Detained by law enforcement

[TBoneTX 46,151]

Congratulations and commendations to the OP for performing correctly, mostly. Anyone who thinks that the OP acted wrongly and should have "given in" should see the resources below.

Repeat to yourself until you believe it: The police are not our friends unless we start the conversation.

BUSTED:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

ACLU:

http://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf

[Removed030114 48]

On the flip side of the ID argument - an LPR over the age of 18 is supposed to ALWAYS carry their green card

http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted

Obviously most of us do not walk around with ID when simply going for a walk. I do, but that is because I want someone to know who the heck I am if something happens like a car hits me.

The OP was on the streets of Texas where there is no law that requires you to carry ID when you're not driving a car, that includes mexicans and new immigrants with or without green cards. How about that? So, you try to cooperate after being pinned between two police cars and ask if you're being detained? What's the matter with you people? So many Americans willing to relinquish their rights when they don't even know basic law. Pathetic!!

Edited February 23, 2014 by CNTrav

[NikLR 13,232]

The OP was on the streets of Texas where there is no law that requires you to carry ID when you're not driving a car, that includes mexicans and new immigrants with or without green cards. How about that? So, you try to cooperate after being pinned between two police cars and ask if you're being detained? What's the matter with you people? So many Americans willing to relinquish their rights when they don't even know basic law. Pathetic!!

Did you read that it is USCIS FEDERAL law that a green card holder over the age of 18 must carry their green card at all times? State law doesn't trump federal law, sorry. A USC does not, but an LPR over the age of 18 must due to federal law. No one said that an LPR had to provide the ID unless required. I said they had to CARRY.

My husband works for the federal government. Just because we live in Colorado doesn't mean he can smoke recreational pot because the state law says it's okay. LOL!!!

Edited February 23, 2014 by NLR

[Removed030114 48]

Did you read that it is USCIS FEDERAL law that a green card holder over the age of 18 must carry their green card at all times? State law doesn't trump federal law, sorry. A USC does not, but an LPR over the age of 18 must due to federal law. No one said that an LPR had to provide the ID unless required. I said they had to CARRY.

My husband works for the federal government. Just because we live in Colorado doesn't mean he can smoke recreational pot because the state law says it's okay. LOL!!!

It's okay to be wrong and wrong you are. Look at the state law. Remember, we live in the USA, which means, united states of America. Texas law does not require you to carry ID if you are not driving a car. Is it helpful to carry? Maybe, but it's not required, and a green card holder or illegal alien cannot be prosecuted for not having on hand. I wish the illegals would be prosecuted, but the fact is they are not. Why not? ACLU. Please buy a clue.

[Boiler 46,129]

To be perfectly fair, if you're from the Black Country he probably didn't understand a ###### word you were saying anyway. Yam-Yam.

Walking while Black?

[NikLR 13,232]

It's okay to be wrong and wrong you are. Look at the state law. Remember, we live in the USA, which means, united states of America. Texas law does not require you to carry ID if you are not driving a car. Is it helpful to carry? Maybe, but it's not required, and a green card holder or illegal alien cannot be prosecuted for not having on hand. I wish the illegals would be prosecuted, but the fact is they are not. Why not? ACLU. Please buy a clue.

You should look in the mirror bud

<EOM>

[Boiler 46,129]

Did you read that it is USCIS FEDERAL law that a green card holder over the age of 18 must carry their green card at all times? State law doesn't trump federal law, sorry. A USC does not, but an LPR over the age of 18 must due to federal law. No one said that an LPR had to provide the ID unless required. I said they had to CARRY.

My husband works for the federal government. Just because we live in Colorado doesn't mean he can smoke recreational pot because the state law says it's okay. LOL!!!

That bags the question what right the Feds have to legislate on the issue.

And what rights an Employer has to regulate your non working activities.

[r060106 109]

Did you read that it is USCIS FEDERAL law that a green card holder over the age of 18 must carry their green card at all times? State law doesn't trump federal law, sorry. A USC does not, but an LPR over the age of 18 must due to federal law. No one said that an LPR had to provide the ID unless required. I said they had to CARRY.

My husband works for the federal government. Just because we live in Colorado doesn't mean he can smoke recreational pot because the state law says it's okay. LOL!!!

Granted Federal law trumps state law, that still doesn't explain why the police were stopping him in the first place. How would they known he was an LPR in the first place without first hearing his accent? I think the fact they stopped him is the real issue here.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Granted Federal law trumps state law, that still doesn't explain why the police were stopping him in the first place. How would they known he was an LPR in the first place without first hearing his accent? I think the fact they stopped him is the real issue here.

I can't figure out why they would stop him, my best guess is that it is Texas and "walking" is strange behavior (which sickens me), or that it was an area known to be a place where drug deals happen.

Either way, whatever they were thinking, it is not illegal to walk, and it was improper for them to ask for ID just because they wanted it. This is a federal law, recently upheld in the supreme court.

It seems Hypnos is following up on the matter, he mentions getting "redress," and it is very good he is doing so. I also hope he got the officers names and ID numbers. I know officers have quotas, but they should be looking for real crime instead bothering people on a walk. If they thought he was loitering or something (which isn't illegal on public property), they could have told him leave the area. There was no need to check his ID.

[No name 88 48]

Got much to hide? You didn't win; you lost!

There are 24 states that require you to identify or you'll be arrested called Terry Stops. There is no law that requires you carry ID but you are required to identify yourself. If a cop asks just give him your ID. Playing the civil rights card is going to piss off the cop and he is going to see it anyway.

Only guilty people refuse to identify. Hence the officer already has reasonable suspicion and the officer is not required to tell you what it is until your under arrest. It's a catch-22 by design.

Doing the right thing is not always doing the right thing. Anyone with a little street smarts knows this. Also this advice only works if your white and I mean really white. If your a darker immigrant and act like this it won't end the same way and the lawyers, media won't care. You're a darker immigrant with no money. It's the reason a missing white child is national news while a missing black child is not.

Go on and be a civics' hero; I'll surrender my ID and be on my way.

[No name 88 48]

I can't figure out why they would stop him, my best guess is that it is Texas and "walking" is strange behavior (which sickens me), or that it was an area known to be a place where drug deals happen.

Either way, whatever they were thinking, it is not illegal to walk, and it was improper for them to ask for ID just because they wanted it. This is a federal law, recently upheld in the supreme court.

It seems Hypnos is following up on the matter, he mentions getting "redress," and it is very good he is doing so. I also hope he got the officers names and ID numbers. I know officers have quotas, but they should be looking for real crime instead bothering people on a walk. If they thought he was loitering or something (which isn't illegal on public property), they could have told him leave the area. There was no need to check his ID.

Half wrong information!

The Supreme Court knocked down NYC's stop and frisk policy and requirement to carry ID but not stop and identify. Two times the Supreme Court has denied hearing cases for stop and identify. Federal district courts have ruled that identifying yourself is not unreasonable search and seizure. In NYC if you don't identify when asked your under arrest; simple as that.

Your all giving dangerous advice to newly arrived immigrants. Just produce your ID and be done. Why are you telling these people to escalate the situation when your immigration status could be on the line.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Half wrong information!

The Supreme Court knocked down NYC's stop and frisk policy and requirement to carry ID but not stop and identify. Two times the Supreme Court has denied hearing cases for stop and identify. Federal district courts have ruled that identifying yourself is not unreasonable search and seizure. In NYC if you don't identify when asked your under arrest; simple as that.

Your all giving dangerous advice to newly arrived immigrants. Just produce your ID and be done. Why are you telling these people to escalate the situation when your immigration status could be on the line.

There is no way your immigration status would be "on the line" for not producing ID when stopped for "walking." They didn't ask him his name, they asked for his ID. I think a little "what seems to be the trouble, officer" would have gone a long way instead of "am I being detained?" but I would not have given any ID if I were stopped for "walking" and no immigrant has to either.

[TBoneTX 46,151]

(Moderator hat on) One post removed for editing, with acceptable portion returned here:

TOS-infringing text deleted by Moderation So, why are there so many millions of illegal aliens who don't have ID, cannot produce ID, vote, and walk our streets everyday, drive cars, not being deported? Well, hmmmmm???? Text deleted by Moderation

Edited February 23, 2014 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 46,151]

(Moderator hat off)

Being required to carry one's green card is a Federal requirement. Regular law-enforcement officers (LEOs) can't ask your immigration status unless their agency belongs to the 278g program.

Bearing in mind that I'm not a lawyer, read this post in regard to "stop & frisk," etc.:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/461269-woman-called-for-a-medical-response-after-fiance-took-too-many-pills-police-arrive-and-shoot-him/?p=6598570

[Boiler 46,129]

There is no way your immigration status would be "on the line" for not producing ID when stopped for "walking." They didn't ask him his name, they asked for his ID. I think a little "what seems to be the trouble, officer" would have gone a long way instead of "am I being detained?" but I would not have given any ID if I were stopped for "walking" and no immigrant has to either.

He was walking.

In Texas.

Highly suspicious.