MKEgal
Regular Member
Could you give more of a reference for this case please?Augustin said:In People v. Loudermilk, 241 Cal. Rptr. 208 (1987) it was ruled that "We must emphasize that we do not hold that a suspect may be detained and searched merely because he either refused to identify himself or refused to produce proof of indentification".
It looks like it could be useful & I'd like to add it to my blog page of useful quotes & court decisions.
What court was it? (What state, circuit, district, or was it SCOTUS?)
Does "241 Cal. Rptr." mean it was in CA?
He can ask all he wants, just like any other citizen.Citizen said:He's got his past and future tenses contradicting themselves.
Txtim49 is a former LEO who will ask for an ID.
According to him, if you don't consent to show an identity document during this consensual encounter, he's going to seize you.
And just like any other citizen, if he seizes someone because they choose to maintain their privacy, that person can fight back to the extent necessary to stop the illegal interference.
Touching someone without their consent is battery.
Have fun not being immune from lawsuits.