to speak with anyone at any given time. As long as the contact is consentual, you do not have to identify yourself. I never read the original article, so I don't know what you and morf are going back and forth about, but that's my two cents.
Click to expand...


Morf is saying that the act of asking for ID without probably cause is illegal, which is flat out false. He proceeds to insinuate that the 4th protects against asking for ID, which again, is flat out false. I even went as far as to provide several sources indicating that it's legal, and why. He's provided nothing, yet claims I'm insanely wrong.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to say America is turning into Nazi Germany but it's getting pretty bad. There's nobody to blame but ourselves. When everything crumbles i'll already be gone and it'll be someone else's problem. Makes me wonder if i really want to have kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morfeeis
Qbert said:
Morf is saying that the act of asking for ID without probably cause is illegal, which is flat out false. He proceeds to insinuate that the 4th protects against asking for ID, which again, is flat out false. I even went as far as to provide several sources indicating that it's legal, and why. He's provided nothing, yet claims I'm insanely wrong.
Click to expand...
Not worth it man. Morf has got his tin foil hat on so tight you'd need a crowbar to get that thing off of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back