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."

cowards hide anonymously

[nuttyprofessor]

Actually, the flaming in usenet and elsewhere demonstrates
how badly people behave if they think they are anonymous.

Sound familiar?

[Aardpig]

"Your papers, please?"

canada anybody?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

even the most right-winged uber-conservatives from the states that i know love canada.

This is nothing

[superpulpsicle]

Years from now your computer will make you use retina scan. Without that you can't login and your pet robot will beat the shit out of you.

Those who think U.S. is becoming more free is absolutely on crack. We are prisoners to our own PC, spyware, viruses, martha steward pajamas.

So much for the right to remain silent.

[autopr0n]

Doesn't this fly in the face of the cherished "right to remain silent"? I mean, how can you identify yourself without speaking?

I don't really know what to say about this, other then that it's a desturbing step backwards. I can see corrupt police arresting someone for identifying themselves "incorrectly" (i.e. if the cop dosn't belive them).

Very dissapointed in SCOTUS.

Identify only in Specific Cases

[Pave Low]

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.

No, that is just not correct. The court held that police, based on reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity can compel him to identify themself.

This ruling doesn't change the fact that police just can't ask to for your name for no reason at all. At least get the facts right in your own damn summary before going off on "your rights".

Backwards reasoning...

[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.

Implications

[sglider]

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'.

The lesson here...

[Eberlin]

Do not act suspicious enough to be asked to identify yourself. It's disheartening but accepted policy that anonymity isn't much of an option when the authorities get involved. The more information you obstruct, the more irate they'd get...and the more inconvenienced you will be in the end.

The lesson here is to be clean enough or not be suspicious enough to get into such predicaments.

I work at a place where people occasionally use stolen ID numbers to gain computer access. People tend to betray themselves with their actions when they're guilty of something, and it's often easy enough to find out who isn't logged on legitimately just by making eye contact. It's a matter of being mindful of your non-verbal communication.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity that in this particular case, the cop had absolutely no freakin' 'reasonable suspicion'.

catch-22

[QEDog]

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?

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[Lord Kano]

The court held that police, based on reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity can compel him to identify themself.

If you are "suspected" of conspiracy to delay or obstruct a peace officer, the police would then have the reasonable suspicion necessary to ask for your identity.

LK

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[RLiegh]

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:whats the charge?

[Dark Nexus]

Interfering with an investigation, maybe? As others have said, there needs to be a REASON for them to ask you who you are.

Huh?

[Guspaz]

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.

nope

[NanoGator]

"Sound Orwellian?"

Nope. It sounds post 9-11. That's not to say it's better or worse. Simply that the motivation is fear, not in absolute power.

Not really

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Sound Orwellian?

No.

Not unless having a half-intelligent government of a nation of people is Orwellian.

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.

The government has always reserved this right. Public anonymity to other private individuals has its uses and should be permitted under most cases, but public anonymity to the police is basically hiding from the government, which you should be detained for.

And the Supreme Court has always had the ability to refuse an appeal - whereupon the lower court's decision (federal appellate, IIRC) continues its effect.

Yes, the police's rights can be abused. But e-mail can be and has been abused, so is e-mail thus a bad thing?

If you don't like what the government's doing, show me YOUR plan, and tell me how it introduces no new shortcomings. For longstanding principles like this that are somehow "news" (on Slashdot of all places), I really doubt you can.

Often Moot - but it's still dangerous

[TomRC]

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.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[Anonymous Coward]

At least get the facts right in your own damn summary before going off on "your rights".

The job of the editors is to post stories which generate hits to the site. Slashdot plays the self serving FUD game just as well as your favorite evil mega-corp.
Facts are dead, long live hype.

Read the opinion

[Carnage4Life]

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.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[maxpublic]

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

Because the Constitution Says So

[reallocate]

The Supreme Court only hears cases it wants to hear because the Constitution gives it that power. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of government, equal to the Congress and the Executive Branch. That's why it's called the "Supreme" Court. (You do remember separation-of-powers and all that?)

The Court determines its own cases, just as Congress determine the legislation it passes and the President determines the legislation he will propose.

Of course, the article is flamebait. Since when did /. publish news? YOu don't really think the squad of adolescents running this thing have a clue what they're talking about?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this getting modded so highly? It's hardly insightful, in fact I find it 'desturbing.'

All any criminal would have to do to avoid prosecution is not carry id and not tell the police his or her name. The right to remain silent does not in fact give a person the right to remain completely silent; they have to verbally acknowledge their understanding of their Miranda rights for example. The right to remain silent is only the right to not incriminate oneself. We provide generous civil rights in this country, but not to the point that they render the justice system useless.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[mandalayx]

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

[tooba]

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:cowards hide anonymously

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Care to explain why?

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[Dhalka226]

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.

These strawman stances and arguments....

[aixou]

are starting to get annoying.

Instead of trying to incite anger by giving vague summaries of stories, the editors should just be more blatant, like so:

"Here we have all the straw we need to construct a good strawman. Now we are going to bind the straw together to create arms and legs. You can almost see the neo-con blood flowing through it. Doesn't it make you angry? Now we need to connect the joints to create a fluid body. Doesn't he remind you of big brother? Now for the head, we use this prebuilt paper-maché mold of the Devil.. oops, I mean George Bush. Sounds Orwellian to me. Now beat the fucking shit out of it!!!"

Yeah yeah, mod me as troll or whatever, but you know its true.

In all honesty though, I am puzzled by it. I mean, Slashdot must generate some good ad revenue, so why can't they afford some decent editors? There are mods at forums working for free that do a better job.

Re:nope

[gl4ss]

fear is a great tool to having absolute power..

Re:Not really

[No Such Agency]

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.

They get to know when we pay our taxes and fill out the census. There's no reason why I should be compelled to identify myself to a police officer any time I'm walking down the street. "Reasonable suspicion" is a pretty weak argument too - it could be anything from me walking like a drunk, to me being an ethnic group that the cop doesn't like. If they think I'm a criminal, they should arrest me (and be prepared for a wrongful arrest lawsuit if the reasons were weak). Goes for "aliens" too, after all, how would the officer know I'm a citizen or not without asking who I am? Ergo, unless you want to set up police checkpoints on street corners and ask EVERYONE to identify themselves, you have yet another law which can be used capriciously to harass (some) innocent citizens.

Right to remain silent?

[Blahbbs]

So you only have the right to remain silent if you are arrested? If you are not arrested, then you must speak.

I guess there IS one right that an arrested person has over a free man.

Re:License and registration please?

[blueZhift]

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:Backwards reasoning...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And conversely, the existence of some valid reason to want to be anonymous in some circumstance does not mean that there is an overriding, inherent right always to be anonymous in any and all circumstances.

Know your rights? Yeah right..

[Anonymous Coward]

An unconstitutional ACT is always null and void from the day it was set forth, no matter what court decisions are made. Courts attempt to determine whether an act is constitutional or not, they do NOT make an act constitutional or not. They can only provide their opinions and whether that will is carried out.

The judgment of the Supreme Court today is flawed and no one is bound to obey it. The law is such that these words are not laws, they are acts that can hold you forever. But they cannot change what the Constitution says without an amendment to the Constitution. Be safe and aware, but be brave and free.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[Glamdrlng]

No, that is just not correct. The court held that police, based on reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity can compel him to identify themself.

And of course we can always trust the police to only hara-- er, I mean, request the identification of, someone if there is reasonable suspicion.

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

If law enforcement could be trusted to always do the Right Thing (TM) then there would be no laws or Constitution limiting the things they can do; there'd be no need. Here's some allegorical evidence, for what it's worth. A couple years ago a man in the area (SW Florida) called 911 because his neighbor across the street was beating his wife. He then walked down the street to meet the police when they arrived; he didn't want his neighbor knowing who it was that called the cops. The officer on the scene saw the caller walking down the sidewalk and questioned him. The caller, frantically trying to get the cop to go down the street to rescue the woman, was handcuffed and put in the back of the cruiser while the pig called for backup, which arrived over an hour later. So because law enforcement can always be trusted to make good judgement calls, a woman had the shit beaten out of her for an hour while a cop sat on his ass a block down the road. Yah, I feel really good about trusting a police officer's interpretation of suspicious behavior.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Epistax]

Sounds overly dramatic for starters. But what to address?
Is what is between you and a police officer public? That's being implicitly stated in the rather swayed headline. They are implying anything you tell a police officer the officer is free to tell to everyone.

Privacy advocates aren't fighting the battle I want them to be fighting. Police are here to protect me. I'll tell them I'm allergic to penicillin so I won't die when an ambulance comes to save me. I'll tell them who my parents are so they can contact them. I'll tell them every last thing about me if I'm in trouble or someone else is and it can help them.

I also expect that information to be completely confidential. It's still private, just a new person or people has/have been included in my privacy. I would never expect anyone to violate my confidentiality and to do so in any profession usually causes job loss. If a police officer pulls me over and asks for my mother's maiden name right off the bat you're damn straight I'll give it to him. I haven't a clue how much disruption I could possibly cause by not giving it. I might be in a car that matches the description of a criminal and myself as well, yet my ability to simply roll off my mother's maiden name would be enough to convince the officer otherwise.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Vigilance, being an inconvenience at times, but never a rule. My bottom line is don't be an ass. With a bit of cooperation every now and then everyone is safer.

I am an advocate for not having my head shot off by a police officer thinking I have a gun. I am an advocate for being able to walk in a mall knowing that know one around me has a bomb. I am willing to be inconvenienced for this security. What's private, stay's private, in that my life is not affected by anyone new knowing anything. Yes, new people will know more intimate details about me, but those really aren't mine to unless I am willing to give up all of society.

I know exactly what the negative replies to this would be, but go ahead anyway. Someone might learn something just yet.

Actually crack users usually have negative ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

You have it backwards, it usually is the crack user who has the negative impression of the police.

RTF(O)pinion

[Peyna]

The opinion clearly states that the stop was based on "reasonable suspicion," and therefore this only applies in such cases, and it only applies in the state of Nevada.

Those crying "1984" and other nonsense need to actually read something other than the headline.

Re:canada anybody?

[isolationism]

My wife (an American citizen) moved here to Ottawa a few years ago and just got her Permanent Resident status a couple weeks ago. I can't say I'm upset that the possibility of going down there instead didn't even cross my mind.

Every day I send her news articles about the rights of US Citizens evaporating like cheap perfume. She's scared to travel to her home country anymore, and wouldn't, if it weren't for her remaining family and friends state-side.

That said, the article -- while scary as hell -- just seems like small fries now. I wasn't aware American citizens really had any rights left after W got through with them.

Re:License and registration please?

[RLiegh]

Every state has an official ID/Drivers license; if all of them start printing your SSI number on it (the way that Alaska already does) then we won't need a national ID since the already existing state ID would then serve the same purpose.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[ryanmfw]

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

Re:nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply that the motivation is fear, not in absolute power

Fear is just another method to gain absolute power.

Don't panic. It's a law, not a right.

[xigxag]

Let's get straight what's going on here. The Supreme Court didn't say that cops now have a constitutional right to ask for your name any time. What SCOTUS did was uphold (within certain vague limits) a Nevada law requiring you to give your name to cops upon being stopped and questioned. Since it's just a law, it can be repealed by the Nevada legislature. Who are put into office by the voters of Nevada. They can set themselves free, instead of hoping for the almighty Supreme Court to do so. Imagine that.

Re:Terry VS Ohio

[Grimster]

Showing your DL at a road block is one thing, you're on the road driving a car, I don't see it being Orwellian to ask to see your license to drive, HOWEVER if they ask to see the license/ID for a PASSENGER and the passenger declines and then shit gets started that IS getting to be too much. I suppose all they have to say is that the passenger "looked like someone who was wanted for something somewhere so they checked ID" those "probable cause" situations are really abusable by the police...

Also asking your name is one thing, asking to see ID is another. I don't always have ID on me, last I checked this wasn't against a law to be without an ID of course if I'm DRIVING then I have my license with me because well, that is a law but I don't, say, carry my license with me to go check the mail, or if my wife's driving I don't always have my wallet with me and feel no compunction to make sure I have it either.

Re:Not really

[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.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[c0dedude]

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.

Incredible...

[The Tyro]

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?

[Planesdragon]

No. I mean, horribly no. The holocost-was-just-forced-labor wrong.

Soviet Russia and internal Nazi Germany were abhorent and required papers not for identification, but for permission to travel. To migrate around the country you needed to have a passport. In some cases they didn't even care WHO you were, so long as your paper said "bearer may go from Siberia to Moscow."

You inslut the memory of every person who ever died for daring to try and find a better life away from tyranny by comparing the mere need to identify yourself to a police officer with the controls that the tyrannical regimes of the 20th century used to keep their population from seeking freedom.

Re:Sound familiar?

[DarkSarin]

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:It works both ways

[maximilln]

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...

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[Billly Gates]

By refusing to give your identity that gives them probably cause for search and seizure without a warrant. They are doing this in Texas!

That is blantly unconsitutional and wrong. But the supreme court just gave the overhead in this ruling.

Who defines probably cause? That is the argument.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[timeOday]

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.

it's just like you were taught

[louden obscure]

"those that ignore history are bound to repeat it." two words, nixon era.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy advocates aren't fighting the battle I want them to be fighting. Police are here to protect me.

The police are here to enforce the law. If your views about the law disagree with theirs then they have all the power in the world to mess with you. So, yeah, they're here to protect you as long as you follow the party line.

I am an advocate for being able to walk in a mall knowing that know one around me has a bomb. I am willing to be inconvenienced for this security.

Um, exactly what do you think this fellow was talking about when gave form to the following thought?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Alan Hicks]

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?

John Titor

[theolein]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned John Titor when they read this: The site [johntitor.com] (Disclaimer: I personally think the guy is an incredibly good internet hoaxer, but a lot of what he said is extremely chilling)

Re:Read the opinion

[theLOUDroom]

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.

Right, but his point is their the supreme court has just made remaining silent an arrestable offense.
The police don't even need a "plausible" enough suspicion that you've comitted a crime to arrest you on. Their "suspicion" can be absolute B.S. but now they can arrest you just for not giving your name.

The ruling is just plain stupid. If they REALLY have good cause to believe you've commited a crime, they can arrest you whether you identifiy yourself or not.

Re:It works both ways

[Guppy06]

"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.""

And while at the courthouse you will tell the judge that you are not guilty and point out that you cannot obstruct justice if you aren't able to verify that it really is law enforcement you're obstructing. You'll be off the hook, the judge will be ticked that their time has been wasted and Bad Things will happen to the offending officer for embarassing the department like that.

Law enforcement and the judicial system are part of two different branches of government for a reason.

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

[CasaVacas]

I am a forigner (talking about the U.S.), and i just love the american constitution! What a great piece of paper! But i downright hate the USA in its present form. Yes i hate some americans. Does this make me a terrorist? I appeal to all american citizens to help stop this downwards spiral. let it go no further. My democracy basicly follows yours down the "civil-liberties drain". And since i don't get to vote on this, maby you should! Peace Casa

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[antiMStroll]

You were better off under a King. Royalty didn't have the 21st century technology available to Presidents and had to make due with barrel-loaders, swords, wooden boats and spies. One has to wonder if the reduced need for accomplices among the general public emboldens them to make these moves.

Let's see, militarized internal police force? Check. Widespread domestic surveillance? Check. Remote prison camps outside the reach of domestic laws? Check. No right to privacy? Check. An administartion which decides who's a citizen worthy of legal protection and who's a 'terrorist'? Check. Institute internal travel visas and you'll have all the makings for a new Soviet Union.

Read the actual court opinion.

[Ectospheno]

I think everyone here should remember that you need to actually read the article and not go by the one paragraph blurb on slashdot as its almost always sensationalist to the point of insulting our intelligence. This slashdot "story" is no different. Do yourself a favor and download the court opinion and read it for yourself. The three page summary at the start is good enough so don't be scared by the document's length.

If after reading the opinion you still think the court is wrong then by all means post and say so. However, I think most people (myself included) will see why the court decided the way it did and not get nearly as excited as the submitter of this "story" wants us to be.

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

[bergeron76]

If I'm not mistaken, giving a false name _IS_ a crime.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[KaLogain]

It's only the jews they are carting off i have no need to worry or need to help people deprived of their rights.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The job of the editors is to post stories which generate hits to the site. Slashdot plays the self serving FUD game just as well as your favorite evil mega-corp.

Most insightful comment I've seen posted here all day.

There's a damn good argument to be made that Slashdot is best served when the stories are inflammatory and riddled with falsehoods.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[ScrewMaster]

Of course it does. There are any number of reasons why I might not want anyone to know who or where I am. The battered wife (or husband for that matter) that doesn't want to be tracked down. The whistleblower that wants to be able to let the authorities know that his or her organization is doing something illegal, but doesn't want their life destroyed by doing so. The ex-con that served his time and paid for his crime, and only wants a job. The journalist that has sources to protect. Hell, I won't even give out my real name on Slashdot. I would venture to say that people in any functioning society, be it a democracy, republic or what-have-you, need a certain degree of anonymity. History tells us this much: when your life is under a microscope you live in fear, and under a microscope is exactly where the United States Federal Government would like to put us. All of us.

But more to the point, I'm getting very tired of the presumption of guilt that I see pervading our society, and the way it is being used to justify barratry and civil rights abuse. The RIAA/MPAA/DirecTV crowd have decided that EVERYONE is to be presumed a thief, regardless of whether there is any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. That wouldn't bother me, in and of itself, since I don't care what they think about me, but they've conscripted the Feds to enforce their beliefs (witness the DMCA, copyright extension and Orrin Hatch's repeated appearance out in left field.) That makes them dangerous. The Feds themselves have decided that we are, all of us, "potential terrorists" and in order to weed out that one in a million that might actually be a terrorist the rest of us must suffer the indignities of an invasive law enforcement community and a dismantling of two hundred years of tradition and law regarding our civil liberties. So yes, we need anonymity, if nothing else to protect us from ourselves.

Re:Sound familiar?

[BC Guy]

Two weeks ago I would have said "Fortunately the constitution is there to protect me from people (voters) like you.". Now, I just shake my head and wonder "How did they misunderstand the argument?? The issue is not one of anonymity!! The issue is one of police authority over anonymous and (presumably) innocent civilians and bystanders.

If a police officer can walk up to you out of the blue and demand anything then the original concept of personal liberty is lost. What's the difference between the Hiibel example and the cops showing up at your door without a warrent? Not much. Que Benjamin Franklin quotes ad nauseum...

Re:Sound familiar?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name.

It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

Please, don't trouble yourself to ACTUALLY READ THE DECISION which the Court POSTED ON ITS WEB SITE for ANYONE to download and read. Please don't feel compelled to be an EDUCATED MEMBER OF THE CITIZENRY. Please don't feel any particular kind of pressure to NOT BE A COLOSSAL DUMBASS ON YOUR FAVORITE MESSAGE BOARD.

Please, don't trouble yourself.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[no-body]

Umm.... actually they already do need a reason to demand it (i.e: they have reasonable cause to think you might have committed a crime) and we don't live in a country where the police can demand "papers" at will.

Maybe on paper and in theory. Practically:

Re:It works both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Pigs cannot talk. I belive you mean police officers? If so, try treating them kindly. It's like Karma, if you're nice you'll be treated nice. Or that's how it works in nice small towns like mine. Oh, and my father's a local cop, so that probably helps too.

Re:It works both ways

[ONOIML8]

Yeah, you could do that. So then you sit for a half hour or more....waiting. It's dark, it's just you and someone who claims to be a cop. Waiting.

None for me thanks.

Re:Read the opinion

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Right, but his point is their the supreme court has just made remaining silent an arrestable offense.

No, they have not.

Look, it works like this. Say you're in a situation where the police have a reasonable suspicion that you might want arresting. Say they broke up a fight between you and somebody else. Say they caught you driving drunk. Whatever. Say there's a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you might be arrested.

Under those circumstances, the police can ask you what your name is. If you answer, great. If you don't, you can be arrested.

But guess what? You can be arrested anyway, because you're in a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you're involved in a crime. The fact that you didn't answer the question didn't make your situation any worse.

What happens then? You go to jail where you can be held for up to 72 hours (three days), after which time you have to be either charged or released.

Wanna hear a secret? A deep-dark, dirty secret? You can be arrested right now by any police officer and held for up to 72 hours. Amazing! No evidence, no charges, no pretense at all! Shocking! What a disgusting fascist dictatorship we live in! Obviously Ashcroft is to blame. This whole 72-hours thing must be new, right?

Right?

The ruling is just plain stupid.

Yes. A ruling handed down by a panel of judges who have, combined, spent more than four CENTURIES on the federal bench is just plain stupid.

Do you truly have no conception of the limits of your own wisdom?

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Zareste]

Well here's the thing: You don't have to show identification, you just go to jail for not doing so. Try refusing to show your papers thinking 'ha, he can't just find another reason to arrest me and throw me in the bin anyway. The police would never do that!'

It's the great work-around governments have used for centuries. The police can't check your car without your permission either, but if you don't let them, who's to say your 'body language' or something of the sort wasn't giving off a bad vibe? The only reason the police need to give to put you in a holding cell is 'suspicion'. Just invoke the old 'oh my God, he's coming right for us!' trick and they can do whatever they want.

It's as easy as using 'abuse' in place of 'torture', y'know, calling POWs 'detainees', or putting a country in a police state without declaring a police state. So the info given in this article was really nothing new. Don't have papers? Go to jail. The only difference is that now they don't need an excuse. Simple as can be, and further confirmation that authority needs not obey authority's rules. Anyone surprised?

Re:Party Affiliations

[Glamdrlng]

Yes, and ignore the fact that two justices who ruled for Mr Hiibel were appointed by Republican presidents.

I didn't ignore the fact. Assuming that someone reading that post knows that there are 9 supreme court justices (not exactly a well-kept secret) then a little bit of math should help one conclude that the other two justices ruling in favor of Hiibel were Republicans.

Maybe this shows that Republican presidents appointed fair and balanced judges.

Or maybe it shows that over 70% of the republicans on the supreme court want to see the country become a police state.

Re:Down Under

[Siergen]

It's a common requirement throughout most of the world to identify yourself upon request of the police. However, since the U.S. only just started doing it, then it's proof that Bush=Hitler, time to break out the tin-foil hats, etc...

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[Migraineman]

Actually, I have the SCOTUS PDF document open on my computer right now. It mentions that the inquiry from the officer needs to be made within the context of a Terry stop. The term you're looking for is "reasonable suspicion" on the officer's part. It's important that you use those words, as "probable cause" is immediately arrestable. And I quote -

Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Kolender, Brown, and Papachristou. They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified" the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

So the question now becomes "how the hell am I supposed to know if the stop is justified?" Clearly the officer thinks it is, but if I disagree, may I call for arbitration prior to being arrested for witholding my name? And if the stop was unjustified, how do I get un-arrested? The 10-card won't magically disappear out of the system, nor will the account of the arrest and subsequent dismissal from the courts. When I apply for my next job, I have to answer the "have you ever been arrested?" question as "yes." Employers don't like to see "yes" to that question.

If you haven't been abused by the system, you're probably willing to roll over and play nice, because no police officer has eeever abused the system. Noooo. We have rules and policies about stuff like that. I realize that cops deal with lots of scumbags, but that's not an excuse to encroach on the rights of the general population for the sake of their convenience. If it's true that "a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances," as quoted from the SCOTUS opinion document, then why bother asking for it in the first place? You think they're asking that question for my benefit?

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[miskatonic alumnus]

And let's not forget other intrusions. Back in the 80's it wasn't terrorists, but DRUGS! Everyone whip out your wee-wee and fill your cup. If I recall, many people thought it was a small price to pay to keep those damned "druggies" out of our workforce. So, they pissed away their privacy. I'm fairly certain that many a company screens our lemonade for many things besides illegal substances -- medication for instance.

Police are here to protect me.

[bezuwork's friend]

Police are here to protect me.

Hmm. From a court case:

Moreover, a police officer does not have any duty under federal law to warn or protect any particular member of the public unless either (1 ) a "special relationship" exists between the victim and the criminal or between the victim and the state or (2 ) the victim faces a special danger not applicable to the public at large.

Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402 (1998).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The U.S. Supreme Court has become arrogant...

[Futurepower(R)]

The U.S. Supreme Court has become arrogant, and is not following the law. See the section titled Corruption in the U.S. Supreme Court: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in social security, gov't healthcare, welfare, and all of that.
But I in *NO* way believe that they gov't should be able to demand my papers in any situation. (I also strongly support the 2nd Ammendment)
There is a difference between helping someone through a rough time, and spying on them.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[norsk_hedensk]

no you cant be put into jail for not showing id. if an officer asks for ID and you dont have it, that is not breaking the law. if you do however refuse to tell them your name, then they have the power to DETAIN you and bring you to the station, so your identification can be asertained. also, if you dont have id, and you DO tell them who you are, they STILL have the power to detain you to "REALLY" find out who you are.

Re:nope

[gammoth]

I suggest you (re-)read 1984.

This is a courtesy message. Really.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[gessel]

No, this is all backwards. The police have long had a right to hold a suspect if there's probable cause, name nor not. That rule was never in question in he Nevada case. The defense against abuse of that right is an unlawful arrest lawsuit. The balance of tension between fear of the police departments faced with unlawful arrest lawsuits vs the fear of letting criminals go to some degree balances the previously presumed rights of everyone to privacy and freedom of molestation by the police vs the rights and expectations of the same that the police are useful.

Were the officer to have believed there was probable cause of violence he could have arrested Hibble name or not, just not solely for refusing to give his name. In some states, in responding to a domestic, the officer would have been obligated by law to arrest one of the parties no matter what.

This ruling in no way whatsoever improves the public welfare or security or safety as it provides no additional power to the police in cases where there is defensible reason to believe that a crime has taken place.

This does create a whole new class of crime, the crime of refusing to answer a police officer's question. Though you claim that it doesn't make it a crime to fail to carry papers, what good does this ruling do without two additional assumptions: one that it is illegal to lie to a police officer (it is already a crime to lie to a federal officer) and two that if the officer suspects that you have provided a false name, that he has cause to either arrest or demand proof. It may not be a crime to fail to carry papers, but you can legally be punished for not doing so by being arrested on suspicion of providing a false or misleading answer when asked your name.

Once the officer has a legal right to ask, the law means nothing if it isn't backed up by a legal right to demand proof, and none of those legal rights mean anything if they're not backed up by arrest. Therefore if the new ruling was worth the effort of the supreme court, we can only assume that police officers now have the right to demand a name and refusing to answer or answering falsely is, itself, a crime, and suspicion of said crime is itself cause for arrest.

Now part of the ruling is predicated on the Nevada law, which states that the demand must be proceeded by probable cause to ask the question, and without establishing the chain of probable cause, one cannot be arrested. That seems like the same reasonable protection afforded by the defense against wrongful arrest in the first place, at least at first blush.

But one must consider, given that the Supremes knew full well that the officer could simply have arrested Hibble had he any reason to believe that circumstances warranted it, why not simply remind the state of that power and suggest that in the future rather than creating a new class of crime, refusing to provide one's name, they rely on the established principles governing arrest with probable cause?

The answer is quite simple, the threshold for asking someone's name is far lower than the threshold for making an arrest - therefore it's a low bar entry to arrest.
If you're a black man walking down the street in a white neighborhood and no crime at all has taken place, and you have, say, enough money and education to know the law and be able to hire a lawyer, were a white police officer, merely passing by, to arrest you, you'd have at least some chance of winning an unlawful arrest case. Imagine being in the jury and hearing the story, the police producing no evidence they had a reason to suspect a black man of having committed a recent crime (though surely they would pretend to have received a tip, perhaps an anonymous phone call). Most of us would find it reprehensible that a black man was arrested merely for being black. (Those who don't might attempt to imagine the converse situation, getting lost in a black neighborhood and being arrested by a black officer.)

Now imagine that instead of a one step arrest process the o

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[jasonditz]

Still, we're faced with the unappealing prospect of the court deciding when we can have a "reasonable belief" something is self-incriminating.

Before today, when in US history did the individual suspect pleading the 5th have to justify it? When did the court get to decide that you do have to testify against yourself in some limited fashion just because they don't feel your belief is reasonable?

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[jbrandon]

In other words, if the defendant HAD had a real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, he could have simply refused to answer on those grounds.

A person's identity obviously bears informational and incriminating worth, even if the [name] itself is not inculpatory. Hubbell, 530 U. S., at 38. A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases. And that information, in turn, can be tremendously useful in a criminal prosecution. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that a person's identity provides a link in the chain to incriminating evidence only in unusual circumstances.

Re:cowards hide anonymously

[1u3hr]

The Feds themselves have decided that we are, all of us, "potential terrorists" and in order to weed out that one in a million that might actually be a terrorist the rest of us must suffer the indignities of an invasive law enforcement..

And even worse, it DOESN'T MAKE ANYONE ANY SAFER. All of the 9/11 hijackers had valid , reasonably clean IDs (maybe a couple had overstayed their visas, but would easily have cleaned that up if it was going to be a problem), would have no problem getting on a plane today with similar IDs (except for the racial profiling of course).

The CSM article says "In what may become a major boost to US law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts..." Right. Because terrorists when asked their names would just tell the police their real names, show them real ID, and request they be given a south-facing cell in Guantanamo.

Terrorists are not like petty criminals; they don't get a rap sheet that follows them. Many have led exemplary lives till they get the call to do their bit for jihad. And if they do have a record, it's trivial to get a clean, government-issued identity overseas, and not much harder in the US.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Shakrai]

As for what happened in the instant case, the person's name was immaterial to "determining what happened". Plus, the police attacked his daughter when they arrested him. Yeah, I see how the police weren't abusing their power in this case. Maybe you should read up before commenting.

Actually his daughter freaked out and kicked the door at a police officer who restrained her to protect himself and her from further harm. They didn't attack her.

In my state he probably would have been charged with child endangerment for putting his daughter in that position in the first place. I've seen the video -- instead of worrying about his daughter he caused the situation to spiral out of control (by his hostile body language and tone of voice) placing both him and her in danger. And for what? His website would have you believe that the police officer stopped out of the blue and asked for ID -- nothing could be further from the truth. They were responding to a possible report of a grown man striking a teenage girl. If he had said something like "I'm sorry officer but I don't have my drivers license on me. My name is [Mr. Smith]." I'm sure the situation would have been resolved in about five minutes -- without anybody going to jail. But hey, why be reasonable when you can act like a hysterical jerk because you are angry about having an argument with your daughter and want to take it out on some poor guy just trying to do his job?

I'm sorry -- I am usually the civil libertarian type myself but I don't see any valid reason you would have to refuse to tell somebody (law enforcement or not) what your name is. You aren't required to carry a national id card or "papers" -- despite what the tin-foil hat crowd would have you believe.

Re:Terry VS Ohio

[nasor]

"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 can think of at least two relevant quotes here. The most obvious would be:
"'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - The Bill of Rights

There's also this one, which is a little more complicated but equally relevant:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."-Alexander Hamilton

What the second quote is essentially saying is that it's risky to enumerate certain specific rights in the Bill of Rights because at some point people might start to think that they only have a right if it's specifically listed, which wasn't what the founding fathers intended.

Re:Read the opinion

[MillionthMonkey]

That's a good point; I spoke too quickly. Let's see... Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist... that comes to a mere 230 years. My bad.
I'm pretty sure 230 years of judicial experience outweighs one dumbass with an Internet account.

Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas are the very same five traitors who disgraced themselves by rendering the majority opinion in Bush vs. Gore- a ruling which was denounced by 673 law professors [the-rule-of-law.com] and has generally been considered by most observers to be one of the most disgraceful decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.

And let's not overlook the 184 years of judicial experience that rendered the minority opinion in this case, as if it's a "judicial experience" contest entirely between an Anonymous Coward and the five douchebags who foisted this tragedy on us today.

Activism has its limits

[wasudeo]

I really don't see what the entire fuss is about. All the law states is that you're supposed to state your name if any law enforcement officer asks you for it...mind you merely state it, not confirm it by showing ID.

With all respect to civil libertarians, I wish they'd realise that opposing every new law with ominous sounding phraseology like `Big Brother' , `assault on civil liberties' , `belief in the constitution' yada yadda is counterproductive. By doing so they're indulging in stereotypical behaviour.

As a result people are less likely to take you seriously when the next DMCA comes around or another Skylarov is arrested for speaking freely..Ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?

Choose your battles wisely guys!

Skewed News

[PenguinJames]

Once again, /. has almost reported the news.

The case does not require any person to identify themselves to any police officer at any time. Reading from the court's opinion [supremecourtus.gov], you see that identification is only required when "a person [is] detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances". Civil liberties advocates should be further relieved by the court's affirmation of Brown v. Texas that the detention of a person must satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements. Even in the absence of a court-issued warrant, Terry v. Ohio affirmed "an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further" and further, "an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop".

Answering the obvious question, the court notes: "Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by al-lowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These fa-miliar concerns underlay Kolender [v. Lawson], Brown [v. Texas], and Papachristou [v. Jacksonville]. They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be 'reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified' the initial stop."

And on one last note pertaining to the Fifth Amendment: "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."

/. is great for getting an overview of the news, but sometimes the story isn't quite right. Remember to check your sources!

Re:Not so fast...

[BCoates]

There is no Federal law requiring police to ask people who are stopped their name, nor does the Supreme Court say that police have a right to demand the names of people stopped. All the Supreme Court did was say that a Nevada law permitting Nevada police to demand the name of a person who had been stopped by the police was not unconstitutional. If the Nevada Legislature changed their mind and repealed the law, the Nevada police couldn't demand people's names anymore, and there is nothing the Federal Government, or the US Supreme Court, could do about it. In many (most?) states, this is already the legal situation.

Your post is the inaccurate one.

Re:Down Under

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And if everyone else jumps off the bridge, that means we should do it too?

You know, the US was founded on prinicples that were not in place ANYWHERE ELSE the world at the time. Maybe the reason the rest of the world does it is because they haven't caught up to the ideals that the US was founded on.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Jadrano]

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).

The salaries of the members of the government are a really minute part of what taxes are spent on (if you count everyone employed by the state, it's, of course, quite a significant amount, but the vast majority of them cannot influence their own salary, at all).

Furthermore, for the most influential members of the government, their salaries aren't usually their main source of income. Since most of them are rich before they get their office, they have properties that earn them more than their salaries, which are far lower than what someone in an influential position in a corporation would get, e.g. as far as I know, during his presidency Reagan had more income from his farm than from the salary for his office. That's the more harmless part.

Then, former politicians are often offered lucrative positions in companies. A good example are George Bush senior, James Baker, John Major etc. at the Carlyle group, but that's just an extreme case (there are also all kinds of adviser contracts, well-paid memberships in boards). Members of government know very well that after serving in office, they can get much more from corporations than from the state if they do what these corporations like - and they certainly prefer low taxes.

So, I agree that the personal interests of the members of the government are a problem. But their personal interest are not high, but low taxes (for corporation and rich people) and other business-friendly policies, while public services (health care, welfare, education, ...), for which taxes are needed, are not really important to them personally.

Powers delegated by the citizens to officers?

[fyngyrz]

Oh, no. No, no, no. Not at all. Powers are delegated by legislators, and certainly not for rewards that descend from the citizens. Legislators do what they do for rewards that descend from the rest of the power structure - perks, money, tenure, speaking engagements, you name it. Not from the citizens.

Citizens (at least in the USA) can't do squat. We can't elect presidents, we can't make laws, and we surely can't "delegate power" to officers.

We can't refuse payment to officers. Only people higher up in the power structure can do that. We can't change the law. Only people higher up in the power structure can do that. We can't create state or federal legislation, and we can't vote on it either, anyway. We can't stop "officers" from demanding our name, or our papers. We can't force an officer to arrest someone in violation of a law, or even to pursue the apparent violation of the law. Only their superiors upstream in the power structure, who of course uniformly consist of other people we didn't, and cannot, select, control or reward, can do that.

I can tell you for a fact I haven't delegated any power to anyone nor have I ever been given an opportunity to, nor do I ever expect to have that opportunity made available.

If you want to call a spade a spade, then simply be honest and observe that the power structure is top down, not bottom up.

Fact: The USA is not a democracy. It is a highly mutated republic with ponderous socialist leanings. Your butt will do what it is told, when it is told, or you will go to jail.

The USA/"mommy" government at every level will tell you when to jump, and how high. They'll tell you you must wear a seat belt. They'll tell you you can't pierce your body parts. They'll tell you what you can say, and where you can say it, and to whom. They'll tell you what varieties of sex you may, and may not, engage in. And when. And where. You may not assist someone with a terminal illness to die. You may not have more than 2 pets. You may not put up an antenna in your yard. You may not listen to various radio transmissions. You cannot keep a horse on your property. You may not refuse to pay taxes. You may not refuse to serve as cannon fodder in any conflict the power structure deems expedient at the moment. You may not use various drugs. You may not grow hemp, even if you are a rope manufacturer. You may not build your home without windows. You may not build your home without a smoke detector. You may not build a business without building in physical access for the handicapped. You may not... ah, fudge.

Look, go home, toe the line, pay your taxes. When the officer comes to your door, be polite, give your name, and hope that's the end of it. Because if it isn't, you're about to get an object lesson in the power structure. You won't like it.

It's not going to change, either. Look around you. No, those aren't aliens in disguise. You don't need a tinfoil hat. You just need a comb. Those are actually sheep.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[tarp]

And how would you continue to function in the American society, which is automobile-centric?

Driving is more important than being able to walk in this country. We are essentially a police state because police can demand "papers" at any time.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[zors]

Yes you can be held overnight or pending bail (or whatever the length of time is now) but there is no legal standing to it. it wont hold up in court. a cop could show up and arrest me right now, and just make up a reason. Even if he had no warrant, because he is a cop, and we allow them certain powers. However, it wont lead to any actual legal troubles. Furthermore, as a citizen, there are civil and criminal charges you can level against the officer in question.

You have certain rights, yes, but a cop is not the person you explain that to. That doesnt mean you have to let them search you or testify against yourself. Just tell the officer right then that you dont give permission for what he is requesting in clear, unambiguos terms. Then you have something to stand on when it matters.

Don't have papers? Go to jail.

No. Dont identify yourself, go to jail till they can ascertian your identity. I personally agree that there is a clear public interest in knowing the identities of people involved in police investigations.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Mr. Slippery]

And conversely, the existence of some valid reason to want to be anonymous in some circumstance does not mean that there is an overriding, inherent right always to be anonymous in any and all circumstances.

Saying that I do not have a right to be anonymous is saying that it is right and proper for an agent of the state to threaten me to make me divulge my name. Are you sure that's a claim you want to make?

If I went around pointing my gun at people to make them tell me their name, that would be insane behavior. Why is it ok if the state does it?

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem you miss is that this particular state law now trumps US Constitutionally protected 4th and/or 5th amendment protections (protections, not privileges, there is a BIG difference!). p?

Re:It works both ways

[Guppy06]

"Let's be honest. The judge will look at you like you're a DUMBASS."

While I'm not exactly a lawyer, traffic violations and jury duty have had me in my share of courtrooms. The judge doesn't look at you like that unless you do something completely stupid. An example comes to mind of someone who pled not guilty to a speeding violation because "I've been driving for years professionally and I don't remember there ever being a sign there" (all while the judge, because of the "not guilty" plea, gets to look over that colorful driving record of his).

"The System" isn't about trying to get you in and out as quickly as possible but about letting you have more than enough rope to hang yourself with, and that involves letting you have your say (no matter what). For example, if you plead "not guilty" to a speeding violation, the judge won't treat you like a dumbass (unless you merit it), he will instead look at the cop. The cop will then mechanically rattle off the serial number of the radar gun, when it was last calibrated before/after it clocked you, and when the officer became qualified to use said radar gun. Then the judge will look at you and ask "Well?" and listen to whatever you have to say.

The claim that the police officer in question did not identify himself to you satisfactorily is a serious claim and will merit serious attention from the judge, if for no other reason than because it's something your average judge doesn't hear very often (it would certainly break up the monotony). And if your case has merit he'll rule in your favor, if for no other reason than how it will look when the judge is up for re-election ("I helped stand up to abusive police officers!" etc.)

"You'll have a five minute chat with the public defender"

The public defender is there to offer you advice, that's all. There's nothing that says that you must follow that advice.

And the calibur of the public defender's advice would depend a lot on how the public defender is chosen in your state, wouldn't it? Do you know how your home state chooses them?

"If you choose to try and argue it on your own the judge will look at you like you're on crack, rule in favor of the arresting officer, and that's that."

Judges don't like to leave themselves open to appeal. Being overruled by a higher court can look really bad on your public record, especially if it's over something as trivial as courtroom procedure; it says "I'm not doing my job right." Even if you're a complete idiot, they'd much rather you state your claim for the public record, demonstrating in your own words just how much of an idiot you are. It's a nice paper trail that helps them cover their own ass.

Try taking a day off work and spend it in your local courthouse some time. Even if it does nothing but reinforce your own prejudices about "The System" it will still be educational.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[terriblekarmanow tm]

Yeah, next thing you know, your goverment is humiliating people by piling them up naked and making pictures of it.

Oh wait...

Be afraid. The US of A is going to have a civil war in my lifetime.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[zurab]

Excellent arguments. IANAL, but few things I found were disturbing to me. Maybe lawyers could explain better the consequences of these:

The Nevada statute is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures because it properly balances the intrusion on the individual's interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. [case citation]

I can't read this in the 4th amendment. First off, the court seemed to have replaced the phrase "[t]he right of people" with the new made up phrase of "individual's interests." It's not simply people's interest "to be secure in their persons, [etc.]" - it's their right.

Perhaps more importantly, the court also has replaced the phrase "probable cause" with a new phrase "promotion of legitimate government interests." What does this mean? The court explains that this is justified if there is a suspicion but does not explain how mere suspicion meets the probable cause requirement of the 4th amendment either. Therefore, I don't find the part of ruling discussing suspicion of any relevance with regards to the protection under the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment does not balance people's rights against government's interests or mere suspicion, it balances it against probable cause.

And then exactly what you said: ... and the threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request does not become a legal nullity.

How is this not running over the 4th amendment with a bulldozer? Now that they have removed the "right" from the discussion as well as the "probable cause" they might as well make not following the government's interests a crime?

Since I am not a lawyer, I'd like to ask - is this type of wording in the ruling likely to expand what's in government's interests beyond asking for a name or identifying oneself? Shouldn't this require amending the Fourth amendment?

Even though I do not agree with the court's ruling with regards to the Fourth amendment, I found their reasoning reasonable with regard to the Fifth amendment.

Re:Read the opinion

[beakburke]

Imagine that, law professors disagreeing with a SCOTUS ruling. Boy, how unusual. Cause lawprofessors are so much more objective than the rest of us when it comes to politics. The line about "673 law professors" goes straight from assuption to conclusion. It doesn't tell us anything about that facts of the case, just that it was highly contentious.

Re:Sound familiar?

[QuickSilver_999]

Some of the cops are worse than the local thugs. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a cop, EVER.

Some of the black people in the US are criminals and murderers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a black man, EVER.

Some of the Jews in the US are embezzlers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Jew, EVER.

Some of the Arabs are terrorists. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Arab, EVER.

Some of the Italians are in the mob. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Italian, EVER.

Some of the Russians are mobsters. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Russian, EVER.

Some of the gay men are pedophiles. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a gay man, EVER.

Some of the Unions take bribes and kickbacks. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a union, EVER.

Some of the minorities in the world get their jobs strictly through affirmative action. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a minority, EVER.

Some of the Liberals/Moderates/Conservatives in America are corrupt. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Liberal/Moderate/Conservative, EVER.

Some of the Environmentalists are extreme idiots that use junk science to justify their own whims, or are hypocrits who do exactly what they don't want anyone else doing. Not all of them, but as long as there a few like this, I won't trust an Environmentalist, EVER.

Is everyone out there starting to get the point? Or must I go on longer? Statements like these are prejudicial. Including the one about cops. Prejudicial: To judge someone or something without fact.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[ebyrob]

All the laws in the world can get passed trying to make people identify themselves. But those who feel they have something to prove, or are just too tired to walk to the back of the bus one day, or had a bad day at work and don't feel like being pulled over and questioned will continue to disobey those laws from time to time.

How these border cases turn out is a very important indicator of whether, and how much, legal authority is being abused.

I seem to recall being pulled over one time, as a passenger in a friends car, and getting the third degree from a backup cop because of a water-ski handle mark on my arm. Bad attitudes may smell coming from a suspect, but they're really rank coming off of Johnny Law.

I've had enough of these experiences, and have had enough friends with more interesting experiences, that if a self-important cop comes up on the street and asks for my name, I might decide to tell him "John Smith". Or, perhaps I'll excercise this right to silence I'm supposed to have...

As to this case in particular, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the wording regarding balance between the individual's expectation of privacy and "interests of the state". Sure, its probably okay to book someone for being flip, uncooperative, and/or lieing to a police officer with "suspicions" but the agency in question better be well prepared to do a quick 180 if it turns out they were a little over-zealous.

As to this:
the testimonial components of a requirement to produce identification would be non-incriminating in almost all situations. If compelled production of an identification generally raises no Fifth Amendment concerns,it would be anomalous to conclude that a compelled statement of identity infringes the Fifth

This kind of "requirement to produce identification" is exactly what bothers folks, ergo the if is not satisfied (because, yet again, almost is not all) and so it would be "anomalous" (or better yet simply erroneous) to conclude there are no dangers to the Fifth here.

I hate to break it to the high falutin legal beagles but the Fifth says "on the grounds that it *may* incriminate", not "on the grounds that it *will* incriminate", or "on the grounds that 5 judges and a lawyer agree its unlikely to incriminate in any typical case". Historically the defendent, suspect etc. has been the one who gets to make that determination, to the point we talk about a "right to remain silent".

Hiibel's refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him

Again, we see this notion exemplified that the suspect doesn't get to decide what they will or won't disclose. Fine, okay. Detain a person for questioning. It shouldn't matter who they are to decide whether or not they should be detained... Should it?

Quicksilver : you are a fool.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Frankly, that comment totally trivializes the entire Holocaust."

You miss the point, idiot.

It started with Jews, and then ended with anyone who disagreed.

Idiots like you are the reason I will be leaving Amerika.

G, when did they make a law...

[ebyrob]

against being a hysterical jerk?

So, the guy gets carted in for questioning and has to pay a $250 dollar fine. If they'd drop the fine, I figure it'd be no harm no foul.

However, fining someone for not identifying themself, ie: making it a misdemeanor or what have you not to identify ones-self does open the door to police abuse because a suspect doesn't know when the cop asks for identification whether or not the cop really has a reasonable suspicion, probable cause or whatever the requirement du jour is in that area to be asking the question.

I mean sheesh, the hysterical jerk already helps pay the cop's salary (taxes) he also has to pay for his own questioning?

Internal vs External Passport

[hughk]

You forget to mention that the passport that you refer to is the internal passport, the external one came only after you applied for it specially. As you mention it you definitely needed permission to travel under Stalin. Post Stalin, there were still large areas that were considered 'closed' where people could not travel freely without ID and permission to be in the area. This is unusual for a westerner, as the civillian towns around military bases and research centres were always open.

And whatabout the checkpoints? Each district boundary had a Militia (police) post. Periodically this would be closed and they would check papers, not just of the driver but any passengers as well.

I understand that even in Soviet times, the militia would do sweeps looking for Chechnyan/Georgian criminals (Southerners in places like Moscow and Leningrad were assumed to be criminals)and for young persons of military age who hadn't served. People living in Moscow or Leningrad had a special stamp in their internal passport cionfirming that right. This was also frequently checked.

And President V.V. Putin is doing his best to bring it all back!!!

Re:canada anybody?

[Anenga]

LOL. Ah yes, Canada, home of free speech and equal opportunity. Is this the same Canada who's Government got in a huge hissy fit over Conan O'Brien [msn.com] [msn.com]? (And they complain about the FCC) Or is it the same Canada that bans America's #1 Cable Network [canoe.ca] [canoe.ca] because the Government disagrees with it's coverage, while allowing Al-Jazeera to broadcast freely.

You live in a glass house.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Snaller]

we don't live in a country where the police can demand "papers" at will.


Yes you do - wake up and smell the police state you have allowed to come to fruition over there.

Papers Please

[kilox]

I don't see why he didn't just show the papers. But then again, he did no harm, so it does all seem like bullshiz.

I have had a few encounters with law enforcement. Some ask for ID others don't. After a night of playing hockey, some friends and I were standing in a parking lot and talking for quite sometime. Since it was a night game, the hours were late and spanned into early hours. A cruiser rolled up and asked, "whatcha doing?" Our reply was, "Oh we played hockey, and no we're just talking." The officer was nice, "That's cool, just making sure nothing wrong and such. Hockey sounds fun, I gotta get back to the streets." No ID checks, no baraging questions or invading requests.

Another time was exactly the opposite. Had to work a closing shift at work till 10:30PM. After the shift we all talked. Half were in a car, half were in the lot in front of the work place. All were wearing workshirts and in uniform still. Two police cruisers rolled up with spotlights. Those in the car were told to remain still and show their hands. Those not were told to stand still and show hands. All of use were asked what we were doing and why we were here. Then ID were demanded and more questioning. About 20 minutes later they returned, we all had NO records. Then we were all told that we had to go immediately home.

I'm confused with the law.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Arker]

Exactly.

It's simply gibberish to speak of balancing a right. Priveliges and 'interests' and powers can be 'balanced' (with balanced in it's meaning as a verb) but not rights. Once the court begins speaking of balancing a right against other things, this is simply a way to rule that it is no longer a right, while trying to avoid that appearance.

in Europe...

[Anonymous Coward]

in Greece, Europe, we have national ID cards. These cards include a photo, a fingerprint, our name, address, job, and religion. Recently the European Union demanded to remove the fingerprint, job and religion and the government complied. In Greece it is required by law to produce identification, including telling your name and providing your ID card, whenever you are asked to do so by the police, and answer their questions. They also search your bag etc. Many European states such as Greece, Germany and Finand have mandatory army service for all men. Some countries outside Europe, such as Israel and China, also have mandatory army service for all women.

I see that USA is becoming more like Old Europe. You, the Americans, must protect your rights because you had the opportunity to live in a free country. Now your rights are threatened by private interests. Don't let your country lose its fame as a free country, because if USA stops respecting its citizens' rights, then the governments of all modern western nations, including Europe, will try to do the same in greater extend.

Re:Not that any new laws are needed just to arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

Still - the judges had to decide based on the issues handed to them.

Four judges dissented, so apparently there are good legal arguments against this decision.

In any case, the Supreme Court has decided so often of late that I'm not as free as I thought, that I've about had it with them. We're going to need a constitutional convention to set all this right.

Re:Sound familiar?

[fucksl4shd0t]

But you're not *required* to receive those services. You can be poor as dirt in the desert and you don't have to give up your ID to the government. But when you go ask them to help out, *then* you have to prove who you are, and not only that, but why you think you should be *given* money for nothing.

I believe in the original intended purpose of social security, welfare, etc. I think it's a fair trade that you have to give up certain information in order to receive those services. Without that information, how the hell is the government supposed to figure out who qualifies for the service and who doesn't?

But that's not what the GP said, is it. ;) The GP said "But I in *NO* way believe that they gov't should be able to demand my papers in any situation." I grokked that as "I don't think the government can demand my ID arbitrarily". As in, they have to have a good reason. The cop that stops me for speeding (a law I oppose, btw) has to see my ID so he can write me the ticket. I can refuse to give up the ID. He can also arrest me so I can serve my fine in jail instead, along with interfering with justice or whatever it's called. But a cop that just sees me in a store, I don't think he should be able to ask my ID on "suspicion that I will commit theft in that store".

For example, I don't think this [davefancella.com] should have happened at all. However, in that situation, the cop had all the power, so I tried my best to accomodate him without getting into trouble. As for my rights? You don't claim those when the cop starts looking for you. You claim those in a court of law. They *can* hold you for too long, in violation of due process. And then you can claim your rights in the matter, have the charges dismissed, and sue the piss out of them for fucking you over. But if they just lock you up and throw away the key, what are you going to do? Can't Do Shit. Not unless someone outside knows what's going on and can go claim your rights for you.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[yerfatma]

Faulty logic aside, here's a tip: if you ever use the phrase "guilty conscience" in a debate about personal rights, you're wrong.

Re:Dudley Hiibel's side

[10Ghz]

I believe that America is the most free country on Earth.

What makes you think that? I haven't seen Americans enjoy freedoms that I do not have as a Finnish citizen, for example. Quite the contrary.

Re:A few relevant quotes

[the Luddite]

There is a big difference between laws that help everyone like dictating how people drive on a public road and laws that single out people like the one in question here.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that all people who drive consent to abide by the rules laid down and have the ability to bow out of the rules by choosing not to drive. The law in question is forced on all people inside the borders of this country. No one had the ability to bow out of the rule.

Small steps toward the goal of a totalitarian society have historicaly been ignored until it was too late and then more drastic measures were needed to correct the oversights of the past. Laws like this chip away at out freedoms. I for one hope never to have to rely on the Second Amendment to restore my freedom.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[plague3106]

They were responding to a possible report of a grown man striking a teenage girl.

So on the word of one caller, we assume someone is guilty of a crime? I thought one of the things the bill of rights and constitution was supposed to do is prevent a citizen from harrasing another by using law enforcement.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Shakrai]

Just as an aside, the person would not be "arrested." The proper term is "detained." An arrest takes place when the individual is actually charged. He may be detained for a reasonable amount of time while his identity is ascertained. He would never actually be "arrested" unless it was decided that he had in actuality provided false information.

Umm -- not exactly. Ask any lawyer -- an arrest is considered to have taken place once your freedom of movement is taken away. It doesn't matter if they charge you, place you in cuffs, put you in the front or back seat, etc. If they refuse to let you walk away from a situation under your own power you are under arrest. This is generally the point where most lawyers would advise you to shut your mouth -- if not sooner.

Furthermore, I don't know about your state, but in PA, it is already illegal to give a false name to law enforcement. Whether it's couched as "false reports," "interfering with an investigation," you have no legal right in PA, and I would assume most states, to boldly lie to a police officer who is in performance of his duty.

No but you do have the right to refuse to answer his questions (not counting his request for your name). The only time you can be compelled to give testimony is if you are offered immunity -- i.e: it trumps your 5th amendment right because you can't be charged for what you confess to. That's why you can't refuse to testify in front of a grand jury (in NY anyway) -- assuming you are called by the DA you automatically get immunity.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But besides that, if it is accepted that the police may demand anybody's identity at any time, demanding proof of that ID seems like a short next step.

You do realize that "short next step" arguments are entirely, completely, totally fallacious, don't you? I mean, seriously. Using the "short next step" or "slippery slope" position, you can argue that anything is bad.

So in practice the only way the police can exercise this new power is to obtain proof if ID.

The court specifically said that if you merely tell the police your name, the statute has been satisfied. There's no legal requirement to produce, or even have, identification.

Until there's probable cause to suspect me of a crime, I should not be police business!

By definition, this statute doesn't apply until probably cause to stop and question already exists.

(Your remark about DNA is so utterly stupid that it doesn't even warrant a comment. And I think you know this. Were you trying to be funny, or silly?)

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[xtheunknown]

The daughter freaked out because the police were tackling her father to the ground. She was arrested for 'resisting arrest'. When the judge asked the prosecutor what she was being arrested for that she had to resist, he couldn't come up with an adequate answer, and the charge against the girl was thrown out. Furthermore, the police never tried to resolve the question of whether a crime has been commited. They immediately asked him what his name was. They never asked the daughter if their was a problem, they just asked Hiibel what his name was. I agree with the dissenting opinion. Almost any information given to a police officer can be considered incriminating these days.

This was another 5-4 decision with far reaching effects.

I see it as just another step down the slippery slope to a totalitarian police state.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[SFBwian]

She would not have freaked out if he wasn't holding the door closed in the first place.

His website does not have me believe that the officer stopped out of the blue for no reason. It explains the report of striking.

I find it odd that everyone is equating "Show me identification" to "What is your name?". The former is what actually transpired, while the latter is the only thing required by law for Hiibel to provide. The video shows the officer repeatedly asking to see identification, Hiibel at the onset asks why he should even have it. At that point, I personally would have asked his name, and if he even had any identification on him at all.

Would the officer be placed into additional danger, or would he likely recieve less voluntary information, if the subject knew he was being investigated for a specific potential crime, rather than "an investigation"?

I personally would freely give out my name, but I see no need for an officer to know my drivers license (or social security number as the case may be), age, blood type, criminal record, or anything else by way of giving him my license, unless I knew what I may be potentially charged for. The fifth amendment provides that I shouldn't have to divulge things which may incriminate myself (or lead to the connection of events that do so -- see dissenting court opinions), so why should I?

Re:It works both ways

[Sycraft-fu]

Ok, well then what you do is go and present that to IAB, and maybe the civilain review board. They are all about busting the ass of cops that do shit like that. Just because a cop is ignorant of the law, doesn't mean it's not a law and doesn't mean they can't get in trouble for it. That doesn't work, sue the department. If you ahve videotape evidence, it's a lock.

The problem with abuse of power is that people let it slide. In most cases, there are means to fight back, but people just act helpless and let it go. I'm not saying it'll be a walk in the park, but you can do it.

The fantasy is thinking that cops can break the law and there is no recours or repercussions. That's just not true. If they do, fight it. I mean if you fell it's not a big deal, fine, but then don't bitch about it later. If it is a big deal and you do feel it's an abuse of power, then work to stop it.

Protections against abuse only work if those abused use them.

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Anonymous Coward]

(by his hostile body language and tone of voice)

So a trained police officer, in your fucking crazy country where all cops wander around with firearms, lost control of the situation because when he interfered with someone's business, that person had a hostile tone of voice? Excuse me? If I'm going about my business and some uniformed dickhead starts prying, I'm going to be pissed off.


I don't see any valid reason you would have to refuse to tell somebody (law enforcement or not) what your name is.

No, you've got it backwards. You need to produce a valid reason for why I should tell someone what my name is. And I don't think you have one.

If someone thought he had assaulted his daughter, the correct action would be to approach him, say something along the lines of "Excuse me, Sir, can we have a word please?", take his daughter to one side and ask her what happened, ask him what happened, and if there isn't a problem, move on. The man's name isn't relevant unless the officer establishes that an offence has been comitted.

The law is an ass...

[abb3w]

Even if you're a complete idiot, they'd much rather you state your claim for the public record, demonstrating in your own words just how much of an idiot you are. It's a nice paper trail that helps them cover their own ass.

A few years back, I was working in the (hellish) restaurant business at a place so busy it was practically beating off the customers with a stick. Or, more exactly, managers were allowed to (occasionally) inform a customer that "the customer was always right" only until "the jackass is a jackass, not a customer".

One (black) manager told me about how a few years back, an obnoxious (white) law student didn't like the (fast but cranky) service he was getting, and sued the manager for discriminating against him because the student was white. Came case day, the manager's lawyer defended essentially by stating the manager was discriminating against him becuase the student had been an obnoxious jackass, not because he was white. The law student pro se'ed, and rambled on for about 15 minutes, citing this precedent setting case and that.

The (white) judge listened politely, and at the end of it, told the student: "You're going to be a good lawyer some day. And once you get your degree, I'll be happy to welcome you in my court again. But you were being a jackass, and apparently still are a jackass, and moreover you are wasting this court's time today. Case dismissed with prejudice."

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Durandal64]

"... In short, disclosing one's identity is an essential part of everyday life."

Yes, but revealing one's identity to a police officer is not a part of everyday life. Hell, for me, getting naked is part of everyday life because I have to shower in the morning. Does that mean that cops can strip-search me on a whim?

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[TheCarp]

Actually I don't see any slippery slope at all. I am saying, quite factually, that the entirety of police authority rests on the threat of legally sanctioned violence.

Are we going to split hairs over the definition of violence?

The entire concept of arrest is part of the due process for legalized violence.

Police officer places you under arrest and brings you to the station. This means you can go willfully with him, or he can subdo you and bring you. How is subdueing you NOT a form of violence? If you resist his attempt to bring you in, he may use whatever force is needed to bring you in or, if your resistance puts him or anyone else in danger, to kill you.

It is that threat of escalation to violence that is the very foundation of their powers. It always has been, and always will be.

I am not saying that is wrong. I am not saying that shouldn't be. I am saying that we should always be mindful of that. Is this right for stealing? Yes, I think it is. Is this right for a person suspected of murder? Yes, I can live with that.

Is this right for a person who says "I would rather not identify myself". I don't think so.

-Steve

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[TheCarp]

Ya but we still have a stable population.....

The thing all those whiney "vehicles are dangerous" people forget is, that this is part of a delicate balance of death that keeps our populations in check. Its a good thing. Death is necissary for life, really, its actually good.

Realise thsoe humans have no natural predators, 20,000 is nothing. Theres plenty more being made. We arn't running out anytime soon.

-Steve

Re:Backwards reasoning...

[Mr. Slippery]

They have no right to use violence because you don't give your name, any more than they have the right to kick your ass because you allegedly stole a pack of gum. They do appear to have the right to arrest you.

Arresting you is using the threat of violence against you . If you walk away, you will be forcably seized; if you resist the cop's use of force (the way you would if some non-cop grabbed you), you will be beaten or shot.

All arrests, all acts of law enforcement, are based on the threat of force. If the cop said, "Please come with me or...I'll have to ask you nicely again," I don't think many people would go. Political power, including the power to make people obey laws, comes out of the barrel of a gun.

Re:Dudley Hiibel's side

[sean.peters]

I haven't seen Americans enjoy freedoms that I do not have as a Finnish citizen, for example. Quite the contrary.

So there.

Nice content-free post... next time, would you care to provide some actual examples of freedoms you have in fun-loving Finland, that we don't have here in the US? I'm not saying you don't have them, but a one-liner post like this, containing nothing but an assertion of how wonderful things are in your hometown, isn't of much value.

Sean