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."
... the US is the same as France...
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
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 .
Bush Lies On the Record.
according to http://papersplease.org/hiibel/index2.html it went like this:
****
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????
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
This is not as unusual as it sounds. Terry VS Ohio set the standard for frisking, where an officer has the right to search someone if the have any reason to think the person has a weapon on them.
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I'm out of this country. Fuck this, I can't be anonymous? I can't not have police ask me questions, pat me down for "weapons" looking for weed, have the swat team come into my house while I am putting on my clothes and point some automatics on me, where a government with unlimited funds can sue the shit out of me for years and years just trying to run me out of cash, and if I say I will fight they drop MORE charges on me. For blowing some glass pipes. Justice? They destroyed my friends lives. Made them sucidal. We had cops in the store before, and one of the co-owners probation officer patted him on the back. Now everyone just rolls joints. You think you are fine, walking down the street or selling pipes. Wave at cops, ask them if you are in the wrong. Then they decide to have a beef. I like cops, I really do. I like it when they save a kid from a child molester. When they help me change a tire. When they are there to protect me. But put to much power into their hands and the few bad apples abuse it. While in France I was told that at any time a cop could ask you for your ID. I told them no American would stand for that. That it was crazy. I am ashamed to be in a country where people are getting there rights eroded in order to "protect" them. What the hell are we fighting for? I'm gone, let the zombies come and tear this place apart. Sorry about the HTML mistake, and screw coward- just anonymous
"Nelson Walker, a young Liberian man attending college in North Carolina, was driving along I-95 in Maryland when he was pulled over by state police who said he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The officers detained him and his two passengers for two hours as they searched for illegal drugs, weapons, or other contraband. Finding nothing in the car, they proceeded to dismantle the car and removed part of a door panel, a seat panel and part of the sunroof. The officers found nothing and in the end handed Walker a screwdriver and said, "You're going to need this" as they left the scene. "
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
You would think that was true. It's logical, right? And it would be the safe thing to do.
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.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
The problem is that the suspect asked whether he was being arrested, and if so, why. Since this was a Terry stop, he did not recieve Miranda rights protection.
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.
May we never see th
For those of you keeping track, all 5 supreme court justicies who ruled against Mr. Hiibel (ie, in favor of the state law requiring citizens to identify themselves) were Republicans, nominated by Republican presidents. Both of the Democrats on the Supreme Court were among the minority who ruled in favor of Mr. Hiibel. Election time's coming soon kids!
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
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?
You mentioned walking around without a wallet.
A friend of mine had lost his one weekend on a night out in the city. As a result he had left to look for it in his car which resulted in him having to wait for some other friends outside the club because he couldn't get in. Some altercation had occured inside the club, and because he was milling around outside he was promptly questioned by police.
My friends name is Josh Smith, and when he told police this they refused to believe him, handcuffed him, and took him to the station. They had his name on file from a previous arrest, a DUI i think, but in the end they charged him with obstruction. Just because he had lost his wallet and they assumed the name he had given was fabricated.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
We shouldn't need a reason to not give information. Rather, the Goverment should need a reason todemand it.
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.)
I write in my journal
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!)
I happen to agree with you but just to play Devil's Advocate one more time... If someone is afraid of commiting a crime becuase of the chance of getting caught after the fact then they have been deterred from hurting you and you've been 'protected'. Even a personal security guard is re-active more than pro-active. He stands around and tries to make sure nothing happens to you, but he doesn't go around killing everyone around you to ensure that no one even has the chance of hurting you, he stands there as a detterent.
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....
Allow me to introduce you to Gilmore vs. Ashcroft.
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.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
"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.)
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
if you have the right to remain silent after you are arrested, why cant you remain silent before you are arrested?
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.
>>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.
> 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.
Exactly.
I had that happen to me - I was sitting on church steps with a girl and cops pulled up and demanded ID. I truthfully told them that I didn't have any ID. I was cooperative, asked them if they wanted us to leave, etc.
I was arrested. Only after I was finally released hours later and got to read the arrest report did I find out that I was apparently being charged with "disorderly conduct" and "refusal to comply with a police order to disperse."
Bottom line is, if a cop wants to fuck with you just for the sake of fucking with you, he can - and the Supreme Court just made it easier for them.
This space available.
I guess people are expected to be mugged while the perp runs and never gets caught.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I was at an antiwar protest a few months ago. One of the people near me was being hassled by a cop, so he asked the cop for his badge number.
The cop said "You want my badge number? HERE'S my badge number!" and he flipped the guy the bird. I had my video camera with me, and I laughed and said to the cop "whoa! Do that again, let me get it on tape!"
The cop grabbed me by the collar and yanked me toward him and growled at me "you want to get arrested, asshole?"
You live in a fantasy world, my friend. There are reasons citizens have protections against abuse of power - because people with power often abuse it.
We just lost one of those protections.
This space available.