how is the police officer asking for you ID going to prove/dispprove you just robbed a 7-11?
did the 7-11 get a copy of the robbers ID information to give to police?
since you bring up common sense, you should know that having or not having an ID is NOT going to ID a robber from a crime scene.
Your statement as written is accurate as it will not prove the identity of the perpetrator of a crime. Yes, you do have the right to privacy. Privacy and confidentiality are shelters for crime and bad things.
Lets look at the common sense.
A robber on foot will have an increased heart rate from clearing the scene as fast as possible and the adrenaline from the act. As a jogger so do you. Bad guys don't want to have any contact with law enforcement, neither do innocent citizens. They attempt to blend in and look normal. As a jogger you look like a reasonable person doing a normal thing. A quick change of clothing changes the appearance and lowers the chances of being identified... by the way that is the origination for the baggy pants falling off fad that is popular.... anyway a tank top and running short fits quite nicely under typical baggy clothing...lose the outer wear and poof they have an easy and quick way to explain certain physical features if they are caught in the area. Ditch the gun and cash and no "proof" is immediately there. Joggers commonly don't carry id, so they can lie if checked. They just have to keep a clear head and have the correct information.
All responding officers are going to check everybody in the area that catch their attention. Why, because witness identification during an incident like this is sketchy. Officers know they can't trust it. Now, What catches their attention will correspond directly with their experience and knowledge of the area.
You are stopped, have no id, and after a bad day you are trying to burn off a little frustration by running, you know you have done nothing wrong and your adversarial attitude slips out. Common sense tells the officer something is up, time to spend a bit more time digging up the truth. The officer is not going to let you go until they are sure you have nothing to do with the incident. You get increasingly frustrated so does the officer; Things are not going to be pretty from there. Regardless of the outcome, you will be held much longer than you need to be.
Small change, even without an id, you give the officer all your info and try your best to insure accurate identification and your reason for being in that spot at that exact moment of time. You even tell the officer you are pissed off, it has been a ****ty day, and that they are not making it any better checking you for a BS reason. A quick records check, a few more prying questions to confirm you are who you say you are, and the officer feels comfortable he has heard the truth. If it happens to be a professional officer you get a quick apology and off you go. If not, you get a smart ass comment and sent on your way. Either way you are out of there faster without as much stress.
With an id, you are identified visually and confirmed by a records check, identification adds weight to your story, increases the officers confidence in you and your story. This speeds the officer along. If they were wrong and you later turn out to be the perpetrator they can place you in the area and that increases the chances for conviction.
your minor inconvenience in carrying ID, while not required can assist in capturing the person responsible for the crime indirectly. It may assist you by decreasing the amount of time you are detained or interrupted from your day.
All you can do is check to see if he's got any other warrants against him to hold him on if you don't have any other real proof. ahhh... I hit it on the head right there.... you need the ID to check for warrants to hold them in lack of any other real proof.
I hope you are beginning to see there is a different thought process a Law Enforcement officer has to use in his job. Bad guys use common, logical events to to evade capture. What you believe is common sense in your world is not in the law enforcement world. There common sense says: Everybody lies, and unless you are a new born you are far from innocent. Taking an unknown's word for anything can get them killed or worse.
An officers has to expect guilt, try to prove it, and still protect themselves and others while they do it. At the same time they have to uphold your constitutional rights. Most want to. It is a very tight balancing act.
There is a joke created by a comedian who's name I can not recall that clearly identifies the "Innocent until proven guilty" weakness.
A man goes into a bank, raises a gun and yells this is a hold up. Cameras and witness are present and clearly see his face. He is wrestled to the ground by a security officer and cuffed. Police arrive and take him into custody, recover the gun, and the video tape. They take all the witness statements.
As soon as the person is walked out the door he is the "suspect" and presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Like they are not sure he was the same person that was apprehended inside.
Innocent until proven guilty is a constitutional directive giving a person a chance for a fair trial and to prevent the people in the bank from hanging or shooting you right there and then. It gives a safety cushion for rare events that are far more often in Hollywood than real life but still possible. It also gives a perpetrator of a crime a larger chance of keeping their life and becoming a useful member of society. It is not a law enforcement directive.
