Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right
Anonymous Arrestee writes "Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anybody can be compelled at any time to identify themselves, if a police officer asks. People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian? The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name. On this latter point, someone will have to bring a separate case. And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any case it doesn't like. The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada [pdf]. Previous Slashdot story here."
From a link:
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.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Here's a link to Dudley Hiibel's side of the story: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/.
Thanks for fighting for my rights, Mr. Hiibel!
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.
Or Google
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
The reason the Supreme Court only hears cases it wishes is twofold.
1) As the original poster suggested, it allows them to only decide cases they feel are "ripe"
and more importantly:
2) The Supreme Court receives over *8000* requests for cert each year. They can only hand 80-120 cases or so. Needless to say they have to be able to filter some of the "junk" out.
- 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."There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Also, a number of Philip K. Dick's books addressed the power of the drug war to instantly criminalize somebody, a power which oculd be used selectively against dissenters and political troublemakers. This is another example of a law which can be used selectively - the police choose who to ask, thus biasing the pool of possible arrestees. Demanding identification under duress - from people you know will be unwilling to provide it - has the benefit that it's all above board, and the ensuing arrests are in the interests of "security".
"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
Incriminating, no, but it could be intimidating. This is, IMO, dangerously close to saying "if you're innocent, you should have nothing to hide".
Freedom: "I won't!"
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:
There's one major point most of the "major" media has left out about this ruling. The ruling only applies to the 20 states that have a law which requires persons to produce identification when they're suspected of criminal activity. This ruling does not apply to the other 30 states and the federal government which does not have laws which require identification.
In other words, this isn't going to turn into an East Berlin style state with cops asking for your papers - which hasn't been made legal by this ruling. You can only be thrown in jail or fined for not giving ID in a state that has a law that dictates that, and that's only in the case of being suspected of criminal activity.
"Last I heard, Canada has it too."
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.
Before this ruling, we were not required so much as identify ourselves to the police if they had no probably cause for arrest. Now, we are.
What? This case was a challenge to the laws that 20 different states, including Nevada and New York, ALREADY have on the books that required people to identify themselves to the police if the they have "reasonable suspicion" to ask for it. This ruling doesn't change anything.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Perhaps it has to do with Canada's recent laws restricting freedom of speech?
Or maybe it has to do with your healthcare system.
No comment.
Um, yes they did. The police were called out on a report of a domestic disturbance between Hiibel and his daughter. Hiibel and his daughter were fighting -his daughter admits it when they start to question her- so I would say that the police did have reasonable suspicion to question him.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
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.
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.
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.
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.
I write in my journal
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).
Disclaimer: Third year law student, worked with criminal prosecution for a couple months. IANAL. I suck.
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.
Did you read the same brief? I got my info from FindLaw.
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,
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Personal Anecdote:
A few years ago when I was pranking my highschool (senior prank), before we got far someone called the cops.
When the cops arrived an officer came up to me and asked what my name was. I responded by directly questioning him: "Am I legally required to tell you?", to which he said no. I then asked "Am I legally required to stay here", to which he responded something like "no, but I would recommend it" in a huffy tone. After that I just walked away, and he didnt do anything about it.
Later when the cops left some of my friends who were hiding called my cell phone to say the coast was clear, and the pranking continued (albeit more stealthily).
General Case Logic:
So anyways, even though the laws may vary from place to place, and the laws may have changed from then until now, if you directly ask a cop whether you are legally required to divulge information before you do, you are more likely to get a better outcome than if you unquestioningly divulge the information or if you flat out refuse. Remember, cops, like regular citizens, are allowed to ask you pretty much anything they want. However this also means that every question a cop asks is not necessairily backed up by the force of law.
In this sort of situation there are 2 relevant peices of data that form a 2x2 grid of options,
(1) Whether you legally obliged to show the information.
(2) Whether the cop *thinks* you are legally obliged to show it.
These make up the following cases:
(A) Laws require you to state your name, but the cop doesn't think you are required to(or isn't sure about it): Cop says you dont have to state your name, so you don't. You win even though the law is against you.
(B) Laws require you to state your name, and the cop knows it. The cop demands your name with force of law, so you tell him. You lose, but you are not any worse off for asking.
(C) Laws don't require you to state your name, and the cop doesn't think you are required to(or isn't sure about it). Win/Win. The cop says you are not legally required to divulge your name, so you don't, and you win.
(D) Laws don't require you to state your name, but the cop thinks otherwise. The cop says you are legally required to state your name, so you do. You lose (in terms of divulging information), but later you can probably use the fact that the cop misled you to fuck him over in a court of law.
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.
That interpretation is not in the judgement as I read it. It gave no right to stop you. All it said was that if he had already stopped you, for reasons under existing law, he is entitled to demand that you tell him your name.
This sort of extrapolation does not help a rational argument. The police already have the right to stop you if they are suspicious - and they have to have that right in order to stop the real bad guys. The provision of proper checks and balances on that power is a very important matter - but not the one under discussion here,
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Since when was giving an officer your name a bad thing? To anyone who does business, spreading your name around is actually pretty everyday stuff. If it's part of a policeman's procedure, well, being polite rarely gets a negative response.
:D
;)
I'd give him a business card, and tell him to call me when he needs a computer fixed. If he looks me up, he'll just find a lot of satisfied customers.
What I don't understand is why people assume the police are made up of thugs who want to dominate people... most policemen are simply your average guy who's trying to do their job, and pulling their hair out when they get no respect for it. Their pay isn't all that incredible. They likely have families that they want to keep safe. And many times, their lives depend on a piece of plastic that they wear about their bodies... and the training they received. So do they really deserve to be snubbed when all they want is to be sure you're not someone they're going to have to risk their lives against?
More importantly, if you act like an asshole, expect to be suspected of something. Manners go hand in hand with honesty. You don't have to tell him what your political affiliation or your annual household income is. Just something that you would likely give to an attractive stranger in any case.
*shrug* maybe I'm missing something.
The Penguin Producer
The headlines for the newspapers in this area do not read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for name", they read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for ID". No matter what the technical ruling of the Supreme Court is, the powers that be are spinning this to spread the impression that a formal, state issued ID is always necessary.
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.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Actually no, I don't think it is.
What does it mean when the supreme court says that you have no right to anonymity. Or rather that you have no right to refuse to identify yourself when asked by a police officer?
Well... they are saying that yes indeed a police officer can arrest you for not identifying yourself. Essentially, a police officer, an agent of the government, can use the threat of arrest, and even arrest itself to compel a person to identify themseleves.
Fundamentally, every law is founded on the threat of violence. What does it mean to say that stealing is illegal? It means that if you are caught stealing, the governmets thugs, the police, are going to take you away, by force, bring you before a judge, and if he finds you did it (yes I am simplifying the whole jury process etc... the details of how guilt is found isn't relevant) then they are going to punish you.
So when the supreme court rules that you have no right to not identify yourself, they are ruling that the state has every right to use some measure of the violence at their disposal against you if you refuse to identify yourself.
This is the formal, offical government approved, way of saying "You better not do that, or we are going to kmake you sorry"
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This post isn't directed at the parent but rather most of the tin foils that fly off without RTFA.
From papersplease.org:
Dudley was standing around minding his own business...
No, actually, he wasn't. According to this AP article, he was having an argument with his daughter. The cop didn't randomly approch him demanding ID, he was investigating a disturbance.
Did anyone even read the first line of the case:
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.
Further in the report:
The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had "any identification on [him]," which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification.
The officer was investigating a reported disturbance, not approaching random people demanding "papers". Actually, I'm surprised this even made it to supreme court. You are obligated to identify yourself when you are under suspicion of commiting a crime. Ever been pulled over for speeding? Hell, in this case the officer even stated the fact that he was conducting an investigation. The only weak point I see here is that it (the case document) doesn't quote the officer stating the exact nature of the investigation or informing Hiibel that he was under suspicion. All it says is that he "was conducting an investigation".
I agree the outcome of this case is a blow to civil rights, however, I think the events that lead up to this case have been blown way out of proportion. In the 33 years I've been around, I have yet to see police officers approaching random people demanding "papers".
Yeah, I'm posting this a day late so no one will probably see this post anyway...
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!