U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right

Anonymous Arrestee writes "Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anybody can be compelled at any time to identify themselves, if a police officer asks. People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian? The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name. On this latter point, someone will have to bring a separate case. And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any case it doesn't like. The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada [pdf]. Previous Slashdot story here."

Possible scenarios

[Faust7 (314817)]

People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian?

"What's your name?"
"Rutherford."
"Rutherford is an unperson."
"Ogilvy."
"Ogilvy's a dead war hero."
"Uh--"
"To Miniluv with you!"

The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name.

"You are under suspicion for extreeeme bestiality."
"Uh, no."
"What's your name?"
"Forget it."
"To Miniluv with you!"

Dudley Hiibel's side

[po_boy (69692)]

Here's a link to Dudley Hiibel's side of the story: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/ [papersplease.org].

Thanks for fighting for my rights, Mr. Hiibel!

Implications

[sglider (648795)]

Unfortunatly, the unknowing average citizen believes that since they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't have a problem giving a policeman their identification. This in turns allow the powers that be to further ask for other information, such as, "What are you doing around here", and "Where are you going?" These in of themselves are rather harmless questions, but if we aren't careful, we can recreate Nazi Germany rather quickly. The ability to move about anonymously and not have to be on the defensive about who and where we are are inherent rights, and I can't see legal justification for making the innocent prove who they are and the guilty (or in this case, suspected of another crime) get away with not having to identify themselves. We are supposed to a people that believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', and not 'give in to everything the government wants' because its supposedly 'for our own good'.

Easy way out

[isomeme (177414)]

I think it's very kind of the Supremes to provide such a simple way out of this otherwise intrusive situation. If a police officer asks you for your name, simply inform him or her that, as you are wanted for another crime, you would prefer not to give your name. See how easy that is? I love this country!

Re:Easy way out

[Herkum01 (592704)]

Brings about an interesting "AH-HA" experience with consulting. Be prepared to address problems up front so that they cannot bring them up later. This is the best example I have heard of this,

The wife is in bed and the man brings 2 aspirin and a glass water. The wife says, 'I don't have a headache!'

I hope you get the idea now.

Down Under

[martinX (672498)]

Now I am surprised! Here in the land Down Under, we have always been compelled to identify ourselves to police. Name and address, but there's no ID card requirement.

There is also a charge for giving police a false name.

Try this for a start [qld.gov.au].

Or Google [google.com]

Not that any new laws are needed just to arrest

[RyanFenton (230700)]

I doubt there's anyone in America that could not be charged and convicted of a real legal offense that exists on the books somewhere in America in a given week. This isn't some nebulous concept of sin - I'm speaking of real laws that exist.

Still - the thought of being arrested for just walking around without a wallet, or not wanting to tell a strange officer your name is going further into the "oh, come on" realm.

I can imagine many ways to spin this both ways. Drunk people can be charged for even more crimes now if they get caught ashamed and unwilling to name themselves. So can plain embarassed or even crazy people.

Still - the judges had to decide based on the issues handed to them. I'd have preferred greater freedom here, but as a matter of law, they may be correct that this isn't a constitutional requirement. Always strange how legal decisions get made.

Ryan Fenton

catch-22

[QEDog (610238)]

So, they ask for your name, you refuse to tell them. They arrest you. If they arrest you, you have the right to remain silent, so you don't have to tell them your name.

To have the right not to tell them your name you have to get arrested?

Am I the only one that things this is hilariosly messed up logic?

Read the opinion

[Carnage4Life (106069)]

The argument of the Supreme Court is that your name doesn't incriminate you unless there are extenuating circumstances so asking you to identify yourself doesn't violate your 5th ammendment rights.

A few relevant quotes

[No Such Agency (136681)]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Also, a number of Philip K. Dick's books addressed the power of the drug war to instantly criminalize somebody, a power which oculd be used selectively against dissenters and political troublemakers. This is another example of a law which can be used selectively - the police choose who to ask, thus biasing the pool of possible arrestees. Demanding identification under duress - from people you know will be unwilling to provide it - has the benefit that it's all above board, and the ensuing arrests are in the interests of "security".

"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."

Incriminating, no, but it could be intimidating. This is, IMO, dangerously close to saying "if you're innocent, you should have nothing to hide".

Huh?

[Guspaz (556486)]

People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian? The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name.

So, lemme get this straight. You're NOT suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself, you get arrested. You ARE suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself and you DON'T get arrested? That's pretty fucked up.

It works both ways

[ozbird (127571)]

You have the right to ask the police officer for their ID. If you cannot confirm that they are indeed
a police officer, you have no obligation to give them your ID.
(However, saying "If you show me your's, I'll show you mine" will probably get you arrested.)

Re:It works both ways

[ONOIML8 (23262)]

You would think that was true. It's logical, right? And it would be the safe thing to do.

But, it doesn't work that way.

They are required to give you badge number and maybe a last name. You have no way of knowing if they are legit from that. Zero, zip, nada. You can't tell.

Not too many years back there was a series of crimes, including at least one rape, that were committed by a man wearing a uniform. He had a badge and a car with a light bar and siren.

How the hell would you be able to tell the difference?

For me, it's easy: trust nobody.

Re:It works both ways

[maximilln (654768)]

You have the right to ask the police officer for their ID
And they have the right to tell you,"You can find it out on the police report which you can pick up at the courthouse prior to your hearing for this ticket for obstruction of justice."

Don't be naive...

Not so fast...

[applemasker (694059)]

This isn't a blanket license for law enforcement to ask for "papers" or whatnot. To put it in context, the holding is that neither the 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures or the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination protect a citizen against giving their name in conjunction with an "investigative stop." If there was no investigative stop, and a citizen were mere asked to identify themselves, then the result could (and probably would) be different.

In this case, the police officer came upon a domestic dispute on the side of a roadway when Hiibel refused to identify himself. This is a little different from a cop walking up to you and asking for "papers." Under the circumstances, this request for identification (in the majority's view) is not unreasonably intrusive from a privacy standpoint. At this stage, asking for a name is not like patting him down or searching the car, both of which are more invasive and would require some additional justificaiton.

Also, before everyone stampedes for Canada, let's keep in mind that although there may not be any Federal Constituional prohibition against this, the States are all free to find that citizens in their jurisdiction enjoy greater state constitutional protection than the Federal provisions at issue here. That said, there is nothing preventing any individual state from a contrary holding under the exact same circumstances.

Personally, I disagree with the holding, but I am simply offering the rationale. The 5-4 split demonstrates, if nothing else, that reasonable minds can differ on this issue. (Also, the fact that O'Connor again "swings" the Court is interesting..)

Link to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions here [findlaw.com].

Often Moot - but it's still dangerous

[TomRC (231027)]

It's often a moot point. If you were stopped in your car, they'd have your license number. They would just ask you "Is this your car?" If you say yes, you've identified yourself. If you didn't say it is, and continued to be evasive, they would assume you'd stolen it and arrest you. Same thing if you were in your house and they came to your door. You MIGHT have been safe walking down the street on a public sidewalk, prior to this ruling.

The idea that you might be able to withhold your name if you are guilty means that remaining silent is automatically a confession - either you're guilty of something else, or you're guilty of withholding your name. The police will ALWAYS arrest you, and find some other means to identify you.

Also, since the police can arrest you for withholding your name, if you are trying to avoid being arrested for an outstanding warrant, they can hold you indefinitely - simply by asking you your name every 24 hours until you tell them (so they look up your outstanding warrants). Yep - forced self-incrimination.

My guess is that there will be a future case that gets to the supreme court, where an innocent person in a legal demonstration refuses to give their name, gets arrested, and refuses for weeks to give their name - and gets held by the police without any realistic opportunity to be set free. Then maybe the court will realize what they've done.

Terry VS Ohio

[Pharmboy (216950)]

This is not as unusual as it sounds. Terry VS Ohio set the standard for frisking, where an officer has the right to search someone if the have any reason to think the person has a weapon on them.

I am already stopped a couple times a month and have to show my DL at road blocks, in the country side. I don't want this to go too far, granted, but its not as different as what is the practice anyway.

As I understand the Constitution (and I believe I do), you have the right to express your opinion, be treated the same regardless of race, gender, etc., be free of unreasonable search and seizure (which is argueably not what this is), to not have to testify against yourself, and several other nicities that I agree need protection, always.

But I don't remember seeing that being anonymous is an absolute right. It is implied, to a degree, with speech in some but not all ways. Commercial speech is different than political speech, for instance. It is implied in that justice should be blind, and treat you the same as everyone else. But not a blanket right to be anonymous in all things.

If something SHOULD be a Right, but its not in the Constitution, its not a Right. Petition, get sponsors, submit an Amendment, get it ratified by 2/3rds of the states, and its a Right. It's difficult on purpose, for good reason: To keep it from being used frivilously or in the heat of the moment.

I am not convinced that a Right to be anonymous in all ways is a good thing.

Not entirely correct

[mrbrown1602 (536940)]

There's one major point most of the "major" media has left out about this ruling. The ruling only applies to the 20 states that have a law which requires persons to produce identification when they're suspected of criminal activity. This ruling does not apply to the other 30 states and the federal government which does not have laws which require identification.

In other words, this isn't going to turn into an East Berlin style state with cops asking for your papers - which hasn't been made legal by this ruling. You can only be thrown in jail or fined for not giving ID in a state that has a law that dictates that, and that's only in the case of being suspected of criminal activity.

5th Amendment and request for reason for stop

[0x0d0a (568518)]

The problem is that the suspect asked whether he was being arrested, and if so, why. Since this was a Terry stop, he did not recieve Miranda rights protection.

The problem is that invoking the Fifth Amendment requires knowing that self-incrimination is possible (which is why Hiibel's argument of Fifth Amendment protection was rejected by the US Supreme Court, as he shouldn't have been worried about self-incrimination). There is no real way to *know* whether you are at risk of self-incrimination without a police officer disclosing what they are considering charging you with. This basically renders useless Fifth Amendment protection against releasing identity, even though the US Supreme Court specifically said that the Fifth Amendment *could* apply to releasing one's identity.

This is a severely broken system. If police have no reason to potentially charge someone, they have no reason to stop them. If they have such a reason, I do not understand why they cannot be compelled to inform the person of what they are being accused of.

Re:5th Amendment and request for reason for stop

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023)]

In Canada the police in fact can be compelled to tell you why you are being arrested.

An immigrant friend o mine put that to the test a few years ago ...

Pulled over for no reason, the cop asked him to shut off the car and get out of the vehical.

He shut off the car, put the keys on the roof to show he was going nowhere. But would not get out of the car until he was told why he had to do so.

Of course that just angered the cop. Cop called for backup. After much time had passed, the cop's commanding officer arrived and put the damn junior cop in his place, and told the driver to have a nice day.

Why did my friend do this? Because in his home country he had no such rights, and wasn't going to get abused here where the law does protect him.

Party Affiliations

[Glamdrlng (654792)]

For those of you keeping track, all 5 supreme court justicies who ruled against Mr. Hiibel (ie, in favor of the state law requiring citizens to identify themselves) were Republicans, nominated by Republican presidents. Both of the Democrats on the Supreme Court were among the minority who ruled in favor of Mr. Hiibel. Election time's coming soon kids!

Backwards reasoning...

[by Anonymous Coward]

The fact that some people behave badly when (they believe) they can do so anonymously does not imply that there aren't perfectly valid reasons for wanting to be anonymous. So there.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[timeOday (582209)]

We shouldn't need a reason to not give information. Rather, the Goverment should need a reason todemand it. It seems so simple. We always decried countries where police could demand "papers'' at will for no reason. Now we are, i n effect, one of those countries.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[by Anonymous Coward]

yes, i agree with the converse poster, you should have posted non-anonymously, what gives you the right not to reveal yourself so we can laugh at you?

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[by Anonymous Coward]

or slashdot, even

i mean, uh, no, oops, um, please don't mod me down, i'm not anonymous, i mean, or a coward, or trolling, or, um, ... albksl

^^^^
above poster has some kind of disorder and has fallen on his keyboard. please feel sympathy for the anonymous.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[RLiegh (247921)]

Yep, Penny Arcade did a wonderful comic [penny-arcade.com] which illustrates that exact point.

Doesn't change that anonymity is one of the cornerstones of a functioning democratic society, however.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[ryanmfw (774163)]

Secret Ballots. Otherwise a sufficiently motivated group could bully voters who previously voted for another party.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[mandalayx (674042)]

Actually I've seen some of the most insightful comments come from Anonymous Cowards. Yes there are AC's that troll, flame, and do other shitty things. But you've seen good comments from AC's and so that's why they're here. Similarly important historical documents were sometimes posted anonymously, great literature has been written anonymously or under psuedonyms, and great web surfing has been done anonymously too :)

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[cheezedawg (413482)]

Before this ruling, we were not required so much as identify ourselves to the police if they had no probably cause for arrest. Now, we are.

What? This case was a challenge to the laws that 20 different states, including Nevada and New York, ALREADY have on the books that required people to identify themselves to the police if the they have "reasonable suspicion" to ask for it. This ruling doesn't change anything.

Of course it does

[Faust7 (314817)]

"Your papers, please?"

Sallah (laughing): Papers? Of course!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes.
Sallah: Papers. Got it here! Just finished reading it myself!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes?
Sallah: "Egyptian Mail," morning edition!
[to Marcus]
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Did you say, uh...
(Sallah punches German Dude)
Sallah: RUN!

Incredible...

[The Tyro (247333)]

Godwins law satisfied in less than ten posts; that's gotta be some kind of Slashdot record... (and modded +5 no less).

As I read the ruling, it seems to have more to do with someone being stopped on reasonable suspicion (something the officer must articulate in court), rather than stopping people willy-nilly to check their ID.

I'm as much a privacy advocate as the next guy, but I don't have a big problem with this.

If a cop stops me on the street for no good reason and hassles me, I'll go along with it, as long as we're on the street and it's mano-a-mano. Once we're no longer on his playing field, the game changes. There's a time to assert your "rights," and on the street where the officer is on his home turf is not the best time... if he's really a bad cop, you're taking an awful chance in provoking him. Be cool, be the "grey man," and make a mark in your accounts receivable.

Restitution is best arranged later, either in court, or in front of his sergeant/chief.

Re:Sound familiar?

[DarkSarin (651985)]

That's all fine and dandy, and to a large degree I think you're right. That said, there is something wrong with a world in which all too often, one is afraid that the police and/or government might do something harmful with your identification.

I don't trust the government, not because I think it is run by bad people, or that anyone there wants to hurt US citizens. On the contrary, I don't trust the gov't because they are responsible for setting their own salaries, and for raising the taxes that pay those salaries. It sounds basic, but the problem is that they have far too much personal interest in high taxes and lots of power (in order to be able to collect those taxes).

It is sad, but I honestly believe that there will come a time when we will no longer have certain freedoms, all in the name of security. That day, unfortunately, is now. We have lost so many freedoms due to security concerns. Unfortunately we live in a country where the vast majority feels that the gov't should take care of them (re: social security, gov't healthcare, welfare, etc.), and have extended this to personal safety (a road we have been on for a long time with things like anti-gun laws and even speeding laws). The further we go down this road, however, the less freedom we have. I personally would rather have more responsibility, and more freedom.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Alan Hicks (660661)]

Police are here to protect me.

I'm gonna argue this one becuase I think it's a point of view that needs to be considered, even if rejected, so bare with the devil's advocate here.

Police ain't here to protect you, except in limited circumstances. Police certainly protect a stalled car by slowing down traffic with their lights and similar instances, but when it comes to criminal investigations the police have no duty to protect you. The police man's only duty is to find out who committed the crime, and arrest him. In this regaurd, police are reactionary elements, not proactive gaurds of your security. Police show up after a crime has been committed, and at that point you're already a victum. How is this protection?

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e

[jeffkjo1 (663413)]

If all I have to give is my name, then I'm not particularly concerned. Just make up a name that doesn't sound too suspiciously bland (like John Smith) I think my new police officer name just became Bryan Wendy.

Of course, I will continue to list my address as
1060 West Addison
Chicago, Illinois
60613

And my social...
078-05-1120 [wired.com]

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e

[Fulcrum of Evil (560260)]

If all I have to give is my name, then I'm not particularly concerned. Just make up a name that doesn't sound too suspiciously bland (like John Smith)

And what if you really are John smith? Even worse, what about the Michael Boltons of the world?

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e

[gl4ss (559668)]

according to http://papersplease.org/hiibel/index2.html it went like this:

****

Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution.

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.

On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.
***

so what the hell? did the court decide? that his quilty but it's still not alright to ask for the id????

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e

[tooba (710518)]

Although this ruling does not directly lead to such an outcome, it does make it a lot easier to pass a "produce your papers" law farther down the road. I have always been under the impression that I could not be compelled to answer an officer's questions without my lawyer present. Why should asking for my name be any different? Can I get in trouble for providing an alias? What use is this ruling if I still dont need to identify myself if it would be self incriminating? Under what circumstances would a police officer demand my identity if not to arrest me? And if I am suspected of no crime, does it make sense that simply not giving my name can turn me into a criminal? Are prisons not already overcrowded? To anyone willing to give up their rights and the rights of their countrymen in order to make catching terrorists easier, I say shame on you. You are helping to destroy what was once a noble human experiment. The ideals that the United States were founded on are what I like about my country. It seems ironic that the leaders of this country would ask me to give up my freedom to protect my freedom. Maybe they're working with Al Queda. As soon as personal rights are completely eroded, they can just march in and institute a Christian/Islamofascist dictatorship in order to protect me from the terrorists. Why should I trust George Bush or Joe Sherriff with any more power than absolutely necessary? Power is just too easy to abuse.

Re:"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any c

[Damiano (113039)]

The reason the Supreme Court only hears cases it wishes is twofold.

1) As the original poster suggested, it allows them to only decide cases they feel are "ripe"

and more importantly:

2) The Supreme Court receives over *8000* requests for cert each year. They can only hand 80-120 cases or so. Needless to say they have to be able to filter some of the "junk" out.

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[interiot (50685)]

Far be it from me to suggest people RTFA, but the issue was specifically covered:

• Hiibel's contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.

eg. you shouldn't be forced (by imprisonment, torture, or otherwise) to admit to some crime. But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating. If the authorities already have some evidence against you, then they do either way, and hiding your identity won't change that.

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[maxpublic (450413)]

But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating.

Unless, of course, you're on the shit list of some local government agency, for speaking out against said government agency. And then you might suddenly find yourself with a busted tail light, a flat tire, or even 'suspicion of transporting drugs' which, in the South at least, can get your car completely dismantled.

But that doesn't happen in the good ol' U.S. of A., right?

Max

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[maxpublic (450413)]

"Nelson Walker, a young Liberian man attending college in North Carolina, was driving along I-95 in Maryland when he was pulled over by state police who said he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The officers detained him and his two passengers for two hours as they searched for illegal drugs, weapons, or other contraband. Finding nothing in the car, they proceeded to dismantle the car and removed part of a door panel, a seat panel and part of the sunroof. The officers found nothing and in the end handed Walker a screwdriver and said, "You're going to need this" as they left the scene. "

This is just one of a half-dozen incidents I located in about five minutes of searching online. This was in Maryland; the others were in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Sure, it doesn't happen in America. Uh-huh.

Max

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[Dhalka226 (559740)]

Doesn't this fly in the face of the cherished "right to remain silent"?

No. You have the right to remain silent when you are under arrest or are no longer free to leave. But even beyond that, your right to remain silent is to allow you to prevent incriminating yourself. Police do not have to mirandize you if 1) the information is non-incriminating in nature or 2) the information you've given is given voluntarily. Giving your name says nothing about your guilt or innocence. This is what the justices have ruled, as indicated in their holdings:

Held: Petitioner's conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination.

For those who are concerned about the ruling, however, take solace in the fact that the decision was 5-4 which means, historically, that the decision is prone to be overturned. After a very cursory examination of the dissents, Justice Stevens' opinion seems to be that that the Fifth Amendment does not provide for even a narrow exception like this. The other three dissenting justices (Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) seem more interested in why the justices reserved judgment about why answers to "what is your name?" can be compelled if it might lead to conviction on a different offense. As he puts it, "I would not begin to erode a clear rule with special exceptions."

IANAL, of course.

Re:canada anybody?

[Aardpig (622459)]

so, how come we aren't seeing the mass migration of all you intelligent americans to canada yet?

It's already happened -- he crossed the border last Thursday.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[maxpublic (450413)]

This ruling doesn't change the fact that police just can't ask to for your name for no reason at all.

That doesn't change the fact that the officer in question is the sole person responsible for deciding whether or not you're "under suspicion" for some crime...a crime which may be invented after the fact.

Unless you've snorted enough crack to think that all police officers are nice, law-abiding citizens. In which case let's pause while I laugh my ass off.

Max

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[c0dedude (587568)]

No, actually, they can [slashdot.org]. If you refuse, you will likely be arrested because it is suspicious that you aren't giving your name. Combined with Terry stops, this makes facist-style checkpoints very easy, and in the information age, one could track the movements of a citizenry. Remember the true meaning of Catch-22: They can do whatever we don't prevent them from doing.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[cheezedawg (413482)]

Um, yes they did. The police were called out on a report of a domestic disturbance between Hiibel and his daughter. Hiibel and his daughter were fighting -his daughter admits it when they start to question her- so I would say that the police did have reasonable suspicion to question him.

Re:whats the charge?

[DeepRedux (601768)]

Nevada, and a number of other states, has what is called a stop and identify statute. According the the ruling the Nevada's law is Nev. Rev. Stat. (NRS) 199.280 (2003).

In the past, vagrancy laws were used, but they were held to be too vague. Hence the need for a specific law.

The relevant parts of Nevada's statue are:

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

Re:License and registration please?

[blueZhift (652272)]

Well, on the one hand, since the U.S. doesn't have a national ID card, does this now make driving mandatory? On the other hand, it should make it easier for cops to get dates....Whoa! Where did that come from?

Seriously, this would seem to necessarily take us one step closer to requiring a national ID card in the most extreme of likely outcomes of the court ruling.

Re:A CLIT PSA

[JWSmythe (446288)]

Answer: No, sir.

If they're going to arrest you for not giving your name, they're just looking for an excuse to do it anyways. This just makes it too easy.

I still believe in my 5th amendment rights, and the magic words of Miranda, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you ...."

You'd be amazed how fast I got mute, if I'm not doing anything in the least way wrong. If I'm just standing on a sidewalk, minding my own business, it's no one elses business who I am.

Re:Not really

[by Anonymous Coward]

The government reserves the right to know who exactly is in the country. You're a citizen, you have certain responsibilities to the state if you don't want to get arrested - or you're an alien, and you have even more if you don't want to get evicted.

Holy shit, where to begin?! First of all, governments do not have rights with respect to citizens, it's the other way around. Govt's have powers not rights. The gov't can't possibly reserve a right to itself. It has none.

As to having responsibilities to the state, again, this is simply not true. I have a duty to be an informed voter. That's not due to the government, that's what I owe to my fellow citizens. I owe nothing to the gov't.

Try reading the pramble to the constitution. It's "We the people" reserve these rights, not "we the gov't will condescend to give you these rights"
Yes, the police's rights can be abused.

Oddly enough, the rights of the police are almost never abused. If you're a cop, other cops will respect your rights. Or did you mean the powers of the police, which is another question entirely?

Let me spell it out in case you're as dumb as you appear to be: the police have the same rights as any other citizen. No more, no less. If you don't understand the difference between rights and powers you have no business commenting on gov't powers or even voting. Go watch the Three Stooges and stay away from any ballot, please.