Not sure about the law in Arizona. It would stand to reason that if someone was going to receive a citation that the officer would have to ascertain their identity to properly cite them. Other wise she could have said her name was Susie Smith and the courts would have had no recourse when she didn't appear in court or pay her fine. If she wasn't going to get a citation then he wouldn't need to see her ID for just walking down the street. Since he was going to cite her he needed to verify who she was.

 

If she gives him her ID, he writes citation and it's all over.

That's just how I see it.

 

I don't think you have to produce an ID, just identify yourself. You aren't required to carry an ID unleaded you are doing something that requires it. Would a jogger that was stopped for jaywalking get arrested if they had no pockets and weren't carrying ID? Now if you are driving, buying alcohol, tobacco or something you'd be required to have it but not for just walking down the street.

 

That being said unless it can be proven that there was some kind of profiling going on I don't see what the uproar is about. Cooler heads on both sides could have prevented this from going where it did but to me this one falls squarely on the professor.

I don't think you have to produce an ID, just identify yourself. You aren't required to carry an ID unleaded you are doing something that requires it. Would a jogger that was stopped for jaywalking get arrested if they had no pockets and weren't carrying ID? Now if you are driving, buying alcohol, tobacco or something you'd be required to have it but not for just walking down the street.

 

That being said unless it can be proven that there was some kind of profiling going on I don't see what the uproar is about. Cooler heads on both sides could have prevented this from going where it did but to me this one falls squarely on the professor.

You would need one if you broke a law, otherwise if a cop went to give me a ticket for jaywalking and could not ID me I could give him your name and never worry about going to court or paying the fine. And you would be stuck with a mess trying to get your name cleared up.

 

You would NOT need one UNLESS you broke the law...but then they have to know who you are or you go to jail as a John Doe.

You would need one if you broke a law, otherwise if a cop went to give me a ticket for jaywalking and could not ID me I could give him your name and never worry about going to court or paying the fine. And you would be stuck with a mess trying to get your name cleared up.

 

You would NOT need one UNLESS you broke the law...but then they have to know who you are or you go to jail as a John Doe.

 

It is easy enough to verify ID now. If you're detained or cited, but not arrested, in most states (including Kentucky) you are only required to provide your name, address and date of birth. A driver's license is only required if stopped while driving or if you're performing an activity that requires you to verify your age such as buying alcohol, tobacco etc. If you are arrested you have to give them your ID if you have one. I don't think jaywalking results in arrest by itself. The laws in Arizona may require you to present ID if requested but they do not in Kentucky.

 

Given the name, address and DOB can't the officer bring up a copy of the driver's license on their computer?

I don't think you have to produce an ID, just identify yourself. You aren't required to carry an ID unleaded you are doing something that requires it. Would a jogger that was stopped for jaywalking get arrested if they had no pockets and weren't carrying ID? Now if you are driving, buying alcohol, tobacco or something you'd be required to have it but not for just walking down the street.

 

That being said unless it can be proven that there was some kind of profiling going on I don't see what the uproar is about. Cooler heads on both sides could have prevented this from going where it did but to me this one falls squarely on the professor.

I think everyone takes the ID thing too literally. She wasn't required to provide papers...She was required to identify herself some way because he was going to cite her.

I think everyone takes the ID thing too literally. She wasn't required to provide papers...She was required to identify herself some way because he was going to cite her.

 

That's what I saying. She didn't have to produce an ID but she had to give her ID. Otherwise anyone who did not have a driver's license or wasn't carrying a state-issued ID would be taken to jail for any kind of an offense.

 

She's have been fine if she'd have given her name, address and DOB if she wasn't carrying an ID. Well, at least before she resisted and assaulted an officer.

It is easy enough to verify ID now. If you're detained or cited, but not arrested, in most states (including Kentucky) you are only required to provide your name, address and date of birth. A driver's license is only required if stopped while driving or if you're performing an activity that requires you to verify your age such as buying alcohol, tobacco etc. If you are arrested you have to give them your ID if you have one. I don't think jaywalking results in arrest by itself. The laws in Arizona may require you to present ID if requested but they do not in Kentucky.

 

Given the name, address and DOB can't the officer bring up a copy of the driver's license on their computer?

So all I have to do is memorize your address and DOB and I'm scott free...good to know.

 

All police officers and departments do not have computers in their cars. Most around here do but a lot of larger departments with tight budgets don't put them in every cruiser.

 

Not sure about if it is arrestable or not in Arizona, but most non-traffic misdemeanors are arrestable but up to the officers discretion. Example: In Somerset the police don't always arrest shoplifters sometimes they just give them a citation, in some cities they all go to jail.

So all I have to do is memorize your address and DOB and I'm scott free...good to know.

 

All police officers and departments do not have computers in their cars. Most around here do but a lot of larger departments with tight budgets don't put them in every cruiser.

 

Not sure about if it is arrestable or not in Arizona, but most non-traffic misdemeanors are arrestable but up to the officers discretion. Example: In Somerset the police don't always arrest shoplifters sometimes they just give them a citation, in some cities they all go to jail.

 

It has always been that way . Unless you are driving a motor vehicle that is the only time you have to show your drivers license to police . Why would you need to show a drivers license for jay walking ? That is why almost every cop I've met has a little note pad on them. When they ask you to identify yourself they write down the info then go back and check the info in the cruiser .

It has always been that way . Unless you are driving a motor vehicle that is the only time you have to show your drivers license to police . Why would you need to show a drivers license for jay walking ? That is why almost every cop I've met has a little note pad on them. When they ask you to identify yourself they write down the info then go back and check the info in the cruiser .

You don't, that's why if your not driving police specifically ask for an ID and not a Drivers License.

So all I have to do is memorize your address and DOB and I'm scott free...good to know.

 

All police officers and departments do not have computers in their cars. Most around here do but a lot of larger departments with tight budgets don't put them in every cruiser.

 

Not sure about if it is arrestable or not in Arizona, but most non-traffic misdemeanors are arrestable but up to the officers discretion. Example: In Somerset the police don't always arrest shoplifters sometimes they just give them a citation, in some cities they all go to jail.

 

They may not have a computer in their vehicle, but they do have communication with others that do.

Eras/Places mountain ref did not live in:

 

Any of the 1960's or 1970's

Miami in 1988

Los Angeles in 1992 or

NKY/Cincinnati in 2001

 

 

 

In all seriousness, I think race gets brought up because it's still an issue, though it's one that is getting better. Still has a ways to go in some areas, but still has made crazy progress considering where it was say 50 years ago in others.

 

I did live in all of the 1970s and if you are referring to LA in 1992, is that when the black guy hit the white guy in the head with a brick because he was upset at the Rodney King thing.

Actually, if she moves out of the street she doesn't even get stopped. According to the report she refused to comply and refused to give ID after he stopped her.

 

But he escalated the situation...

 

:thumb:

I don't think you have to produce an ID, just identify yourself. You aren't required to carry an ID unleaded you are doing something that requires it. Would a jogger that was stopped for jaywalking get arrested if they had no pockets and weren't carrying ID? Now if you are driving, buying alcohol, tobacco or something you'd be required to have it but not for just walking down the street.

 

That being said unless it can be proven that there was some kind of profiling going on I don't see what the uproar is about. Cooler heads on both sides could have prevented this from going where it did but to me this one falls squarely on the professor.

 

 

:thumb:

 

 

I don't blame the professor for fighting the charges because this kid seems to have a history with controversial cases and escalating situations. There aren't a lot of people rushing to his defense as more and more comes out about this, it just keeps looking worse for him.

 

When he said, "show me your ID or I'll arrest you" he gave a command that could easily be interpreted as unlawful and because he charged her with felony assault, he put himself under that microscope. I think the felony charge was escalating things just as much as anything else, right or wrong.

 

Had it just been a jaywalking charge, the media attention that this was given that really opened the floodgates on everything and shifted all of the momentum entirely into her favor probably doesn't happen. People wouldn't have been nearly as sympathetic to her having to go to jail for arguing with an officer and to pay a fine for jaywalking, but when you start talking about making her serve serious time over the whole thing, then yes, people are going to be much more sympathetic with her.

I did live in all of the 1970s and if you are referring to LA in 1992, is that when the black guy hit the white guy in the head with a brick because he was upset at the Rodney King thing.

 

Just all of the riots in LA in general and all of the tension and rioting in the 70's in general. The early 70's were the forefront of Federal legislation like the Fair Housing Act and Civil Reinvestment Act. Loving v. Virgina, which struck down laws that barred interracial couples from marrying, was only decided by the US Supreme Court in 1968. Considering that in 1970, interracial couples had only legally been allowed to marry for 2 years in some places and that there was only protections from discrimination in attaining housing for around the same amount of time, I think it's fair to say that it was something that was on the nation's mind as a lot of reform was implemented.

It is easy enough to verify ID now. If you're detained or cited, but not arrested, in most states (including Kentucky) you are only required to provide your name, address and date of birth. A driver's license is only required if stopped while driving or if you're performing an activity that requires you to verify your age such as buying alcohol, tobacco etc. If you are arrested you have to give them your ID if you have one. I don't think jaywalking results in arrest by itself. The laws in Arizona may require you to present ID if requested but they do not in Kentucky.

 

Given the name, address and DOB can't the officer bring up a copy of the driver's license on their computer?

 

Exactly. I looked up the Arizona law early yesterday and all she was required to give is a name and address. Guy can go to his car, pull it up, mail the ticket.

 

No legal ground whatsoever for him to demand an ID card and arrest her for failing to show it. He could ask for her name and address, run it, and really cite her with something big if she gave a false one though. He could arrest her if she refused to give her name and address, but he doesn't even cite the right law/go about that the right way in my opinion, but what do I know?

 

He wants to be technical and beg the definition of 'assaulting an officer', most likely the term 'to cause injury to' (saying that the scratch on his shin she left was worth the felony charge because that's an injury), then he should understand when her and her lawyers want to possibly call into question a really technical definition of his demand to 'show ID me or you are going to jail'.

 

That's usually what lawyers do when you try to trump up charges against someone and most of the time, lawyers might have a little more experience with the law than some kid fresh out of college who can't wait to show off his shiny campus PD badge, then goes around trying his hand at turning what otherwise appear to be solid people into felons because he doesn't feel like they respect him like he thinks they should have. Look at the range of punishment for felony assault on an officer and think about the other types of crimes that get those types of punishments. Sorry, I don't think what the woman did to him considering the big picture is enough to warrant that considering his whole role in it.

 

Again, I don't see how or why the kid didn't see this whole thing coming. He's a moron that I really think really deserves whatever he gets out of this whole thing as more and more keeps coming out about it. He's probably too dumb to be a cop and is the kind of one who gives the ones who actually do their job well a bad name when they get lumped in with the ones like him.

 

Being on Campus PD isn't hard and most of his day is probably stuff like driving by the library, standing at the entrance of basketball games and giving drunk kids AIs, writing some speeding tickets, etc. Would people really want a guy that sounds like this out in a real police situation where he actually has to deal with harder stuff and where other people's lives might actually depend on him?

:thumb:

 

The last line was sarcasm