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."
Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything else (Score:4, Informative)
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.
This bodes well -- it would seem to put the kibosh on any effort to turn this into a "must produce your National ID card on demand" ruling.
A name is a name (Jack Brown), and gives the officer something to call you besides "Hey You", but as long as we're not required to produce some sort of definitive, unique-identity-signifying number of the beast, I'm not too worried.
Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, I will continue to list my address as
1060 West Addison
Chicago, Illinois
60613
And my social...
078-05-1120 [wired.com]
Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (Score:5, Funny)
If all I have to give is my name, then I'm not particularly concerned. Just make up a name that doesn't sound too suspiciously bland (like John Smith)
And what if you really are John smith? Even worse, what about the Michael Boltons of the world?
Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Possible scenarios (Score:5, Funny)
"What's your name?"
"Rutherford."
"Rutherford is an unperson."
"Ogilvy."
"Ogilvy's a dead war hero."
"Uh--"
"To Miniluv with you!"
The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name.
"You are under suspicion for extreeeme bestiality."
"Uh, no."
"What's your name?"
"Forget it."
"To Miniluv with you!"
Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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.
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:5, Informative)
Boy. Is that ever wrong.
Let me do this one in reverse. Let me start with the 5th amendment.OK, grand juries. We know what that means: you have to be indicted before you can be charged. Double jeopardy: can't be tried for the same crime twice. Self-incrimination: you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. Due process: no summary judgments. No arbitrary seizures without compensation. Got it.
What does the fifth amendment have to do with this case? Nothing, except when it comes to self-incrimination. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself. But guess what? The Court already covered that: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.
So, fifth amendment doesn't have anything to say about this case, nor does this case have anything to say about the fifth amendment.
Moving on: the fourth amendment:The idiot--er, I mean "Digital Avatar," said:
the fourth and fifth ammendments make it pretty clear that we don't have to give an officer jack shit based on his 'reasonable suspicion'.
In fact, the fourth amendment says just the opposite. The fourth amendment says that the people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The people are not "secure" against reasonable searches and seizures. And, in fact, in cases where a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists, searches and/or seizures are permitted by law. This doctrine is called "probable cause." And it's a judgment that's left entirely in the hands of the peace officers on the scene.
It'd be nice if political theory were actually taught in public schools, as opposed to the watered-down liberal crap you obviously learned.
It'd be nice if you took five damn minutes and read the Constitution of the United States so you'd know just what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen of this country. Your rights: to be secure from unreasonable searches. Your responsibility: to be subject to reasonable searches when probable cause exists.
And while the police can ask you for your name for no reason at all, you are under no legal obligation to give it unless you've been detained under suspicious circumstances in a state with a "stop and identify" statute.
Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Dudley Hiibel's side (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for fighting for my rights, Mr. Hiibel!
Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy way out (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easy way out (Score:5, Funny)
Brings about an interesting "AH-HA" experience with consulting. Be prepared to address problems up front so that they cannot bring them up later. This is the best example I have heard of this,
The wife is in bed and the man brings 2 aspirin and a glass water. The wife says, 'I don't have a headache!'
I hope you get the idea now.
Down Under (Score:5, Informative)
Now I am surprised! Here in the land Down Under, we have always been compelled to identify ourselves to police. Name and address, but there's no ID card requirement.
There is also a charge for giving police a false name.
Try this for a start [qld.gov.au].
Or Google [google.com]
Re:Down Under (Score:4, Insightful)
Err... no (Score:4, Informative)
The Queen has virtually no power over the *British* people and you think she has real power over Australians?
Look up the term "constitutional monarchy" sometime. While you're at it, look up "Charles I" for an example of what happens to monarchs who try to seize absolute power (Hint: it involved him, a chopping block and a decent sized axe).
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
catch-22 (Score:5, Insightful)
To have the right not to tell them your name you have to get arrested?
Am I the only one that things this is hilariosly messed up logic?
Read the opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Read the opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Read the opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Read the opinion (Score:4, Informative)
Reasonable suspicion is NOT synonymous with probable cause. In the jurisdictions I've been in, the standard of proof for reasonable suspicion is generally a lot lower than that of probable cause. The exact definition of reasonable suspicion/probable cause depends on the jurisdiction you're in.
For practical purposes, reasonable suspicion is pretty meaningless. The only time it really comes up is in court, usually during suppression motions. Essentially, the only time reasonable suspicion or probable cause matter is when you're trying to suppress the 37 kilos of weed the cop found in your spare tire as the fruit of an illegal search.
A few relevant quotes (Score:5, Informative)
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Also, a number of Philip K. Dick's books addressed the power of the drug war to instantly criminalize somebody, a power which oculd be used selectively against dissenters and political troublemakers. This is another example of a law which can be used selectively - the police choose who to ask, thus biasing the pool of possible arrestees. Demanding identification under duress - from people you know will be unwilling to provide it - has the benefit that it's all above board, and the ensuing arrests are in the interests of "security".
"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
Incriminating, no, but it could be intimidating. This is, IMO, dangerously close to saying "if you're innocent, you should have nothing to hide".
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, lemme get this straight. You're NOT suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself, you get arrested. You ARE suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself and you DON'T get arrested? That's pretty fucked up.
It works both ways (Score:5, Funny)
a police officer, you have no obligation to give them your ID.
(However, saying "If you show me your's, I'll show you mine" will probably get you arrested.)
Re:It works both ways (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.
Re:It works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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].
Often Moot - but it's still dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that you might be able to withhold your name if you are guilty means that remaining silent is automatically a confession - either you're guilty of something else, or you're guilty of withholding your name. The police will ALWAYS arrest you, and find some other means to identify you.
Also, since the police can arrest you for withholding your name, if you are trying to avoid being arrested for an outstanding warrant, they can hold you indefinitely - simply by asking you your name every 24 hours until you tell them (so they look up your outstanding warrants). Yep - forced self-incrimination.
My guess is that there will be a future case that gets to the supreme court, where an innocent person in a legal demonstration refuses to give their name, gets arrested, and refuses for weeks to give their name - and gets held by the police without any realistic opportunity to be set free. Then maybe the court will realize what they've done.
Terry VS Ohio (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.
Re:Terry VS Ohio (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
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: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.
Party Affiliations (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that this case merits precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, read the last two pages of the decision.
That said, I still don't like the decision, and I still don't quite like the actions of the police officer.
Change of name. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm changing my name to "Fuck Off Pig".
Unusual Pronounciation? (Score:4, Funny)
They can't charge you for how you PRONOUNCE your name, can they?
miranda (Score:4, Interesting)
Case in point (Score:5, Informative)
Take for example: If an officer asks for your name and you give it the officer may ask for ID to prove it. If you fail to produce the ID then you are guilty of obstructing justice. At this point the Supreme Court ruling would not apply because you would indeed be guilty of hindering an investigative action--verification of identity.
Take for another example: A fellow on the block always mows his lawn at 8 AM on Saturday morning. He likes to get it done before it gets to be 104 degrees outside and also likes to have it out of the way so that he can enjoy the rest of his Saturday. On a particular Saturday the elderly woman who lives two doors down from him isn't feeling well and calls the police for a noise disturbance on Saturday morning. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the elderly woman is the mother-in-law of one of the police captains. The captain isn't actually on duty but the patrol officers know that he's going to be in a sour mood if he has to come in to work on Sunday after receiving a telephone call from his mother-in-law early Saturday morning. The patrol officers decide that they'll just take a casual cruise by to see what the situation is. They find the guy mowing his lawn and ask him to stop to speak with them. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the fellow has had a rough week at work and just wants to get the lawn done to go back to bed. The police ask for his name so that they can fill out their paperwork and the fellow quips "John Doe". He doesn't feel that his name should be included on a report for a noise disturbance because 1) he's mowing his lawn, and 2) the police have declined to identify the person who made the complaint. The police ask for his ID to verify his name. He's out mowing the yard and informs them that the ID is IN HIS HOUSE.
How long can the police detain the man? They certainly don't want to let him go back into his house because then they'll need a warrant to get him to come back out.
Can the police enter the man's home to retrieve the ID without a warrant?
From my understanding of (experience with) the law the police can detain the man for as long as they feel like chatting. If the man turns away from the officers to leave they will physically restrain him and possibly charge him with "obstruction of justice". The situation can continue indefinitely until 1) The man calls his lawyer (which he cannot do because he's out mowing the lawn and the cell phone is in the house), 2) the police get bored (they're always bored which explains why they would detain the man to chat indefinitely), 3) the man takes any action which can be misconstued to be hindering the duties of a police officer.
The stalemate is this: The police will not leave until they have the man's ID. The police will not let the man enter his house to retrieve the ID. The man will NOT give the police permission to enter his house to retrieve the ID.
The solution: The police detain the man until he becomes agitated enough to turn away and try to walk back into his house. The police reach out to restrain the man and immediately charge him with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. At this point the police have just cause to enter his house and retrieve his ID. By this time the man is explosive with rage and the police can lock him up or send him to the psyche ward.
Honestly, all of this existed before the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruling just makes it public debate and shows how some lawyers have far too much free time on their hands.
Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the same brief? I got my info from FindLaw [findlaw.com].
Read the opinion. There is no requirement of probable cause in the demand for one's name. A police officer can do it at any time for any reason, under this Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
For those of you that haven't read the decision, here's some highlights. If you don't care, you can skip to the ---- and read the rest of my comment.
"2. Deputy Dove demanded that petitioner identify himself under the authority of NRS 171.123, which provides: 1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. [Emphasis added] * * * * * 3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. [Emphasis added] Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."
"Requiring a person to identify himself during an investigative stop does not intrude on any legitimate expectation of privacy."
"Of particular relevance, the Court has held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his voice or handwriting. In United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973), a grand jury witness argued that a subpoena requiring a voice exemplar for identification purposes violated the Fourth Amendment. This Court rejected that claim, holding that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the sound of his voice."
"The principle that a person can claim no Fourth Amendment protection for what he "knowingly exposes to the public" (Katz, 389 U.S. at 351) is readily applicable in this case. "Except for the rare recluse who chooses to live his life in complete solitude" (Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted)), a person routinely exposes his identity to the public. Individuals exchange their names as a matter of course in everyday social interactions, and regularly display their names when using credit cards or checks in commercial transactions. And a person must reveal his name in order to drive a car, obtain a job, open a bank account, or receive mail. In short, disclosing one's identity is an essential part of everyday life."
"'This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,' Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-744, and 'has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities,' id. at 744 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, accordingly, officers could have followed petitioner to his home or workplace and learned his identity from his neighbors or coworkers-an entirely lawful practice that most would consider a more significant invasion of privacy than a mere requirement to provide one's name."
"The relevant inquiry is whether the particular item sought by law enforcement implicates a legitimate expectation of privacy, not whether that item might facilitate discovery of other information that implicates a cognizable privacy interest.4"
"The Court held in Terry, however, that when officers form a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a brief, investigative detention for purposes of questioning the suspect is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 20-23. The Court has made clear that the questions put to the subject of a Terry stop can include a request for the person's name. [Emphasis added] See Hayes,
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Powers delegated by the citizens to officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (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:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Backwards reasoning... (Score:5, Funny)
Because the state loves you.
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:5, Funny)
i mean, uh, no, oops, um, please don't mod me down, i'm not anonymous, i mean, or a coward, or trolling, or, um,
^^^^
above poster has some kind of disorder and has fallen on his keyboard. please feel sympathy for the anonymous.
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't change that anonymity is one of the cornerstones of a functioning democratic society, however.
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:5, Insightful)
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:cowards hide anonymously (Score:4, Insightful)
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:cowards hide anonymously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cowards hide anonymously (Score:5, Informative)
What? This case was a challenge to the laws that 20 different states, including Nevada and New York, ALREADY have on the books that required people to identify themselves to the police if the they have "reasonable suspicion" to ask for it. This ruling doesn't change anything.
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?
Of course it does (Score:5, Funny)
Sallah (laughing): Papers? Of course!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes.
Sallah: Papers. Got it here! Just finished reading it myself!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes?
Sallah: "Egyptian Mail," morning edition!
[to Marcus]
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Did you say, uh...
(Sallah punches German Dude)
Sallah: RUN!
Incredible... (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, don't trouble yourself.
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't trust the government, not because I think it is run by bad people, or that anyone there wants to hurt US citizens. On the contrary, I don't trust the gov't because they are responsible for setting their own salaries, and for raising the taxes that pay those salaries. It sounds basic, but the problem is that they have far too much personal interest in high taxes and lots of power (in order to be able to collect those taxes).
It is sad, but I honestly believe that there will come a time when we will no longer have certain freedoms, all in the name of security. That day, unfortunately, is now. We have lost so many freedoms due to security concerns. Unfortunately we live in a country where the vast majority feels that the gov't should take care of them (re: social security, gov't healthcare, welfare, etc.), and have extended this to personal safety (a road we have been on for a long time with things like anti-gun laws and even speeding laws). The further we go down this road, however, the less freedom we have. I personally would rather have more responsibility, and more freedom.
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sound familiar? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm gonna argue this one becuase I think it's a point of view that needs to be considered, even if rejected, so bare with the devil's advocate here.
Police ain't here to protect you, except in limited circumstances. Police certainly protect a stalled car by slowing down traffic with their lights and similar instances, but when it comes to criminal investigations the police have no duty to protect you. The police man's only duty is to find out who committed the crime, and arrest him. In this regaurd, police are reactionary elements, not proactive gaurds of your security. Police show up after a crime has been committed, and at that point you're already a victum. How is this protection?
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Sound familiar? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: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:"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any c (Score:5, Informative)
1) As the original poster suggested, it allows them to only decide cases they feel are "ripe"
and more importantly:
2) The Supreme Court receives over *8000* requests for cert each year. They can only hand 80-120 cases or so. Needless to say they have to be able to filter some of the "junk" out.
Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (Score:5, Informative)
- Hiibel's contention that his conviction violates the Fifth
Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure
of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.
eg. you shouldn't be forced (by imprisonment, torture, or otherwise) to admit to some crime. But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating. If the authorities already have some evidence against you, then they do either way, and hiding your identity won't change that.Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (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
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:So much for the right to remain silent. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
For those who are concerned about the ruling, however, take solace in the fact that the decision was 5-4 which means, historically, that the decision is prone to be overturned. After a very cursory examination of the dissents, Justice Stevens' opinion seems to be that that the Fifth Amendment does not provide for even a narrow exception like this. The other three dissenting justices (Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) seem more interested in why the justices reserved judgment about why answers to "what is your name?" can be compelled if it might lead to conviction on a different offense. As he puts it, "I would not begin to erode a clear rule with special exceptions."
IANAL, of course.
Re:canada anybody? (Score:5, Funny)
so, how come we aren't seeing the mass migration of all you intelligent americans to canada yet?
It's already happened -- he crossed the border last Thursday.
Re:canada anybody? (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe it has to do with your healthcare system.
Re:canada anybody? (Score:4, Informative)
Canada does not have such a law, police must have a reason to ask for such information and unless you have committed a crime you are not forced to oblige.
Re:whats the charge? (Score:5, Informative)
In the past, vagrancy laws were used, but they were held to be too vague. Hence the need for a specific law.
The relevant parts of Nevada's statue are:
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
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:License and registration please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this would seem to necessarily take us one step closer to requiring a national ID card in the most extreme of likely outcomes of the court ruling.
Re:A CLIT PSA (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: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.)