Court Ruling: ID Refusal arrest ~ Unwarranted

[Pa. Patriot]

LITTLE ROCK — A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed an Arkansas federal judge’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in a Benton County man’s lawsuit challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop. (He was a passenger, not the driver)

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2008...day/news10.txt

[ChuckS]

LITTLE ROCK — A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday....

I wonder how much the defendant had to spend on lawyers fees?

I wonder how that would go down in PA? Since this is a federal appeals court would this affect PA?

[awkx]

Since this is a federal appeals court would this affect PA?

Arkansas is in a different federal circuit, so the ruling is *not* binding precedent in PA, but it may be cited as persuasive (not binding) authority.

[Philadelphia]

LITTLE ROCK — A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed an Arkansas federal judge’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in a Benton County man’s lawsuit challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop. (He was a passenger, not the driver)

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2008...day/news10.txt

It never fails to amaze me how fine the line there is between being a free man and "papers please." I can see how the cop felt justified in demanding ID. Our liberties have eroded to the point where the right to travel and to be free of gov't intrusion just because is an afterthought.

At least a judge finally gets it. The gov't can't ask people to identify themselves for no reason. While a traffic stop might not feel like "no reason" even when viewing a passenger, if that were OK, why not just set up pedestrian check points and run warrant searches on everyone passing through?

The driver needs to have a driver's license. No problemo. The passenger should be viewed the same as a pedestrian.