v line

Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is IN the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here. -- Vice President Dan Quayle, Hawaii, September 1989

Search The Library




Follow Us!

Our Most Popular Article:
Power of Attorney
Our Most Popular Page:
Free Legal Forms
Our Newest Article: Personal Finance Guide


Pinkerton v. Verberg 99 S.Ct. 2627 (1979) says: Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,-to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only restrained as the rights to others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places; and while conducting themselves in a decent and orderly manner, distrubing no other, and interfering with the rights of no other citizens, there, they will be protected under law, not only their persons, but in their safe conduct. The constitution and the laws are framed for the public good, and the protection of all citizens from the highest to the lowest; and no one may be restrained of his liberty, unless he transgressed some law. Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and distroy all rights which our constitution guarantees.

Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal3d 777,789, quoting Florida v. Rover (1983): Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fouth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he was willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecutions his voluntary answers to such questions. The person approached, however, need not answer any questions put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his own way.

The Supreme Court has recognized the significant intrusion occasioned by an identifcation requirement in a statute. See Brown v. Texas 443 U.S.47, 52, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). "We believe that the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest."

Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.