There aren’t a lot of people that don’t suffer some degree of anxiety when pulled over for a traffic violation stop; or when they are stopped on the street by a police officer for some questioning or a possible frisk of their person. Those that are especially nervous are typically the very people that are most vulnerable to police abuse, which would include just about anyone that is not part of the favored class in America. In other words, there aren’t very many people that are outside of the privileged class, that ever welcome any unanticipated interaction with a police officer, which regrettably, is the state of these affairs in America, at the present time.
While there are many things that could go wrong for somebody that is stopped by a police officer, one of the most annoying things for those being questioned, is the fact that most people, feel compelled to provide identification to the officer so requesting it, irrespective of whether or not, this is something so required by law to do. In other words, those operating a vehicle, for a certainty must provide their identification; but someone just walking down a public street is not required by law to do so, unless under specific circumstances; but when that law as practiced is right in front of a person’s face, most people see that the better part of valor, is to provide identification to that officer, because they know if not so provided, the situation could easily progress to something much more serious, and far worse. That said, one of the problems with identification, is that the typical ID card that a person has, consists of a lot of important information – such as one’s legal name, their present address, their date of birth, along with their physical characteristics. This then is the type of information, that in the wrong or abusive hands, could lead to personal harm or harassment, or both.
What really doesn’t seem fair, especially in consideration that a lot of officers, are in theory, beholden to such mottos as “to protect and to serve,” is that the officer, except in some particular situations, does not need to identify themselves to the person that they are questioning. In other words, police officers, are provided with the protection to keep their real identity private from the person so being questioned, who as a private citizen has had to divulge their own identity. That type of construct, quite obviously, lends itself to abuse, because whenever the arm of the law, is able to hide behind the symbol of being a police officer, whereas the general public has for all practical purposes, been essentially compelled to identify themselves, along with possibly explaining the why and who about what is so going on, sure doesn’t seem to represent either “protection,” or “service.”
So then, what would be a better deal for the general public and make for a format which would encourage more civil interactions between the people and police officers, along with also making those officers more accountable to those that they are sworn to protect and to serve, is to have those officers provide some sort of identification to those so being stopped by the police, which would at a minimum, at least identify that officer, with their specific badge number and last name -- which is what “The Right to Know Act,” is essentially all about. After all, accountability should be part and parcel of being a good police officer, of which, those officers then that are reluctant to identify themselves to the public, would thus seem suspicious, by their refusal to properly identify themselves.