Re: Mandatory ID in California?

At 08:45 AM 10/25/95 -0700, Ian Goldberg wrote:

>"The officer, in accordance with police policy, arrested Burton
>for refusing to properly identify himself."
><snip>
>
>That last sentence seemed ominous to me...

This has been chatted about for years.  Under California law, failure to
identify yourself is a minor violation.  They always dismiss the next day at
your hearing.  You don't have to carry ID, you just have to identify
yourself (there's a difference).  "my name Jose Jimenez."  You still don't
need ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle on public streets and roads
(or maybe catching a plane).

DCF

"The average seasoned citizen pays a higher percentage of his income for
medical expenses today than he did in 1964 before the passage of Medicaid."

"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..."
       Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)

"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave 
after a reasonable brief period of time...."  - - ibid


California is the Ninth Circuit, no?  See, inter alia,  Martinelli v. 
City of Beaumont, 820 F.2nd 1491 (1987).

Alan Horowitz
alanh@infi.net

>"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..."
>       Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
>
>"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave 
>after a reasonable brief period of time...."  - - ibid

How about INS coming into the equation?  Do they have additional powers which
let them put your butt in a bad imitation of a farday cage?

Mark
mark@lochard.com.au

> How about INS coming into the equation?  Do they have additional powers which
> let them put your butt in a bad imitation of a farday cage?

   It is well-settled, that the area around the borders is "special" with 
respect to immigration-related enforcement.

On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Mark wrote:

> >"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..."
> >       Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
> >
> >"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave 
> >after a reasonable brief period of time...."  - - ibid
> 
> How about INS coming into the equation?  Do they have additional powers 
> which let them put your butt in a bad imitation of a farday cage?

The powers of the INS have been the subject of much litigation. I used to
study immigration law and policy, but that part of my brain has fallen
into disuse in the last five years. I could probably dig up some
references from old papers, though. I believe the INS has its own special
definitions of probable cause. 

Section 10 of Proposition 187, which was passed by the ever-so-enlightened
people of California last November, empowers the police to incarcerate
without charge anyone who can not produce the two forms of identification
required to prove legal residence. Fortunately, 187 is so Unconstitutional
on its face that multiple injunctions against the enforcement of every one
of provisions were ordered within 30 minutes of 187's receiving the
Governor's signature. 

Today, many jurisdictions in California prohibit state & local officials
from turning people over to the INS. It's not good for public health and
safety for the alleged illegal people to be afraid to call the cops, or a
doctor. 

-rich