Your papers, please?
Your papers, are not in order.
Please accompany us to the nearest processing station.

Have you heard of a biochip?  You can't lose it, and you can't remove it without leaving signs of its implantation.

For those that yell, "TINFOIL HAT!!!!"  I'll say that most dogs or cats of any significant value are already implanted, and that many pounds are already equipped to read the chips (a passive transmitter).  Nice test program, eh?

"Gee, I really hate losing my drivers' license or passport!  Why don't I get a chip put in?"-- Future "Public Service Announcement", prior to such implantation being made mandatory.

Semper Fi!

Ken Little

By the way, 03Shooter, it's called a "Terry Stop," and is perfectly legal.  Your refusal to submit is also probable cause to detain you further, as "innocent people have nothing to hide."

I support the ability of law enforcement to detain and question individuals IF THEY HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that someone has committed a crime.  I don't believe that a badge is a fishing license.

To the cops:  Cover Six, and come home in one piece.
To the citizens:  Keep your damn mouths shut.
To the parasites:  Keep doing what you're doing, and it'll come back to haunt you.

Semper Fi!

Ken Little

The news reported that the president wouldn't even consider it.

I believe that 03shooter IS correct.  

If you are not operating a vehicle, you cannot legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer.  This is straight from the ACLU, and I'm guessing they know what our rights are.  

A police officer might THREATEN you with arrest to intimidate you into identifying yourself (I don't know if that woudl be legal or not), but it would be an empty threat, and could be ignored.

I'm not arguing, Prof, but I've known quite a few cops in Chicago who use the technique.  Not to say it's "right," but that it is used.  If you can show that that is how you were trained, or had a reasonable belief that it was factual, then your liability is limited.

Semper Fi!

Ken Little

To be precise, you aren't "arrested," but you can be detained and searched, per "Terry v. Ohio"

I.e.:In 1968, the United States Supreme Court carved out an exception to the "probable cause" requirement. In the landmark case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer may detain a person briefly on the street for limited interrogation in the absence of "probable cause," so long as a lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion" has been satisfied.6 To justify a patdown frisk, a police officer must have a reasonable fear that he or she "is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual."

In other words, that means anybody.

Semper Fi!

Ken Little

Good point - I'm sure it's probably done a lot, and people may not even know that their rights were violated.

I'm not trying to argue either - I was just reading off my ACLU "what to do if you are stopped by the police" card.  I don't know squat about this stuff - you obviously do.

It just bugs me when people consent to stuff that hurts them - and don't even realize they didn't have to.  Kinda like these idiots you see on COPS all the time -

Cop: do you have any guns or drugs in the car?
Idiot: Uh - no.
Cop: so then you don't mind if I look, do you?
Idiot: Uh - no.
Cop then proceeds to find a Lorcin and an ounce of crack.

In so many cases like that, these poor schmucks don't even exercise their most basic rights.  Unless their is probable cause, the cop cannot search a car.  And like refusing to provide ID (if you're not in a car) you cannot legally be arrested for refusing to consent to a search of a vehicle.  (at least that's what my card says [:D] )