U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right 1492
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."
Communism and Capitalism (Score:1, Interesting)
And for those people who think that fourth amendment is still alive, best of luck!!
Finally... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A CLIT PSA (Score:1, Interesting)
Not that any new laws are needed just to arrest (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt there's anyone in America that could not be charged and convicted of a real legal offense that exists on the books somewhere in America in a given week. This isn't some nebulous concept of sin - I'm speaking of real laws that exist.
Still - the thought of being arrested for just walking around without a wallet, or not wanting to tell a strange officer your name is going further into the "oh, come on" realm.
I can imagine many ways to spin this both ways. Drunk people can be charged for even more crimes now if they get caught ashamed and unwilling to name themselves. So can plain embarassed or even crazy people.
Still - the judges had to decide based on the issues handed to them. I'd have preferred greater freedom here, but as a matter of law, they may be correct that this isn't a constitutional requirement. Always strange how legal decisions get made.
Ryan Fenton
Not so fast... (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, the police officer came upon a domestic dispute on the side of a roadway when Hiibel refused to identify himself. This is a little different from a cop walking up to you and asking for "papers." Under the circumstances, this request for identification (in the majority's view) is not unreasonably intrusive from a privacy standpoint. At this stage, asking for a name is not like patting him down or searching the car, both of which are more invasive and would require some additional justificaiton.
Also, before everyone stampedes for Canada, let's keep in mind that although there may not be any Federal Constituional prohibition against this, the States are all free to find that citizens in their jurisdiction enjoy greater state constitutional protection than the Federal provisions at issue here. That said, there is nothing preventing any individual state from a contrary holding under the exact same circumstances.
Personally, I disagree with the holding, but I am simply offering the rationale. The 5-4 split demonstrates, if nothing else, that reasonable minds can differ on this issue. (Also, the fact that O'Connor again "swings" the Court is interesting..)
Link to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions here [findlaw.com].
Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (Score:5, Interesting)
****
Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution.
One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.
On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.
***
so what the hell? did the court decide? that his quilty but it's still not alright to ask for the id????
Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless, of course, you're on the shit list of some local government agency, for speaking out against said government agency. And then you might suddenly find yourself with a busted tail light, a flat tire, or even 'suspicion of transporting drugs' which, in the South at least, can get your car completely dismantled.
But that doesn't happen in the good ol' U.S. of A., right?
Max
Terry VS Ohio (Score:5, Interesting)
I am already stopped a couple times a month and have to show my DL at road blocks, in the country side. I don't want this to go too far, granted, but its not as different as what is the practice anyway.
As I understand the Constitution (and I believe I do), you have the right to express your opinion, be treated the same regardless of race, gender, etc., be free of unreasonable search and seizure (which is argueably not what this is), to not have to testify against yourself, and several other nicities that I agree need protection, always.
But I don't remember seeing that being anonymous is an absolute right. It is implied, to a degree, with speech in some but not all ways. Commercial speech is different than political speech, for instance. It is implied in that justice should be blind, and treat you the same as everyone else. But not a blanket right to be anonymous in all things.
If something SHOULD be a Right, but its not in the Constitution, its not a Right. Petition, get sponsors, submit an Amendment, get it ratified by 2/3rds of the states, and its a Right. It's difficult on purpose, for good reason: To keep it from being used frivilously or in the heat of the moment.
I am not convinced that a Right to be anonymous in all ways is a good thing.
I'm out (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:3, Interesting)
There are several arguments made by individuals as to why they consider anonymous P2P applications desirable and in some cases necessary to freedom of speech and the free flow of information.
One argument is that true freedom of speech, especially on controversial subjects, is difficult or impossible unless individuals can speak anonymously. If anonymity was not offered, then they could be subject to threat or reprisal for voicing an unpopular view. This is one reason why voting is done by secret ballot in many democracies, to prevent this kind of intimidation. anonymous p2p [wikipedia.org]
some anonymously published works [wikipedia.org] (painfully short list, though)
Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just one of a half-dozen incidents I located in about five minutes of searching online. This was in Maryland; the others were in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Sure, it doesn't happen in America. Uh-huh.
Max
Re:A CLIT PSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Answer: No, sir.
If they're going to arrest you for not giving your name, they're just looking for an excuse to do it anyways. This just makes it too easy.
I still believe in my 5th amendment rights, and the magic words of Miranda, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you
You'd be amazed how fast I got mute, if I'm not doing anything in the least way wrong. If I'm just standing on a sidewalk, minding my own business, it's no one elses business who I am.
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It works both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
But, it doesn't work that way.
They are required to give you badge number and maybe a last name. You have no way of knowing if they are legit from that. Zero, zip, nada. You can't tell.
Not too many years back there was a series of crimes, including at least one rape, that were committed by a man wearing a uniform. He had a badge and a car with a light bar and siren.
How the hell would you be able to tell the difference?
For me, it's easy: trust nobody.
The problem of officers: crude men who like power (Score:1, Interesting)
Yet I am a very peaceful and easy going person. That is part of what an officer can not stand. He can not stand when you do not react to his threats and taunting and provocation as he would like you to. He can not stand when you do not feed back into his power. There is nothing an officer hates more than a peaceful response, or a defiant verbal response, because he wants to beat you, and all the better to beat you when you fight back and feed his sweaty, red-faced, shouting adrenaline high.
Doesn't it make you positively sick? And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
If you try to press charges, or even file a complaint, immediately the officer's superiors come in to back him up, and it is your word against theirs. And when it is you against them, you always lose. They are officers after all; if we can't trust their word, whose can we trust? An officer is a fine and respectable man, and we have this assurance from the many fine and respectable men who will come in to tear apart anyone who thinks otherwise.
I am deathly afraid of officers. I would rather be beaten and not report it than report it to an officer, because I fear an officer more than I do the bruises.
No, if you want to be free in this world, you need to hide. Just stay low, don't talk back, and don't speak up.
The moment you come in contact with an officer, your freedom is shattered.
This world is a crying shame.
If you want to be free?
There's a better world a 'coming.
Where we'll all be equal,
And we'll all be free.
A world which those who have the power
Will never see.
This land was made for you and me.
5th Amendment and request for reason for stop (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that invoking the Fifth Amendment requires knowing that self-incrimination is possible (which is why Hiibel's argument of Fifth Amendment protection was rejected by the US Supreme Court, as he shouldn't have been worried about self-incrimination). There is no real way to *know* whether you are at risk of self-incrimination without a police officer disclosing what they are considering charging you with. This basically renders useless Fifth Amendment protection against releasing identity, even though the US Supreme Court specifically said that the Fifth Amendment *could* apply to releasing one's identity.
This is a severely broken system. If police have no reason to potentially charge someone, they have no reason to stop them. If they have such a reason, I do not understand why they cannot be compelled to inform the person of what they are being accused of.
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:3, Interesting)
Party Affiliations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:5th Amendment and request for reason for stop (Score:5, Interesting)
An immigrant friend o mine put that to the test a few years ago
Pulled over for no reason, the cop asked him to shut off the car and get out of the vehical.
He shut off the car, put the keys on the roof to show he was going nowhere. But would not get out of the car until he was told why he had to do so.
Of course that just angered the cop. Cop called for backup. After much time had passed, the cop's commanding officer arrived and put the damn junior cop in his place, and told the driver to have a nice day.
Why did my friend do this? Because in his home country he had no such rights, and wasn't going to get abused here where the law does protect him.
This can work both ways. (Score:2, Interesting)
Read Decison Carefully (Score:3, Interesting)
They attempt to rationalize this as below:
You have to answer, but if your answer matters, it and anything else you say may be thrown out (From end of decision follows)(possibly the only saving grace in this mess of an opinion):
Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.
The judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court is Affirmed.
Re:Why hide your identity? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you have committed a crime yourself (and are thus protected from self-incrimination by the 5th Ammendment).
If you refuse to cooperate with a jerk of an officer.
If you don't like the idea of being stopped just because you 'look suspicious'.
If you are proving the point that this is still the U.S., where we are supposed to have certain inalienable rights.
These are just off the top fo my head. I'm sure others have better thought-out situations.
Registered Republican & unhappy with our country's direction,
-bZj
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I the only one who reads this as "If we don't suspect you of a crime, you have less rights than if we do?" Or, to put it differently, the police can now ask you to identify yourself, and if you don't cooperate, you're under arrest, but if they already suspected you of something else, you're under arrest for that something else, just not for refusing to identify yourself?
To quote my gut instinct: "WTF?" and "What did that judge eat that morning?" And second, is the second provision just to prevent that ruling form being ruled unconstititional as per fifth amendment? "Refusing to identify yourself BECAUSE you know you're suspected of a crime would be a litmus test of a guilty conscience etc..."?? Any lawyers around?
Who goes there? (Score:2, Interesting)
"No, but you must identify yourself when asked."
"Well in that case I refuse."
"You are under arrest!"
--or--
"Am I suspected of a crime?"
"Yes, actually. So who are you?"
"I'm not telling!"
"Move along, then."
I think this little uncertainty will be sorted out in short order.
Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (Score:2, Interesting)
I propose Emmanuel Goldstein become our chosen name. Imagine 10,000 arrests filed each month against Emmanuel Goldstein for refusing to give an ID. Seems almost too appropriate to me.
Friend was arrested for giving REAL name once. (Score:3, Interesting)
A friend of mine had lost his one weekend on a night out in the city. As a result he had left to look for it in his car which resulted in him having to wait for some other friends outside the club because he couldn't get in. Some altercation had occured inside the club, and because he was milling around outside he was promptly questioned by police.
My friends name is Josh Smith, and when he told police this they refused to believe him, handcuffed him, and took him to the station. They had his name on file from a previous arrest, a DUI i think, but in the end they charged him with obstruction. Just because he had lost his wallet and they assumed the name he had given was fabricated.
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:1, Interesting)
Congratulations to YOU for showing the reading comprehension skills of a 5 year old. This ruling does not require us to do anything. It only says that it is constitutional for states to pass laws that require us to identify ourselves to police if the police have reasonable suspicion to ask for it. The ruling by itself has no effect on you.
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
The case law on this subject says that you can't refuse to tell a police officer who you are -- it does not say that you must carry any sort of identification (or "papers") with you at all times.
If you will recall from the case in question the officer was responding to a domestic dispute call. He had reasonable cause to think that the guy might have struck his daughter (somebody phoned it in that way) and when he attempted to find out what had transpired the guy made it into a pissing contest by refusing to give his name.
If you are opposed to carrying ID or "papers" then don't -- there aren't any laws on the books requiring you to do so. In my state you don't even technically need your license on you to drive -- it just needs to be valid and you need to be able to present it in 24 hours if called upon. That still doesn't mean you can refuse to identify yourself.
You're Not a-Right, You're a-Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
What SCOTUS also did was take away your right to refuse to answer in any state that does have such a law.
And the Republinazis who control Congress can easily pass a national law ("The Freedom Identity Act of 2004", say) that requires you to identify yourself whenever you're asked by an agent of the government, upon pain of going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Not to mention that this clears the way for national ID cards, which clears the way for a whole host of tyrannical Republo-crime.
I guess it's time to try and become a billionaire so I can buy some rights. Hope they haven't stopped allowing people to become billionaires yet.
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, sure. On paper, that makes sense. In practice, requiring people to identify themselves to police officers (as long as such identification isn't self-incriminating) is an important part of promoting the general welfare. And it abridges in absolutely no way anybody's right to privacy, free speech, peaceable assembly, or any of the other expressed or implied civil rights.
We always decried countries where police could demand "papers'' at will for no reason. Now we are, i n effect, one of those countries.
No, we are not. You are not required to carry identification, nor are you required to present it to any police officer. (Exceptions involving things like getting carded to buy beer and presenting your passport at the border are obvious and do not require discussion.)
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and I am grateful that the police put their lives on the line to protect the citizens against violent criminals (I wish they didn't have to waste their time on vice crimes ... I'll change my mind the day Amsterdam dissolves into chaos ... which hasn't happened yet!)
Re:License and registration please? (Score:1, Interesting)
http://privacy.cs.cmu.edu/dataprivacy/papers/LI
It was found that 87% (216 million of 248 million) of the population in the United States had reported characteristics that likely made them unique based only on {5-digit ZIP, gender, date of birth}. About half of the U.S. population (132 million of 248 million or 53%) are likely to be uniquely identified by only {place, gender, date of birth}, where place is basically the city, town, or municipality in which the person resides.
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, my general concern is that the police take it as a license to start identifying people on their way out of opposition political meetings and the like, but I think that the majority opinion is worded quite clearly such that the verdict is only on identification during the course of an existing criminal investigation....
Yes, very familiar. (Score:5, Interesting)
Allow me to introduce you to Gilmore vs. Ashcroft. [cryptome.org]
A sample:
"United States courts have recognized for more than a century that honest citizens have the right to travel throughout America without government restrictions. Some people say that everything changed on 9/11, but patriots have stood by our Constitution through centuries of conflict and uncertainty. Any government that tracks its citizens' movements and associations, or restricts their travel using secret decrees, is violating that Constitution," said Gilmore. "With this case, I hope to redirect government anti-terrorism efforts away from intrusive yet useless measures such as ID checks, confiscation of tweezers, and database surveillance of every traveler's life."
So, when you say:
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.
By that token, I daresay you insult the memory of those same people by not paying enough attention to what's already happening.
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:3, Interesting)
-Publius
Re:Be pleased you're not in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
"What would be the point of not identifying yourself, and under what kind of circumstances would you want to do so?"
You're the cop. You don't have a shred of evidence on me, but you want to accuse me of some crime. You want me to provide whatever evidence you need. There's a fundamental premise of US law that very explicitly protects me from having to do so.
If you want to accuse me of a crime, do so. If you suspect that I am a person whom you believe you want, it is YOUR job, NOT MINE, to identify me as that individual, period. Likewise, it is YOUR job to say where I was on Tuesday at 11:00 PM, NOT MINE.
There is the strongest basis for the rights of the people to be free from being compelled to give any information to the police, because any information at all can be used to incriminate them.
Either you suspect me of a crime, or you suspect I am someone in particular. If you think you have caught me committing a crime, it really doesn't matter WHO I AM, put the cuffs on me, read me my rights, beginning with "right to remain silent." If you think I'm so-and-so on your wanted list, then say so. Tell me who I am. Tell the magistrate who I am. My attorney will answer all questions, period.
The Supreme Court has just made a major coup against the Fifth Amendement.
In America, it was impossible to do that without a 2/3 vote of Congress and a ratification among the States. The new country that occupies the borders of the country formerly called the United States has no such limits on government.
It seems reasonable, framed in the context of the story, but in the broader context of erosion of the most basic rights that define the Constitutional Republic, it is absolutely inconceivable. It takes away one of the most important rights that the revolutionary government had considered to be worthy of armed rebellion and total sacrifice.
Today we have different priorities, and a much higher threshhold of what tyranny we will tolerate. (I don't think there's a limit, personally; collectively we will accept *anything* as long as the system avoids calling itself by certain forbidden names, and as long as the propaganda machine operates.)
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, it should be possible to have a democracy, and to maintain all of your other civil rights if you are only required to show ID to police officers.
Just because you are required to show ID does not mean the police can randomly arrest you, for example.
That being said, I'm not supporting this concept, mostly just playing devils advocate. People tend to lump "show ID" in with random arrest, lack of due process, lack of access to lawyers and various other civil rights, when in reality there is no reason that they need to be directly linked -- It just so happens that the best examples of a requirement to show your ID at any time are in countries which did not have the other civil rights to which americans are accustomed.
miranda (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about public protests. (Score:1, Interesting)
I am sure there will be people protesting at both the Democratic and Republican conventions, but things like this have a definite chilling effect on the first amendment right "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is simply a fantasy. I don't know what Soviet Union, in what Universe, you are talking about, but on this planet a soviet citizen didn't need to get any permission to travel - not at least after Stalin's death (and before that you often needed a permission to live.) There were no such permissions, as there were no offices that would be issuing those, and noone to check them upon arrival. You just went to a railway station or an airport, paid cash and got the ticket. Any photo ID was sufficient to board the plane, IIRC. And you could travel on any ground vehicle, incl. trains, without any ID at all.
A soviet citizen got his passport on his 16th birthday, exactly for the same purposes an american gets his SSN. The passport was a universally accepted (and the best) personal ID, since hardly anyone had a driver's license; however some state-issued IDs with photos were OK too.
Soviet Union had its problems, but police brutality was never one of them. Now it is, but not back then; people trusted the police, and for a good reason.
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:4, Interesting)
> Unlike what you see in the movies or on TV, the police are law-abiding citizens like almost everybody else.
Except that the "almost" part that you mentioned is that they have the power to arbitrarily make your life a living hell and have a propensity for skirting the law.
Let me state for the record that I am the son of a 30+ year retired Miami Beach police officer. I am not posting this anonymously and I am not a troll.
Oddly enough I don't know that many cops, but of the ones I do know (mostly retired ones), one is a drug user and has been frequently baker acted, another was incarcerated for some petty white collar crime, a third is banging 16yo girls in South America, and there are several more that are closet kkk members.
I'm not saying all cops are bad, far from it, but even good cops can bend/ignore the law as they see fit. And everyone including cops can have a bad hair day.
To give the impression that all cops are all true blue, "law abiding", good hearted, dudly doo-rights is just plain naive.
Justice Stevens' dissent got it right (Score:2, Interesting)
The officer in this case told petitioner, in the Court's words, that "he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification." Ante, at 2. As the target of that investigation, petitioner, in my view, acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Stevens (or his clerk writing for him) in his dissent [209.123.170.170] seems to be the only member of the court who addressed the issue of just how revealing a name can be in an age where large databases are omnipresent. IANAL, but his reasoning seems quite convincing to me. In some circumstances revealing one's name is indirectly, but powerfully, self-incriminating, and thus should not be compelled.
Agree (Score:1, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:3, Interesting)
And I don't see any valid reason for the police demanding my name unless they have probable cause, which isn't a requirement of the ruling. All they need is 'suspicion', and this suspicion is entirely defined by the police officer in question.
Which means that a cop can stop and question me, at any time, on a whim, claiming 'suspicion' to justify his actions later. And there's no way I can prove otherwise, since it's just my word against his.
Max
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a HUGE difference between "the Hiibel example and the cops showing up at your door without a warrent."
"Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion." "Reasonable suspicion" has been a long-recognized basis for stopping people and even searching them without a warrant. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. No such articulable facts, no right to demand identification!
Under this law, "the suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists. As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document." ["Your papers please?" Please!]"Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
However, only under VERY limited circumstances can a cop show up at your door without a warrant and gain lawfully entry to search your home (Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; high risk of imminent bodily harm, things like that.) That's just a stupid comparison.
I am a big-time privacy activist, but this is the right decision and hardly groundbreaking.
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:2, Interesting)
Walking is not the common manner of using public roads. It is restricted. Horse travel is not the common manner of using public roads. It is restricted. Automobiles cannot be the common manner, as their use is a privilege. So tell me, what is the common manner of using the public roads? After all, inherent in the right to move about freely is the right to use the public roads in the common manner. What does one have the right to do on the public roads?
Note: Anything you must obtain a license for is a privilege, subject to revocation on the terms of the grantor: marriage, driving, working in almost any professional field, operating a business, etc.
Even Greyhound sometimes demands ID (Score:3, Interesting)
Back when I was in college in the 70s, bus tickets and train tickets and airplane tickets weren't things that only applied to one particular person who'd been granted permission to travel - they were bearer tickets that said you'd paid for your seat.
Getting around in a car _does_ often require you to carry papers. Cops can stop you any time they feel like it and demand them. Usually they only do this if you've done something either wrong or suspicious-looking while driving, but if you think that cops can't or don't ask for papers without that, then you must be a clean-shaven short-haired white boy who didn't start driving until you got out of college and acquired a clean non-sporty-looking car. Furthermore, many state and local police run sobriety checkpoints on heavy-alcohol weekends and inspect everybody's papers when they go by.
Back when I lived in New Jersey, I was once stopped at a checkpoint coming back from an election-night party, and the cops were not only asking for my papers, but asking where I was coming from and where I was going. Unfortunately, at that time I had a burned-out taillight that I did not want to call attention to, so I did not tell him what I was thinking, which was that I was going to America but had obviously made a wrong turn and could he direct me back across the border.
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked with law enforcement for a number of years. The overwhelming sentiment with that particular force is that citizens had absolutely no right to protect themselves in any way, shape or form. Any citizen who dared to go armed was just as bad, or worse even, than a criminal.
Most cops would rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than pull a gun from her purse and blow her attacker away. They seem to take it as a personal affront that a citizen would have the gall to actually protect themselves, rather than do the decent thing and become a victim...so the police could 'do their jobs' and clean up after.
My experience with the police (and their complete lack of respect for the people they supposedly served) left me with the conviction that the only person interested in actually protecting me - was me. Which is why I go armed.
Max
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
If you want to collect Social Security, you have to prove to me that you have a valid social security number, possibly by showing a case worker your card. If you want to collect welfare, you have to produce some sort of ID that proves who you are so that you don't get issued 60000 checks. If you want to get government health care you'd better have your Access or Medicare card on you, so that we can prove you're not doctor shopping for narcotics. If you're carrying a sidearm concealed, best you have your carry permit on you. Your "Papers" are more than just a drivers license, and they can all be required from you at various points in your life. Allowing the state to identify you is a small price to pay for helping the greater good. A simple identity check by a police officer is not some huge spy plot by the Federal government. It merely helps the cogs of the machine move a little quicker and easier.
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are cops I've had nice pleasant conversations with even when I've done something wrong (like the guys in rural Colorado who stopped me and told me that they'd clocked me at 69mph when we both knew I'd probably been doing 75-80.) Friendly guys, and they'd established up front that they were being friendly and I ought to be cooperative, and I appreciated the warning that I'd gotten to an area populated enough to care about speed limits. On the other hand, the cops who arrested me for photographing them when they were backing up their buddy who'd ripped off a friend's car radio were lying thugs who should have been canned from the force. Too many of my local cops are bullies - I've had them use force on my because I took too long getting my license out of my wallet when they had their headlights pointed in my mirror, and I've seen them shoving a couple of black guys to the ground and handcuffing them (ok, they _were_ breaking into a car at 3am, but they asserted it was their own car and the driver had left his wallet and keys on the seat - about half an hour later, the cops were busy apologizing, because it _was_ their car, as demonstrated by the wallet on the car seat.) I've occasionally driven out of a brightly lit parking lot with only my parking lights on, not my headlights. The older local cop who saw me do that flashed his lights at me and waved when I turned my lights on; the younger cop who saw me do that was Mr. Testosterone who wanted to yell at me about where I was going and whether I'd been drinking. I had my van break down in a nearby rich neighborhood at 1am once, and had the hood up pouring water into the radiator when the cops showed up. Did they start by asking "Need any help?"? Nope - it was "!License and Registration!".
I've had friends who were cops, and I've got some inlaws who are cops. I've also done some firearms training with cops who are friends of friends - being a cop is often scary shit, and one of the reasons you can't trust cops is that if they don't understand what you're doing, they tend to get scared and do the macho intimidation overreaction thing because it's occasionally a lot safer for them than not doing so. Older cops are usually safer to be around, because most of them are over the bullying power trip thing if they had that, and most of them have enough experience and maturity to deal with most situations. But some of them are experienced Bad Cops, and there are situations like domestic disputes and bank robberies that are always unsafe and unpredictable.
And given your signature line, you've probably also read The Phoenix Guards. Remember the scene in the tavern where our four friends get in a fight with the other guard unit, and what insults led to the fight?
tightening ratchet of mind and movement control (Score:3, Interesting)
all citizen-criminals in the United States are already assumed guility unless they're really police or government employees working for any of the three-letter criminal services.
it's vital for citizen-criminals to identify themselves and submit to any degredation deemed fitting by police--anything less would put the citizen-criminal on a greater or equal footing with the officer and that's just not right,right?
citizen-criminals are never too young to enter the criminal-justice system--and with an ever lowering barrier to entry it won't be long before the privitization of the criminal-justice system (notably the prisons) begins generating serious revenue for domestic and international interests
it's all about money
in the end, everyone loses to the system
and in a system with no apparent winners there will
be those who will gather to eventually destroy it
the gamble taken by the 10% controlling the show is that they
get a good return on their investment before everything is sacked
or the hope that they're lucky enough to control whatever is left
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the Supreme Court is not supposed to tell states how they should write their laws. The Supreme Court is supposed to tell whether or not a given law is unconstitutional.
In this case, the judges simply stated that the law did not infringe on the constitution.
This ruling is a non-event. As you noticed, it doesn't change anything in the general understanding of the law. It explicitly requires a reasonable suspicion to be present if an arrest is to be made.
The question was: "is the Nevada law unconstitutional ?" The answer is : "No". The rest is just ususal
Thomas Miconi
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:3, Interesting)
whatever King George and his Possee gave them to eat.
It is no suprise that the entire government from executive to judicial has rolled over and is doing whatever king george and his henchmen are asking all in the name of "national security" and "the fight against terrorism".
Ok, so I sound a bit bitter, but the Supreme court is expected to uphold the Constitution not "interpet" it. for cripes sake... the document is written in CLEAR ENGLISH and is understandable by even small children nop reading between th lines is allowed in that document.
Where this would be a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
This is tough because a lot of my friends are cops and I see both sides of the dispute. But as much as I like them I know they'll push whatever limits they're given. Many times there will be political pressure to push the limits. The police are not our enemy, but an excess of police power, for any justification, is the enemy of a free people. I think we're far enough down the police power road now that our claim to the title "home of the free" could reasonably be disputed.
Re:License and registration please? (Score:3, Interesting)
You joke, but 15 years ago I was in high school, and my 15 year old girlfriend was regularly stopped by cops -- different cops -- trying to "get to know her". And there weren't THAT many cops around (we lived in a town of about 40,000 people). At first she was practically traumatized, then she was just disgusted, and finally she just became fed up.
She was a hottie, to be sure, but (1) she was a high school kid, and (2) WHAT THE FUCK?
I hate cops.
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:3, Interesting)
We discussed this in a core criminal justice class. Our teacher was an ex district attorney who told us she has told officers they can't check her car and had no problems. The key seems to be that you have to be respectful to the officers. If you act smug or obnoxious you're just inviting trouble.
Of course, not all cops play by the rules and your results may vary. But it is possible to say no. As for them just having "suspicion". It is a little bit more. It has to be "reasonable". Which means that they have to be able to explain their decision later to a Judge if necessary. e.g.
Officer:"They looked at me funny" - doesn't cut it
Officer:"They matched the description of somebody who broke into a home nearby and were very nervous when I talked to them" - does.
<disclaimer>IANAL</disclaimer>
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you choose to resist, then you are disturbing the peace and threatening the safety of an officer, therefore they have the right to subdue you - not kill or main you.
Wrong. See the definition of sovereignty [reference.com]. The Federal government has sovereignty over it's citizens, roughly translated, they can kill any number of them at their whim. They earned this sovereignty when our ancestors gave up their individual rights to a sovereign, or the United States government. This social contract is tenuously based on the idea that the state will provide basic protections. By living in society, we tacitly agree to keep our side of the agreement, by continuing to give the state its sovereignty.
Re:You are just plain wrong, read the SC opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Down Under (Score:3, Interesting)
If this man had been arrested for a different crime, like hitting his daughter (which he didn't do anyway), he never would have been legally required to provide identification. It's completely nonsensical.