go ask a cop or a judge...if your in public, you have to have an id, if a cop pulls you over and you dont have an id, he can take you to jail, just to see who you are. they have done it to me more than once.

If you can verify who you are without id, they will allow it. Just as long as they can check you out if they want to.

The only time they take you to jail is if you refuse to provide them with the information they want.

A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[9]

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to a police officer, and in some cases, provide additional information.

Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to identify himself. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[11] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[12] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a Nevada “stop and identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some “stop and identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.

it's up to the cop at the time, yes, you are right

http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=6926

Q: I’ve been told that the law requires everyone to carry some kind of legal ID. Is that true? If so, what kind of ID satisfies that requirement?

A: No, it’s not true. Neither Illinois nor U.S. law requires anyone to have an ID card, let alone carry one at all times. An ID can be required if you want to do certain things, like buy alcohol, but you’re never required to simply carry one with you



and

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/02/18/are-you-required-to-produce-id-if-a-cop-demands-it/

Contrary to what some might believe, there is no federal law mandating that we must provide identification when asked by police.

However, several states have “stop and identify” statutes that require people to produce identifications if they are being legally detained. And police can only legally detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion you have committed or are about to commit a crime.



the deciding factor here is whether one is already REASONABLY suspected of a crime,, not having the id , by itself, is not a crime

i was wrong about all states, but it's up to the cities, counties, and states to determine

REASONABLY can mean many things to

Yep. And if I didnt have my ID on me when they asked I would expect them to further investigate. Carrying ID is the law. Now they have the same law at the airports..Carrying ID.

1070 needs to be struck down because of the racial profiling it promotes and some other issues it has.

And the federal government needs to enforce the laws on books as should have been done all along.

If you knew as much as you think you do, you would realize that SB 1070 just reinforces the federal law at the state level. And once again, nowhere in the law does it say ANYTHING about race.

I've read the bill in its entirety. True statement quoted.

So, tell me who's racist. I say the ones that are screaming racism are the ones that are making it a racist issue.

Ditto!

seems like the ones crying about it the most are the ones that have something to hide or lose by it. if the government had been enforcing these laws for the last 30 years, it wouldn't be an issue now.

Exactly

Well, yeah. But in all honesty, both sides regardless of being conservative or liberal are creating issues out of air with only opinion backing them up.

It has been the same way in this forum for years, only moreso exasperated by the internet where you can find a foothold so to speak of information backing up a personal claim. Very few people here ever go outside their own comfort zone to verify their personal opinion. I'm happily one of the few, and trust me, even I wanted to hate this bill but after researching it I came to the conclusion that what was percieved was not what was true.

If you think the Arizona bill is racist then so is the Federal bill.They are no different except by enforcement.

still no references to the LAW that requires non drivers to carry identification,,,,,


if its indeed a law, it should be easily researched and I find no such MANDATE anywhere

first, because people dont all drive, and therefore wouldnt all have drivers license

which only leaves state id's, which last I checked are not mandatory for any reason....unless you need to prove age for a purchase or to enter an adult establishment

i thought we settled that...you were right.