Today, however, we have "evolved" to a state of legal confusion and intentional obfuscation of our rights. We are supposed to have the right to free travel without harassment from government. That our property and our persons were to be free from search's and seizures unless, under due process (a judge says so), the person doing the searching must have "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But what if they do not have probable cause, hmmm, how about if we change that to just having "reasonable suspicion."

What is the difference, you might ask? Here it is, according to Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition Probable Cause is defined as: "Under the Fourth Amendment, probable cause - which amounts to more than a bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction - must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued." The lesser legally allowable phrase of reasonable suspicion, though not grounded in Constitutional Authority, is stated as: "A particularized and objective basis, supported by specific and articulable facts, for suspecting a person of criminal activity." So as we can see by the two definitions, the former (grounded in the Constitution), mandates a court order before a person can be searched or arrested. The latter allows for only suspicion, which any person with half a brain could articulate suspicion about anyone, leaving the Constitution in the dust; and now the legislative branch of the government has raised itself above the Constitution by making the rule of law (statute) greater than the Constitution.

In recent years the courts have found that an individual can be arrested, fined, and possibly be incarcerated for not providing identification and that police officers cannot be held accountable for denying a defendant's Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights.

This logic seems to fit the pattern of government's gradual infringement on citizen's rights. In a previous cases the court upheld the "stop and frisk" rule that is very prevalent today. This allows an officer to stop a person and physically frisk an individual for merely a "reasonable suspicion" and your rights be damned. The court knew full well that this was an encroachment of the rights of the people as their supporting statements have argued that because the "stop and frisk" action was of a <u>lesser forfeiture of the defendants liberty</u/, as compared to what is required to demand a warrant, it could be justified by a lesser burden of proof, therefore, the action of the officer was upheld as lawful.

What is quite interesting is that in previous cases, throughout our nations history, the courts have ruled that a defendant was "not obliged to respond" now can be charged with doing exactly that.

To further emphasize the point of how twisted the logic of the courts can get. The decision of the Court that the lesser incursion of liberty demanded a lesser requirement of suspicion resulted in a situation where any person on the street will now have to worry that they are in jeopardy of going to jail if they dared to demand their rights and not provide identification. If they invoke their Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions then they can be arrested and taken to jail. In essence the court has overruled the Constitution by statute.

The courts have determined that the Fifth Amendment right is not just a court right but also pertains to the jail or the street. The logic here is that if the Fifth Amendment applies at a Terry stop then, by definition, there is suspicion of a crime. If there is suspicion of a crime then the officers are investigating a criminal activity and the asking of the name or any other information is in relation to that investigation. This places a suspect in a predicament that if he does NOT answer the officer then he may be arrested and taken to jail. If he does answer the officer he has abrogated his Fifth Amendment rights and may be forced to incriminate himself. So now citizens may actually be arrested for utilizing a right.

If the Constitution is the basis for all law in the United States and if the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the rights of the citizens; what recourse does the citizenry have when the courts that are in place to protect the Constitution refuse to do so?

Now with the looming national ID Act, the Homeland Defense strategy, and the illegal immigration issues; it is only a small step to rationalize that because it is now a law that you must identify yourself to police officers when they ask; the government may mandate that the government ID card be carried at all times to be presented to law enforcement when asked.

I can hear the echo now that will ring in the streets of America, as they did in Europe in ages past, "PAPERS, PAPERS PLEASE."

P.S. One of the current projects of the FBI is to gather data to seed the bio-metric database, such as facial features. Part of the Real-ID act establishes the following under SEC. 202. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS:
"(d) Other Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall adopt the following practices in the issuance of drivers' licenses and identification cards:
 (3) Subject each person applying for a driver's license or identification card to <b>mandatory facial image capture.</b>" (Emphasis added)

Just a coincidence? I don't think so!