0

I do know that there are jurisdictions in which police officers can ask for ID for no apparent reason (here in Italy they can just ask a person for ID without any reason or any legit ground, just for formality), and there are jurisdictions wherein it is illegal to do so (seemingly the UK, but correct me if I'm wrong). For the cases in which asking ID with no ground is illegal, it seems that the definition of "ground" changes according to any police officer, because any police officer can bypass all this thing and just say "I checked your ID because you look like a drug dealer", by making it pass as a legit ground while it is not.

Is it correct to say that the laws stating checking without grounds is illegal, pragmatically, are just rendered meaningless by how any officer perceives the notion of "ground" or can samely make up a new one? As I said, if a cop checks illegally a person without any ground, they can just say that they suspected the checked individual to be a drug dealer and get away with it.

So as I see it, I can say that these laws are circumventable with any excuse that a officer may give, and the latter can be undisputed and unverifiable, since (fake) suspicion is not verifiable.

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    @BlueDogRanch this does not answer my question.
    – abdul
    Nov 1, 2019 at 14:10

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Is it correct to say that the laws stating checking without grounds is illegal, pragmatically, are just rendered meaningless by how any officer perceives the notion of "ground" or can samely make up a new one?

Whether that is correct or not entirely depends on the ability to get the officer's actions judicially reviewed. This depends on the jurisdiction. Where such an ability exists, you can use it to legally tell the officer where to get off. In this case "the laws stating checking without grounds is illegal" are definitely meaningful.

For instance, in New Zealand you can file a judicial review of what the officer did. He would have to articulate that what he did was justified and not an abuse of power/discretion. If he fails to convince the judge, his actions will be declared illegal.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    New Zealand I assume it is a total different reality in which police officers are generally professional and nice, and for the few bad apples a justification can be asked by a judge, and all of the latter just happens rarely in that country I guess, but I'm asking about other circumstances, when it comes to fascist and injustice-based systems such as the US.
    – abdul
    Nov 2, 2019 at 22:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .