Former commissioner of police Gary Griffith said yesterday he supported the Government’s proposal to require people 16 and older to possess identification in public spaces, arguing that the measure could improve law enforcement without unnecessarily inconveniencing the public.Acknowledging that some people would view the proposal as excessive, Griffith said similar legislation existed in other countries and served practical policing purposes.“I know many people will see this as a dictatorial approach, and speak about it being a police state and so forth. However, there are many countries that have a similar type of law,” he told the Express.Griffith said he believed the proposal was not intended to lead to unnecessary arrests, but to give police a reliable way of identifying people during investigations, roadblocks or other incidents.He said officers would be better able to identify potential witnesses, locate people for follow-up enquiries if necessary, determine whether someone later became a person of interest, and verify whether individuals were in the country legally.“So now police can know for a fact, via checking their databases, if a person is wanted by the law, if a person has outstanding warrants, etc. So there is a lot of value in the direction this can go,” he said.Griffith also pointed to illegal immigration as another reason for supporting the proposal.Recalling his tenure as minister of national security, he said official data at the time indicated there were more than 110,000 illegal immigrants in Trinidad and Tobago based on records of people who entered through legal ports but never ­departed.He said that figure did not account for people who entered through illegal ports and added that the current number was unknown.“If there is still a situation like that, we can now, with this proposal, pinpoint persons who are here legally, and again ensure the police have a proper means to know who they are dealing with and not just something that someone says,” Griffith said.He also sought to address concerns that members of the public could be detained simply because they were not carrying identification.“From what we have seen in the public domain so far, it doesn’t yet mean if you don’t have your ID card, then the police will intend to arrest you and have you remain overnight,” he said.Griffith said a person could have forgotten an identification card at home and should be allowed to leave, but could be required to return later and produce identification.He urged the public not to rush to judgment on the proposal, saying he believed Cabinet would have examined the issue before bringing it forward.“Before people jump to conclusions, I believe some research would have been done by Cabinet to consider whether something like this can be of value for us to assist the law enforcement agencies in the performance of their duties,” Griffith said.