Carrying ID while riding - USSC to decide

William Holiday said:

The times is a free site but requires registration.

use www.mailintor.com for sites like this that way you never
need to give out a real email

sittingduck said:

William Holiday said:

The times is a free site but requires registration.

use www.mailintor.com for sites like this that way you
never need to give out a real email

That's <www.mailinator.com>.

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

--
Ray Heindl (remove the Xs to reply to: [email hidden])

Ray Heindl said:

That's <www.mailinator.com>.

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

thanks for the correction... /me smacks left pinky finger
for missing the a key

as to the NY Times question, I don't know. Can't hurt to put
in a mailinator address anyway though 🙂

I always carry ID, if only so if I'm in an accident,
unconscious, etc. It's just common sense.

- - "May you have the wind at your back. And a really low
gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

Ray Heindl said:

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

They're known for not being too picky about the details...

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame

"William Holiday" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Every once in a while the subject of carrying id while
riding and what to

do

Quoted message said:

when asked for id by police comes up here. I just ran
across an article on

the

Quoted message said:

NY Times web site that has the U.S. Supreme Court taking a
case with

similar

Quoted message said:

attributes: Whether or not you have to answer questions
(e.g. give your

name) by

Quoted message said:

an officer [let alone show id] when stopped and
questioned, something

referred

Quoted message said:

to as a "Terry stop".

Since there is no requirement to carry ID while riding, how
can there be a requirement to show ID? If you are ticketed
while riding your bicycle, you have to provide your name,
lying about it is a felony, though someone once boasted to
me how she gave a false name and address to a cop when
ticketed for running a stop sign.

It's an interesting case. If the cop is not ticketing you or
arresting you, can it be required that you provide any
information to him or her? Of course if you refuse, they can
make your life pretty miserable. You can get arrested, have
to post bail, get a lawyer, etc., just to get it all thrown
out eventually.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:14:58 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<It's an interesting case. If the cop is not ticketing you
or arresting you, <can it be required that you provide any
information to him or her? Of course <if you refuse, they
can make your life pretty miserable. You can get <arrested,
have to post bail, get a lawyer, etc., just to get it all
thrown <out eventually.

I think the operative question until the Hiibel case is
decided is "Is this a Terry stop?" The officer is probably
aware of the law and now he knows that you are too.

Hiibel will get you 5000 hits via google. Probably double
that in a couple of months.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Chris Zacho 'The Wheelman') said:

I always carry ID, if only so if I'm in an accident,
unconscious, etc. It's just common sense.

- - "May you have the wind at your back. And a really low
gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

Around here, it would be a whole lot better if you carried
your health insurance card....

HAND

--
"Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness"

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray Heindl said:

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

You can always use the user name plastic and the password
plastard. Works at nearly all the major registry sites
(like NYT).

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
home.earthlink.netWelcome.htmOpen ↗
See the books I've set free at: bookcrossing.comCpeterskyOpen ↗

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray Heindl said:

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

They're known for not being too picky about the details...

lol. Did you see the movie Shattering Glass? Great stuff.

"Matthew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray Heindl said:

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

They're known for not being too picky about the
details...

lol. Did you see the movie Shattering Glass? Great stuff.

Meant to add that I am registered on the NY Times site and
haven't recieved any spam as a result. Either I gave them a
valid e-mail and they haven't used it or they accepted an
invalid one; I don't remember.

Hunrobe said:

*Police receive a call that a man in a truck is beating a
female passenger in a parking lot. *A police officer goes
to that location and observes a man standing next to a
truck. There is a minor inside that truck.

yea, it's especially convincing that the officer didn't even
check the condition of the minor until after she'd been
pulled out of the truck and rather brutally handcuffed. the
girl was eventually charged with resisting arrest but the
charges were dismissed when they couldn't produce the
charges she was being arrested for.

there is video of the whole thing.

papersplease.orgvideo.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

*The police officer observes that the man appears
intoxicated.

? didn't notice that. i will note that he wasn't driving.

Quoted message said:

The officer asks the man for identification. The man
refuses to identify himself.

the officer never tells why despite being asked 10 times. he
just says he's conducting an "investigation." of what is
never said.

Quoted message said:

*The officer asks TEN more times for ID.

he never tells him why he has that right, either.

D: I just need to see some identification.
E: Why?
F: Because I'm investigating an investigation
G: Investigating what?
H: I'm investigating

bloody brilliant this deputy dove.

Quoted message said:

*The man becomes loud and aggressive. *The officer arrests
the man.

yea. whatever.

Quoted message said:

No matter how the case is decided, Terry stops will remain
constitutionally permissible.

--
david reuteler [email hidden]

"Matthew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray Heindl said:

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

They're known for not being too picky about the
details...

lol. Did you see the movie Shattering Glass? Great stuff.

It's Shattered Glass, and it's about the New Republic
magazine, not the Times. Although obviously the Times has
had a similar problem with Jayson Blair. Perry

Perry Sailor said:

"Matthew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray Heindl <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
> register, or can you put in anything you like?

They're known for not being too picky about the
details...

lol. Did you see the movie Shattering Glass? Great stuff.

It's Shattered Glass, and it's about the New Republic
magazine, not the Times. Although obviously the Times has
had a similar problem with Jayson Blair.

The NYT is big enough to have some of the best journalists
in the world -- as well as some of the worst. And whether we
read the paper because it's brilliant, or to see just how
bad it is, to laugh and snicker about with our friends -- it
sells papers either way.

Matt O.

Claire Petersky said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray Heindl said:

Does the NY Times require a *valid* e-mail address to
register, or can you put in anything you like?

You can always use the user name plastic and the password
plastard. Works at nearly all the major registry sites
(like NYT).

They seem to be on to that one. It didn't work when I tried
it. Um, I mean, hypothetically, if I had tried it, it
hypothetically wouldn't have worked. But they don't seem to
do a lot of fact checking on new subscribers.

--
Ray Heindl (remove the Xs to reply to: [email hidden])

On 24 Mar 2004 08:38:56 GMT, [email hidden] (Hunrobe) wrote:

<A summary of the facts according to the ACLU amicus curiae
brief in support of <the petitioner (meaning they are on
Hiibel's side) is as follows:

snip

<No matter how the case is decided, Terry stops will remain
constitutionally <permissible.

My understanding of the Times article is that the Hiibel
case will clarify the responsibilities of the individual
with respect to the Terry stop.

Hunrobe said:

You definitely misunderstand the point of my post and
possibly how the appellate system.

probably .. at the very least you're being disingenuous
about the source of those quotes being from a friendly party
(the ACLU amicus curiae). the source of most of those facts
comes from (correct me if i'm wrong) a quote from deputy
dove explaining his actions found on page 5 of the pdf which
is page 2 of the aclu amicus curiae found at

aclu.orgcourt.cfmOpen ↗
FileAttach

Quoted message said:

As for the appellate process itself

[snip]

hey, i always appreciate an education.

Quoted message said:

In fact, the summary I wrote is a paraphrase of the
"statement of case" in the ACLU amicus brief *on behalf of
the Petitioner Hiibel*.

right. see above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the officer never tells why despite being asked 10 times.
he just says he's conducting an "investigation." of what
is never said.

From the transcript on the link you provided----

Tape Transcript Dudley Hiibel = H Deputy Dove = D Mimi
Hiibel = M

Radio Dispacher: 10-4 ------ Turn lane on C ---- 3 ---------------
Hiibel: How's it goin' Sheriff Dove: How ya doin'? Dove:
Well, ...................
H: Looks like I'm parked ok
D: Well, I've got a report that there's been a fightin'
going on between you two tonight.

That seems like a pretty clear explanation of why the
deputy wants to know who he is talking to.

well, i have to agree to some extent but he still never
clearly states that that fight is the subject of the
investigation. i have to believe that would be necessary for
at least the first time hiibel asks the question. had the
officer checked on the status of the daughter or in some
other way made it clearer that that was the investigation
perhaps but he doesn't. he pays her no intention until much
later and only after they've handcuffed her. goofy. i don't
believe i'm nitpicking to ask that the officer be explicit
when asked at least the first time.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately the video at that link seems to be
unavailable.

try it again. it worked for me yesterday at the lowest
resolution. it's a little more interesting than the
transcript.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

David Reuteler said:

probably .. at the very least you're being disingenuous
about the source of those quotes being from a friendly
party (the ACLU amicus curiae).

this came out wrong. you are quoting the ACLU but not a
friendly party.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

William Holiday <[email hidden]> wrote To the extent
that the case focuses on a Terry stop, it may not address
the rights of the individual during the less intrusive
interaction between officers and citizens called a "mere
encounter," ie, when the officer does not have enough facts
to conduct or justify a Terry stop but simply approaches the
citizen to ask questions. --Roy Zipris

As a criminal defense lawyer, I find the implications
fascinating. If one must respond to the officer's request
for ID during a valid Terry stop, can that be the basis for
a criminal conviction (for resisting arrest, in Hiibel's
case) or merely another fact in the officer's knowledge that
may provide him or her with probable cause to arrest the
individual for the crime being investigated (in Hiibel's
case, the assault)? There's a legitimate argument that,
because of the interplay between the First, Fourth and Fifth
Amendments, the conviction is unconstitutional but the
adverse inference the police are entitled to draw is not.

There's a related question: if the state constitution grants
greater rights than the federal constitution, the conviction
may not offend the federal constitution but violate the
state constitution. For reasons of federalism, the USSC
cannot tell a state supreme court how to interpret its state
constitution. The supreme courts of several western states,
with their tradition of "rugged individualism," do in fact
interpret their respective state constitutions more broadly
to grant individuals greater rights. If Nevada is one of
them, I wonder if Hiibel challenged his conviction on both
state and federal grounds. --Roy Zipris