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."
Actually, the flaming in usenet and elsewhere demonstrates
how badly people behave if they think they are anonymous.
"Your papers, please?"
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
so, how come we aren't seeing the mass migration of all you intelligent americans to canada yet?
even the most right-winged uber-conservatives from the states that i know love canada.
Years from now your computer will make you use retina scan. Without that you can't login and your pet robot will beat the shit out of you.
Those who think U.S. is becoming more free is absolutely on crack. We are prisoners to our own PC, spyware, viruses, martha steward pajamas.
Doesn't this fly in the face of the cherished "right to remain silent"? I mean, how can you identify yourself without speaking?
I don't really know what to say about this, other then that it's a desturbing step backwards. I can see corrupt police arresting someone for identifying themselves "incorrectly" (i.e. if the cop dosn't belive them).
Very dissapointed in SCOTUS.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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".
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
The fact that some people behave badly when (they believe) they can do so anonymously does not imply that there aren't perfectly valid reasons for wanting to be anonymous. So there.
Unfortunatly, the unknowing average citizen believes that since they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't have a problem giving a policeman their identification. This in turns allow the powers that be to further ask for other information, such as, "What are you doing around here", and "Where are you going?" These in of themselves are rather harmless questions, but if we aren't careful, we can recreate Nazi Germany rather quickly. The ability to move about anonymously and not have to be on the defensive about who and where we are are inherent rights, and I can't see legal justification for making the innocent prove who they are and the guilty (or in this case, suspected of another crime) get away with not having to identify themselves. We are supposed to a people that believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', and not 'give in to everything the government wants' because its supposedly 'for our own good'.
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
Do not act suspicious enough to be asked to identify yourself. It's disheartening but accepted policy that anonymity isn't much of an option when the authorities get involved. The more information you obstruct, the more irate they'd get...and the more inconvenienced you will be in the end.
The lesson here is to be clean enough or not be suspicious enough to get into such predicaments.
I work at a place where people occasionally use stolen ID numbers to gain computer access. People tend to betray themselves with their actions when they're guilty of something, and it's often easy enough to find out who isn't logged on legitimately just by making eye contact. It's a matter of being mindful of your non-verbal communication.
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?
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Interfering with an investigation, maybe? As others have said, there needs to be a REASON for them to ask you who you are.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian? The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name.
So, lemme get this straight. You're NOT suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself, you get arrested. You ARE suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself and you DON'T get arrested? That's pretty fucked up.
"Sound Orwellian?"
Nope. It sounds post 9-11. That's not to say it's better or worse. Simply that the motivation is fear, not in absolute power.
"Derp de derp."
Sound Orwellian?
No.
Not unless having a half-intelligent government of a nation of people is Orwellian.
The government reserves the right to know who exactly is in the country. You're a citizen, you have certain responsibilities to the state if you don't want to get arrested - or you're an alien, and you have even more if you don't want to get evicted.
The government has always reserved this right. Public anonymity to other private individuals has its uses and should be permitted under most cases, but public anonymity to the police is basically hiding from the government, which you should be detained for.
And the Supreme Court has always had the ability to refuse an appeal - whereupon the lower court's decision (federal appellate, IIRC) continues its effect.
Yes, the police's rights can be abused. But e-mail can be and has been abused, so is e-mail thus a bad thing?
If you don't like what the government's doing, show me YOUR plan, and tell me how it introduces no new shortcomings. For longstanding principles like this that are somehow "news" (on Slashdot of all places), I really doubt you can.
It's often a moot point. If you were stopped in your car, they'd have your license number. They would just ask you "Is this your car?" If you say yes, you've identified yourself. If you didn't say it is, and continued to be evasive, they would assume you'd stolen it and arrest you. Same thing if you were in your house and they came to your door. You MIGHT have been safe walking down the street on a public sidewalk, prior to this ruling.
The idea that you might be able to withhold your name if you are guilty means that remaining silent is automatically a confession - either you're guilty of something else, or you're guilty of withholding your name. The police will ALWAYS arrest you, and find some other means to identify you.
Also, since the police can arrest you for withholding your name, if you are trying to avoid being arrested for an outstanding warrant, they can hold you indefinitely - simply by asking you your name every 24 hours until you tell them (so they look up your outstanding warrants). Yep - forced self-incrimination.
My guess is that there will be a future case that gets to the supreme court, where an innocent person in a legal demonstration refuses to give their name, gets arrested, and refuses for weeks to give their name - and gets held by the police without any realistic opportunity to be set free. Then maybe the court will realize what they've done.
The argument of the Supreme Court is that your name doesn't incriminate you unless there are extenuating circumstances so asking you to identify yourself doesn't violate your 5th ammendment rights.
The Supreme Court only hears cases it wants to hear because the Constitution gives it that power. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of government, equal to the Congress and the Executive Branch. That's why it's called the "Supreme" Court. (You do remember separation-of-powers and all that?)
/. publish news? YOu don't really think the squad of adolescents running this thing have a clue what they're talking about?
The Court determines its own cases, just as Congress determine the legislation it passes and the President determines the legislation he will propose.
Of course, the article is flamebait. Since when did
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Although this ruling does not directly lead to such an outcome, it does make it a lot easier to pass a "produce your papers" law farther down the road. I have always been under the impression that I could not be compelled to answer an officer's questions without my lawyer present. Why should asking for my name be any different? Can I get in trouble for providing an alias? What use is this ruling if I still dont need to identify myself if it would be self incriminating? Under what circumstances would a police officer demand my identity if not to arrest me? And if I am suspected of no crime, does it make sense that simply not giving my name can turn me into a criminal? Are prisons not already overcrowded? To anyone willing to give up their rights and the rights of their countrymen in order to make catching terrorists easier, I say shame on you. You are helping to destroy what was once a noble human experiment. The ideals that the United States were founded on are what I like about my country. It seems ironic that the leaders of this country would ask me to give up my freedom to protect my freedom. Maybe they're working with Al Queda. As soon as personal rights are completely eroded, they can just march in and institute a Christian/Islamofascist dictatorship in order to protect me from the terrorists. Why should I trust George Bush or Joe Sherriff with any more power than absolutely necessary? Power is just too easy to abuse.
are starting to get annoying.
Instead of trying to incite anger by giving vague summaries of stories, the editors should just be more blatant, like so:
"Here we have all the straw we need to construct a good strawman. Now we are going to bind the straw together to create arms and legs. You can almost see the neo-con blood flowing through it. Doesn't it make you angry? Now we need to connect the joints to create a fluid body. Doesn't he remind you of big brother? Now for the head, we use this prebuilt paper-maché mold of the Devil.. oops, I mean George Bush. Sounds Orwellian to me. Now beat the fucking shit out of it!!!"
Yeah yeah, mod me as troll or whatever, but you know its true.
In all honesty though, I am puzzled by it. I mean, Slashdot must generate some good ad revenue, so why can't they afford some decent editors? There are mods at forums working for free that do a better job.
So you only have the right to remain silent if you are arrested? If you are not arrested, then you must speak.
I guess there IS one right that an arrested person has over a free man.
Well, on the one hand, since the U.S. doesn't have a national ID card, does this now make driving mandatory? On the other hand, it should make it easier for cops to get dates....Whoa! Where did that come from?
Seriously, this would seem to necessarily take us one step closer to requiring a national ID card in the most extreme of likely outcomes of the court ruling.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
An unconstitutional ACT is always null and void from the day it was set forth, no matter what court decisions are made. Courts attempt to determine whether an act is constitutional or not, they do NOT make an act constitutional or not. They can only provide their opinions and whether that will is carried out.
The judgment of the Supreme Court today is flawed and no one is bound to obey it. The law is such that these words are not laws, they are acts that can hold you forever. But they cannot change what the Constitution says without an amendment to the Constitution. Be safe and aware, but be brave and free.
Unless you've snorted enough crack to think that all police officers are nice, law-abiding citizens. In which case let's pause while I laugh my ass off.
You have it backwards, it usually is the crack user who has the negative impression of the police.
The opinion clearly states that the stop was based on "reasonable suspicion," and therefore this only applies in such cases, and it only applies in the state of Nevada.
Those crying "1984" and other nonsense need to actually read something other than the headline.
What?
Every state has an official ID/Drivers license; if all of them start printing your SSI number on it (the way that Alaska already does) then we won't need a national ID since the already existing state ID would then serve the same purpose.
Let's get straight what's going on here. The Supreme Court didn't say that cops now have a constitutional right to ask for your name any time. What SCOTUS did was uphold (within certain vague limits) a Nevada law requiring you to give your name to cops upon being stopped and questioned. Since it's just a law, it can be repealed by the Nevada legislature. Who are put into office by the voters of Nevada. They can set themselves free, instead of hoping for the almighty Supreme Court to do so. Imagine that.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Showing your DL at a road block is one thing, you're on the road driving a car, I don't see it being Orwellian to ask to see your license to drive, HOWEVER if they ask to see the license/ID for a PASSENGER and the passenger declines and then shit gets started that IS getting to be too much. I suppose all they have to say is that the passenger "looked like someone who was wanted for something somewhere so they checked ID" those "probable cause" situations are really abusable by the police...
Also asking your name is one thing, asking to see ID is another. I don't always have ID on me, last I checked this wasn't against a law to be without an ID of course if I'm DRIVING then I have my license with me because well, that is a law but I don't, say, carry my license with me to go check the mail, or if my wife's driving I don't always have my wallet with me and feel no compunction to make sure I have it either.
--- www.f-theocean.com
Godwins law satisfied in less than ten posts; that's gotta be some kind of Slashdot record... (and modded +5 no less).
As I read the ruling, it seems to have more to do with someone being stopped on reasonable suspicion (something the officer must articulate in court), rather than stopping people willy-nilly to check their ID.
I'm as much a privacy advocate as the next guy, but I don't have a big problem with this.
If a cop stops me on the street for no good reason and hassles me, I'll go along with it, as long as we're on the street and it's mano-a-mano. Once we're no longer on his playing field, the game changes. There's a time to assert your "rights," and on the street where the officer is on his home turf is not the best time... if he's really a bad cop, you're taking an awful chance in provoking him. Be cool, be the "grey man," and make a mark in your accounts receivable.
Restitution is best arranged later, either in court, or in front of his sergeant/chief.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
You have the right to ask the police officer for their ID
And they have the right to tell you,"You can find it out on the police report which you can pick up at the courthouse prior to your hearing for this ticket for obstruction of justice."
Don't be naive...
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
"those that ignore history are bound to repeat it." two words, nixon era.
Serenity now, insanity later.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned John Titor when they read this: The site (Disclaimer: I personally think the guy is an incredibly good internet hoaxer, but a lot of what he said is extremely chilling)
"And they have the right to tell you,"You can find it out on the police report which you can pick up at the courthouse prior to your hearing for this ticket for obstruction of justice.""
And while at the courthouse you will tell the judge that you are not guilty and point out that you cannot obstruct justice if you aren't able to verify that it really is law enforcement you're obstructing. You'll be off the hook, the judge will be ticked that their time has been wasted and Bad Things will happen to the offending officer for embarassing the department like that.
Law enforcement and the judicial system are part of two different branches of government for a reason.
I am a forigner (talking about the U.S.), and i just love the american constitution! What a great piece of paper! But i downright hate the USA in its present form. Yes i hate some americans. Does this make me a terrorist? I appeal to all american citizens to help stop this downwards spiral. let it go no further. My democracy basicly follows yours down the "civil-liberties drain". And since i don't get to vote on this, maby you should! Peace Casa
If after reading the opinion you still think the court is wrong then by all means post and say so. However, I think most people (myself included) will see why the court decided the way it did and not get nearly as excited as the submitter of this "story" wants us to be.
If I'm not mistaken, giving a false name _IS_ a crime.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Pigs cannot talk. I belive you mean police officers? If so, try treating them kindly. It's like Karma, if you're nice you'll be treated nice. Or that's how it works in nice small towns like mine. Oh, and my father's a local cop, so that probably helps too.
Yeah, you could do that. So then you sit for a half hour or more....waiting. It's dark, it's just you and someone who claims to be a cop. Waiting.
None for me thanks.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
It's a common requirement throughout most of the world to identify yourself upon request of the police. However, since the U.S. only just started doing it, then it's proof that Bush=Hitler, time to break out the tin-foil hats, etc...
Hmm. From a court case:
Moreover, a police officer does not have any duty under federal law to warn or protect any particular member of the public unless either (1 ) a "special relationship" exists between the victim and the criminal or between the victim and the state or (2 ) the victim faces a special danger not applicable to the public at large.
Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402 (1998).
The U.S. Supreme Court has become arrogant, and is not following the law. See the section titled Corruption in the U.S. Supreme Court: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
"But I don't remember seeing that being anonymous is an absolute right. It is implied, to a degree, with speech in some but not all ways. Commercial speech is different than political speech, for instance. It is implied in that justice should be blind, and treat you the same as everyone else. But not a blanket right to be anonymous in all things. If something SHOULD be a Right, but its not in the Constitution, its not a Right. Petition, get sponsors, submit an Amendment, get it ratified by 2/3rds of the states, and its a Right. It's difficult on purpose, for good reason: To keep it from being used frivilously or in the heat of the moment."
I can think of at least two relevant quotes here. The most obvious would be:
"'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - The Bill of Rights
There's also this one, which is a little more complicated but equally relevant:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."-Alexander Hamilton
What the second quote is essentially saying is that it's risky to enumerate certain specific rights in the Bill of Rights because at some point people might start to think that they only have a right if it's specifically listed, which wasn't what the founding fathers intended.
I really don't see what the entire fuss is about. All the law states is that you're supposed to state your name if any law enforcement officer asks you for it...mind you merely state it, not confirm it by showing ID.
With all respect to civil libertarians, I wish they'd realise that opposing every new law with ominous sounding phraseology like `Big Brother' , `assault on civil liberties' , `belief in the constitution' yada yadda is counterproductive. By doing so they're indulging in stereotypical behaviour.
As a result people are less likely to take you seriously when the next DMCA comes around or another Skylarov is arrested for speaking freely..Ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?
Choose your battles wisely guys!
Once again, /. has almost reported the news.
/. is great for getting an overview of the news, but sometimes the story isn't quite right. Remember to check your sources!
The case does not require any person to identify themselves to any police officer at any time. Reading from the court's opinion, you see that identification is only required when "a person [is] detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances". Civil liberties advocates should be further relieved by the court's affirmation of Brown v. Texas that the detention of a person must satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements. Even in the absence of a court-issued warrant, Terry v. Ohio affirmed "an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further" and further, "an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop".
Answering the obvious question, the court notes: "Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by al-lowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These fa-miliar concerns underlay Kolender [v. Lawson], Brown [v. Texas], and Papachristou [v. Jacksonville]. They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be 'reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified' the initial stop."
And on one last note pertaining to the Fifth Amendment: "Hiibel's contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination."
The box said, "Requires Windows XP or Better"...
So I installed Linux.
There is no Federal law requiring police to ask people who are stopped their name, nor does the Supreme Court say that police have a right to demand the names of people stopped. All the Supreme Court did was say that a Nevada law permitting Nevada police to demand the name of a person who had been stopped by the police was not unconstitutional. If the Nevada Legislature changed their mind and repealed the law, the Nevada police couldn't demand people's names anymore, and there is nothing the Federal Government, or the US Supreme Court, could do about it. In many (most?) states, this is already the legal situation.
Your post is the inaccurate one.
And if everyone else jumps off the bridge, that means we should do it too?
You know, the US was founded on prinicples that were not in place ANYWHERE ELSE the world at the time. Maybe the reason the rest of the world does it is because they haven't caught up to the ideals that the US was founded on.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Let's be honest. The judge will look at you like you're a DUMBASS."
While I'm not exactly a lawyer, traffic violations and jury duty have had me in my share of courtrooms. The judge doesn't look at you like that unless you do something completely stupid. An example comes to mind of someone who pled not guilty to a speeding violation because "I've been driving for years professionally and I don't remember there ever being a sign there" (all while the judge, because of the "not guilty" plea, gets to look over that colorful driving record of his).
"The System" isn't about trying to get you in and out as quickly as possible but about letting you have more than enough rope to hang yourself with, and that involves letting you have your say (no matter what). For example, if you plead "not guilty" to a speeding violation, the judge won't treat you like a dumbass (unless you merit it), he will instead look at the cop. The cop will then mechanically rattle off the serial number of the radar gun, when it was last calibrated before/after it clocked you, and when the officer became qualified to use said radar gun. Then the judge will look at you and ask "Well?" and listen to whatever you have to say.
The claim that the police officer in question did not identify himself to you satisfactorily is a serious claim and will merit serious attention from the judge, if for no other reason than because it's something your average judge doesn't hear very often (it would certainly break up the monotony). And if your case has merit he'll rule in your favor, if for no other reason than how it will look when the judge is up for re-election ("I helped stand up to abusive police officers!" etc.)
"You'll have a five minute chat with the public defender"
The public defender is there to offer you advice, that's all. There's nothing that says that you must follow that advice.
And the calibur of the public defender's advice would depend a lot on how the public defender is chosen in your state, wouldn't it? Do you know how your home state chooses them?
"If you choose to try and argue it on your own the judge will look at you like you're on crack, rule in favor of the arresting officer, and that's that."
Judges don't like to leave themselves open to appeal. Being overruled by a higher court can look really bad on your public record, especially if it's over something as trivial as courtroom procedure; it says "I'm not doing my job right." Even if you're a complete idiot, they'd much rather you state your claim for the public record, demonstrating in your own words just how much of an idiot you are. It's a nice paper trail that helps them cover their own ass.
Try taking a day off work and spend it in your local courthouse some time. Even if it does nothing but reinforce your own prejudices about "The System" it will still be educational.
"Frankly, that comment totally trivializes the entire Holocaust."
You miss the point, idiot.
It started with Jews, and then ended with anyone who disagreed.
Idiots like you are the reason I will be leaving Amerika.
against being a hysterical jerk?
So, the guy gets carted in for questioning and has to pay a $250 dollar fine. If they'd drop the fine, I figure it'd be no harm no foul.
However, fining someone for not identifying themself, ie: making it a misdemeanor or what have you not to identify ones-self does open the door to police abuse because a suspect doesn't know when the cop asks for identification whether or not the cop really has a reasonable suspicion, probable cause or whatever the requirement du jour is in that area to be asking the question.
I mean sheesh, the hysterical jerk already helps pay the cop's salary (taxes) he also has to pay for his own questioning?
And whatabout the checkpoints? Each district boundary had a Militia (police) post. Periodically this would be closed and they would check papers, not just of the driver but any passengers as well.
I understand that even in Soviet times, the militia would do sweeps looking for Chechnyan/Georgian criminals (Southerners in places like Moscow and Leningrad were assumed to be criminals)and for young persons of military age who hadn't served. People living in Moscow or Leningrad had a special stamp in their internal passport cionfirming that right. This was also frequently checked.
And President V.V. Putin is doing his best to bring it all back!!!
See my journal, I write things there
I don't see why he didn't just show the papers. But then again, he did no harm, so it does all seem like bullshiz.
I have had a few encounters with law enforcement. Some ask for ID others don't. After a night of playing hockey, some friends and I were standing in a parking lot and talking for quite sometime. Since it was a night game, the hours were late and spanned into early hours. A cruiser rolled up and asked, "whatcha doing?" Our reply was, "Oh we played hockey, and no we're just talking." The officer was nice, "That's cool, just making sure nothing wrong and such. Hockey sounds fun, I gotta get back to the streets." No ID checks, no baraging questions or invading requests.
Another time was exactly the opposite. Had to work a closing shift at work till 10:30PM. After the shift we all talked. Half were in a car, half were in the lot in front of the work place. All were wearing workshirts and in uniform still. Two police cruisers rolled up with spotlights. Those in the car were told to remain still and show their hands. Those not were told to stand still and show hands. All of use were asked what we were doing and why we were here. Then ID were demanded and more questioning. About 20 minutes later they returned, we all had NO records. Then we were all told that we had to go immediately home.
I'm confused with the law.
in Greece, Europe, we have national ID cards. These cards include a photo, a fingerprint, our name, address, job, and religion. Recently the European Union demanded to remove the fingerprint, job and religion and the government complied. In Greece it is required by law to produce identification, including telling your name and providing your ID card, whenever you are asked to do so by the police, and answer their questions. They also search your bag etc. Many European states such as Greece, Germany and Finand have mandatory army service for all men. Some countries outside Europe, such as Israel and China, also have mandatory army service for all women.
I see that USA is becoming more like Old Europe. You, the Americans, must protect your rights because you had the opportunity to live in a free country. Now your rights are threatened by private interests. Don't let your country lose its fame as a free country, because if USA stops respecting its citizens' rights, then the governments of all modern western nations, including Europe, will try to do the same in greater extend.
Four judges dissented, so apparently there are good legal arguments against this decision.
In any case, the Supreme Court has decided so often of late that I'm not as free as I thought, that I've about had it with them. We're going to need a constitutional convention to set all this right.
What makes you think that? I haven't seen Americans enjoy freedoms that I do not have as a Finnish citizen, for example. Quite the contrary.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
There is a big difference between laws that help everyone like dictating how people drive on a public road and laws that single out people like the one in question here.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that all people who drive consent to abide by the rules laid down and have the ability to bow out of the rules by choosing not to drive. The law in question is forced on all people inside the borders of this country. No one had the ability to bow out of the rule.
Small steps toward the goal of a totalitarian society have historicaly been ignored until it was too late and then more drastic measures were needed to correct the oversights of the past. Laws like this chip away at out freedoms. I for one hope never to have to rely on the Second Amendment to restore my freedom.
Ok, well then what you do is go and present that to IAB, and maybe the civilain review board. They are all about busting the ass of cops that do shit like that. Just because a cop is ignorant of the law, doesn't mean it's not a law and doesn't mean they can't get in trouble for it. That doesn't work, sue the department. If you ahve videotape evidence, it's a lock.
The problem with abuse of power is that people let it slide. In most cases, there are means to fight back, but people just act helpless and let it go. I'm not saying it'll be a walk in the park, but you can do it.
The fantasy is thinking that cops can break the law and there is no recours or repercussions. That's just not true. If they do, fight it. I mean if you fell it's not a big deal, fine, but then don't bitch about it later. If it is a big deal and you do feel it's an abuse of power, then work to stop it.
Protections against abuse only work if those abused use them.
Even if you're a complete idiot, they'd much rather you state your claim for the public record, demonstrating in your own words just how much of an idiot you are. It's a nice paper trail that helps them cover their own ass.
A few years back, I was working in the (hellish) restaurant business at a place so busy it was practically beating off the customers with a stick. Or, more exactly, managers were allowed to (occasionally) inform a customer that "the customer was always right" only until "the jackass is a jackass, not a customer".
One (black) manager told me about how a few years back, an obnoxious (white) law student didn't like the (fast but cranky) service he was getting, and sued the manager for discriminating against him because the student was white. Came case day, the manager's lawyer defended essentially by stating the manager was discriminating against him becuase the student had been an obnoxious jackass, not because he was white. The law student pro se'ed, and rambled on for about 15 minutes, citing this precedent setting case and that.
The (white) judge listened politely, and at the end of it, told the student: "You're going to be a good lawyer some day. And once you get your degree, I'll be happy to welcome you in my court again. But you were being a jackass, and apparently still are a jackass, and moreover you are wasting this court's time today. Case dismissed with prejudice."
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
So there.
Nice content-free post... next time, would you care to provide some actual examples of freedoms you have in fun-loving Finland, that we don't have here in the US? I'm not saying you don't have them, but a one-liner post like this, containing nothing but an assertion of how wonderful things are in your hometown, isn't of much value.
Sean