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
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.
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
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.
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"