Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Agree on both counts.
|
I'm not sure. Say they pull up to an outdoor murder scene with one person standing over the body. No witnesses, no weapons in sight. There is no way they should let you go without knowing who you are.
That said, your refusal should not serve as a sole and independent basis for a criminal conviction (which is what happened here). Rather, they should be able to bring you in and print and photograph you. They should be able to hold you until they establish your identity. In recognizance-bonds, this happens somewhat frequently (they refuse to release you until you establish your identity). However, there they have an independent charge to justify holding you. And without a charge, they can't hold you for long until now.
So I don't like the fact that they've now authorized a new charge for failure to establish identity, if that's what they've done. But they should be authorized to hold you without charge until you have reasonably identified yourself, so long as they have a reasonable basis to ask you to do so in the first place.
Come to think of it, was this guy in a motor vehicle on a state-supported highway when they nabbed him? If so, and if it was any part of the justification for being to hold him, then I agree that he could be held. Drivers shouldn't be able to avoid identifying themselves.
Just off the top of my head. And I know that holding without charge thing doesn't work here, which is why I'm a bit mixed.
Hello
