Identify or Jail (ID Refusal)

Watch on YouTube

Show annotations




Genre: Music

Family friendly? Yes

Wilson score: 0.7449

Rating: 4.0187 / 5

Engagement: 1.29%

Priscilla The Outlaw

Subscribe | 3.5K

Shared June 14, 2019

Ive been busking during the traveling season. It lets me get practice in, make people happy, and enables me to save enough money to Record My First Profession FULL STUDIO ALBUM.

#IDRefusal #Freedom #Outlaw #Music #Tyrant

The problem has been that the people that hold signs asking for "gas money" and usually fake needs that support habits call me in to the law with fake alegations, such as I sell cds. The law comes and never asks for my side of any story. I want to be left alone, if you check me out on facebook you can tell I make people smile and don't bother a soul.

I was protecting my husband as best I could. The cops become SUPER aggressive around him because he has an attitude from being pushed in the past. And pushed for nothing and a lot, just like myself. Y'all have a great day!

My Story -

Spotify -

"Stop and identify" statutes are statutory laws in the United States that authorize police[1] to legally demand the identity of someone whom they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime. If there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in "Stop and ID" states.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a patdown for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel case also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though the court did mention a California law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3][4]