"Raid" on TSA checkpoint at Manchester Airport

[polyanarch]

Oh, you're still around! Welcome back. I thought you'd gotten dragged off to Gitmo or something!

-not yet...

Actually, I've been seriously battling a tick-borne illness for quite a few months.  Too scatterbrained to get out to most of the web forums I used to haunt.  I think I'm getting better now so that I can handle more interactions with the cyber world.

[penguins4me]

At that he point he barked "let me see it anyways!" Since the Supreeme Court had just ruled that one can be arrested for refusing to identify oneself on the street, I complied. He also demanded my sign, as evidence.

A small note: Hiibel v. Nevada had the judges saying that the law requires an individual to "identify" his/herself. It should be detailed in the court's opinion (site down today, will be back up later) that a verbal statement is sufficient for this, i.e. no papers are required.

[J’raxis 270145]

At that he point he barked "let me see it anyways!" Since the Supreeme Court had just ruled that one can be arrested for refusing to identify oneself on the street, I complied. He also demanded my sign, as evidence.

A small note: Hiibel v. Nevada had the judges saying that the law requires an individual to "identify" his/herself. It should be detailed in the court's opinion (site down today, will be back up later) that a verbal statement is sufficient for this, i.e. no papers are required.

Actually, it's better than that—all the Supreme Court did was uphold the constitutionality of state laws that require this. If your state doesn't have such a law, you do not need to identify yourself.

[penguins4me]

Actually, it's better than that—all the Supreme Court did was uphold the constitutionality of state laws that require this. If your state doesn't have such a law, you do not need to identify yourself.

Right, which is more accurate than what I'd meant to say, which was "In Nevada ...". Thanks.

[Spencer]

Actually, it's better than that—all the Supreme Court did was uphold the constitutionality of state laws that require this. If your state doesn't have such a law, you do not need to identify yourself.

Right, which is more accurate than what I'd meant to say, which was "In Nevada ...". Thanks.

It gets even better than that -- it only addressed a law that required a person to identify himself when an officer had reasonable suspicion that the person had committed a crime.  It remains a shitty law, but . . .