It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AlphaHumana
...Every single time I go to Wal-Mart I am asked for Driver's License if I use my credit card ...
Originally posted by AlphaHumana
... Heck, I think it would also be a good idea to have other important information on the ID we all carry everywhere anyway just for safety purposes e.g. "diabetic" "O-positive" "pacemaker." ...
Originally posted by dave_54
I cannot recall ever having being asked for any other ID.
1. Request a signature. Ask the cardholder to sign the card and provide current government identification, such as a driver's license or passport (if local law permits).
2. Check the signature. Be sure that the cardholder signature on the transaction receipt matches the one on the card and the additional identification.
3. Complete the transaction. If the signatures appear reasonably the same and the authorization request is approved, continue the transaction. If the cardholder refuses to sign the card, do not accept the card.
usa.visa.com...
Originally posted by smirkley
In summary, this little benign right that one feels so warm and fuzzy and "protected" when they GIVE IT UP, is just an example of how easily we give up our rights for all the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by smirkley
We so easily give up our rights because "its too much of a hassle to resist" the rights being taken away. Its just easier and gets you "out of the store" to instead comply with request for "your papers".
Its just easier to succumb than to uphold, for convenience or whatever reason.
Originally posted by semperfortis
I can't fathom yet what "RIGHT" you feel you are losing?
Showing or Not Showing an Identification is in no way a "Right."
It is not protected under the constitution nor has it been addressed by the Supreme Court as I can find....
What "Right" is it that you are worried about losing?
Semper
The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither. - Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by Atomic
I suggest you go to Wal-Mart and refuse to show your ID, video tape it, make a stink about it, get your name in the paper and go from there. Apparently your issue isn't really the showing of ID, but the idea that some people don't recognize when they are volunteering up their private information versus required to give up their personal information. I don't think it will make much of splash...
Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification and request consent to search luggage...
In other words, the police are free to approach us and ask us questions, but Americans retain the right to say "No." Indeed, if citizens do not affirmatively assert their right to say "No," the courts will deem those rights to have been "waived." The lesson was that citizens must take responsibility for their own rights. That sounds sensible enough.
But now consider what has happened to Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel was standing outside of his truck smoking a cigarette when a cop approached him. Minutes before, policeman Lee Dove had received word of a 911 call from someone who had reported seeing a fight between a man and a woman inside a truck. Dove did what any good cop would do in the situation—he started asking questions. Addressing Hiibel, Dove asked, "You got any identification on you?" Hiibel offered no violent resistance and did not attempt to flee, but he did politely refuse to answer any questions. For that—and that alone—Hiibel was arrested and prosecuted for "obstructing an officer."
Hiibel's attorneys appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that such an arrest could not stand. In a shocking ruling that was authored by none other than Justice Kennedy, the Court affirmed Hiibel's conviction. Because it is obviously useful for the police to know the identity of suspects, the Court concluded that it is equally obvious that jailing people who decline to answer questions is a constitutionally permissible policy. But what happened to our right to say "No"?
Constitutional and criminal law experts are now coming forward to defend the Hiibel ruling, arguing that the decision is "narrow" and does not grant the police the power to approach any pedestrian and to demand identification. That is only true in a very technical, legal sense. The awful truth is that the police have now acquired the de-facto power to demand identification from just about anyone. With the Hiibel precedent on the books, here is the legal situation for anyone who might consider rebuffing a cop's demand for identification.
1. A person can still refuse to give his name if he is confident that the particular jurisdiction has no law requiring individuals to identify themselves to the police during "Terry stops." (A Terry stop is a situation where a police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has occurred. The officer can briefly detain or stop a person to investigate.) In addition to the state code, one must be confident about county and city ordinances. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, an error on your part means you could be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for up to one year.
2. Cops do not approach pedestrians with announcements like, "This is a Terry stop!" Thus, in a sudden confrontation, one can gamble that the officer is not conducting a Terry stop and is instead simply seeking your voluntary cooperation. Of course, if you are wrong, you can be arrested and jailed for up to one year.
3. A person can decline to give his name if the cop is attempting to make an illegal Terry stop. To prevail here, however, one must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a judge that the stop was illegal. If you lose, you could be jailed for up to a year.
4. Even in situations where the Terry stop is perfectly valid, you can still withhold your name on Fourth Amendment grounds. To prevail here, however, you must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a judge that the police officer's demand for your name was not "reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop." If you lose, you could go to jail for up to one year.
5.One can also decline to give one's name on Fifth Amendment grounds. To prevail here, however, one must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a court that divulging the name would have given the police a "link in the chain of evidence" needed to convict you of another offense. If you lose, once again, you face up to one year in jail.
Given the risk and uncertainty, nearly everyone will be deterred from traversing this legal minefield in order to rebuff an illegal police demand for identification. And the demands will hardly end with people's names. Many jurisdictions already have laws that require people to explain their conduct to the police (e.g. What are you doing? Where are you going?). That will be the next battleground in this area of the law.
The key point is that in a free society, the criminal laws are supposed to be clear so that citizens will know what conduct is prohibited. With the Hiibel ruling, the Supreme Court has created a situation where ordinary Americans cannot be sure if they are invoking their constitutionally-guaranteed rights or whether they are committing a crime. If that is not a travesty for American justice, what is?
Originally posted by smirkley
Basically, Walmart on down to mom-n-pops stores often ask for ID when they have NO legal basis for asking. There are ONLY two other conditions when additional ID may be asked for,... unsigned on the reverse of the card, or signed as "Ask for ID", the latter is used when a card holder prefers to be asked on a regular basis.
[snip]
You already have fraud protection as a cardholder, and to ask for ID is just plain harassment as that kind of action ONLY protects the merchant from losses. (which wouldn't occur if they were to follow normal authorization procedures)
originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
On a marginally related note, how many people realize that no one other than an official federal agency can demand to see your social security card or require you to tell them your SSN.
Originally posted by smirkley
When one looses or percieves to lose some right that they could not have fathomed losing, like as suggested, even constitutional rights, they get all up in arms and cry foul. They state that the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if alive today. They state that democracy in this republic is over becouse of some right they lost somewhere in government legislation.
Originally posted by chissler
The drama.
Then when we do not agree, you call us on hypocrisy. Yes you did not use the term, but the message is loud and clear.