Can the State Require You to Carry ID Even When Not Driving

[BOR]

Although not mentioned in MOORE, the Exclusionary Rule of the 4th AM is applicable to the states, see Mapp v. Ohio.

IF a seizure was a direct byproduct of a 4th AM violation, the evidence must be suppressed.

IF the federal constitution permits a stop but that state constitution forbids it, then it is soley a state matter of evidence exclusion.

"STATUTORY" violations and contraband found as a result of it, are generally NOT subject to the exclusionary rule.

To jump start this thread for fun and education, here is a recent case, just decided last week, from the Ohio Supreme Court, I live in Ohio. It cites Moore.


http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/do...9-Ohio-316.pdf


Evidence obtained as a result of a statutory violation, and not a constitutional one, as I stated above, is generally admissable in court and not subject to the Exclusionary rule.

In part:


Analysis
{¶ 11} Our decision in Weideman and the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Virginia v. Moore (2008), __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 170 L.Ed.2d 559, are dispositive of this matter. Read together, Weideman and Moore stand for the principle that a law-enforcement officer who personally observes a traffic violation while outside the officer’s statutory territorial jurisdiction has probable cause to make a traffic stop; the stop is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Moore, __ U.S. at __, 128 S.Ct. at 1604, 170 L.Ed.2d 559; Weideman, 94 Ohio St.3d 501, 764 N.E.2d 997, syllabus.