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."

Comments

Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm anonymous you insensitive clod!

The name is Jablowme. Heywood Jablowme.

[Glamdrlng]

For added hilarity, the majority of the SC who ruled against Mr. Hiibel also indicated that you don't necessarily have to provide identification documents, just your name:

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.

Myself, I expect the DHS' terrorist databases to look like Christmas trees when they pull the files on Mike Hunt, Heywood Jablowme, Amanda Hugginkiss, and Servuss M'Bawlz.

One Big Thing to Remember: Bush Owns Congress

[sabat]

Or, just one big thing to remember: Bush can get a law railroaded through the Republinazi Congress with a wave of his fey wrist. Is it that hard to imagine the Freedom Identity Act of 2004 (requiring anyone in US territory to present the national ID card to any agent of the government or be held without bail or counsel as a suspected terrorist for an extended period of time)?

Big changes are in store for us once he wins the election (or loses but refuses to leave office). (Don't laugh; it's not that far-fetched.)

Re:It works both ways

[maximilln]

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.

Let's be honest. The judge will look at you like you're a DUMBASS.

"He was wearing a uniform, wasn't he?"
"He did have a badge, didn't he?"
"He did pull up in a squad car, didn't he?"

Quit spouting off with hypothetical armchair red herrings. If your ass was sitting in the front row of a courtroom you'd never have the slightest chance of being "off the hook". You'll have a five minute chat with the public defender where he'll tell you,"Look, you can try to talk your way through this but you probably won't get far. My advice is to plead no contest, pay the tickets, and go about your business." 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.

Unless you happen to have a spare $3k in your pocket to waste on a private attorney who has nothing better to do than waste his time arguing for your theoretical trivialities...

Re:Not that any new laws are needed just to arrest

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Still - the thought of being arrested for just walking around without a wallet

In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

You want to talk about the "oh, come on" realm? How about spouting off without even a passing familiarity with what the decision says?

Re:Down Under

[Glowing Fish]

Well, Americans are Citizens of our country.

Australians are Chattel to some crazy lady.

I know that sounds inflammatory, but it is the truth. As Australians, you are denied your intrinsic rights. You can only use the rights that the Monarchy grants you.

MANNERS ARE A VIRTUE

[gbulmash]

Cops are not always bullies. They are not always trying to intimidate you. They don't know you from Adam, and the moment you start showing instability, they do not know what you're going to do next. If they don't protect themselves by restraining you, they could die. DIE. They are not required to risk their lives just so you can have a hissy fit unmolested.

When you deal with police, be nice, be polite, be unemotional, and move slowly. If they are committing an injustice, let it go, gather your evidence, then sue. Do not threaten to have their badge, do not threaten them in any way. Let them threaten you.

And you know what... show that video to a black man over 50 or 60 and you ask him if Hiibel got off easy.

Worst of all, the ruling doesn't say you have to show your "papers". You just have to tell the cop your name on demand, which they deemed did not constitute potentially incriminating evidence to the police. Unless they make having a stupid white drash name like Dudley Hiibel a crime in and of itself, you can't be arrested for telling the cops your name. And if your name allows them to pull up warrants on you.... GOOOOOD!!!! Your name wasn't incriminating. The crimes that inspired the warrants were.

If a cop asks my name, I'll tell him. I'll be cooperative. I'll say yes sir and no sir. I will give him absolutely no reason whatsoever to accuse me of being troublesome or resisting. I will not be an unsympathetic, arrogant trailer trash prick like Hiibel.

Re:It works both ways

[Guppy06]

"And you never asked because the public defender advised you to plead no contest and move along like a good citizen."

When exactly did it become a requirement to listen to the public defender's advice? After all, it's your defense, not theirs. And you of all people seem to be suspicious enough of "The Man" to not take such advice without protest.

And what state do you live in that you're not allowed to ask for a new public defender? Letting you go through two or three public defenders gives the judge the chance to demonstrate to any potential appeals court that your Sixth Amendment rights weren't violated.

"you probably don't have a camcorder record of the whole incident anyways in which case,"

This works in your favor. It's one less thing they have to try to prove your guilt with.

"you'll be lucky if the judge doesn't recommend that the bailiff hold you for a psyche eval if you insist on the point."

That would be a violation of your Fifth Amendment rights. Instant retrial (if the state cares to pay for further prosection).

"What part of "reality" don't you understand?"

The one I question and observe on my own rather than going by anecdotal (dis)information.

Re:So much for the right to remain silent.

[MMaestro]

So lemme get this straight...

Three guys are pulled over on an interstate highway by the police. For not wearing a seatbelt.
The police then proceeded to search the car for contraband.
Then they DISMANTLED A CAR on an INTERSTATE HIGHWAY.
The police then left them with a SCREWDRIVER.
All this in TWO hours, on an INTERSTATE HIGHWAY.
And this is 'one of a half-dozen incidents'.

Uh huh. Sure I believe this story. The police just disassemble a car on an interstate highway, one of the busiest in the country I-95, and no one notices or says a damned thing? Thats like saying a drunk obviously underage teenage wanders around downtown for two hours, never gets noticed by the police, and then sobers up and drives away safely only to have the story reported days after the incident occured. On a backroad somewhere in the countryside, maybe. But on an interstate highway? For crying out loud people are ignorant not blind.

Re:Powers delegated by the citizens to officers?

[fyngyrz]

Socialist thinking is the basis for the following craven, idiotic, hoary, red-white-and-blue assertion that infects our society from the ground up:

"all us folks done are created equal"

Socialism wants us to level the playing field for everyone, regardless of their capabilities.

That's US/pc for you. Got no legs? Oh, hey, lemme spend 50 grand building a ramp so you can roll into my business. By the way, I sell pogo sticks, running shoes, and thigh highs for the ladies. Yes, it's an eclectic business, but we love it. C'mon in!

Your skin an uncommon color? Let's give you first crack at school, and jobs, and anything else we can think of. Yeah, my kid gets higher grades than you do, but golly-gee there la-keesha, you're sorta-kinda brownish!

Got a pile of illegitimate babies? Making zero dollars? Let us send your happy arse to school - while we feed and clothe you, and your spawn, of course - while your neighbor, who barely clears the poverty line (because she fscking WORKS and was STUPID enough to MARRY the father of her children) can't afford to go to school, and eats ramen noodles, though not by choice. You're EQUAL, oh so EQUAL, honey pie! In a couple of years, you can come home, make quite a bit more than ol' neighbor gal, who still can barely afford gas to go to work. In fact, maybe you can be her BOSS and look down your nose at her! We'll just exchange her labor (taxes) for the labor that will educate you, and the world will be a better place. La la la!

Hey Leroy! Dumber than a post? Completely unable to understand current events? Well, hey there lil' fella, don't you worry your little head about it. Put your "X" here, and pull this handle. You can vote for your congresscritter (don't you worry about what that means), and guess what? You just cancelled out the vote of Albert Einstein over there, because, little buddy, "we're all created equal" and you've got... RIGHTS! Hey, big shooter, aren't you The Man now?

Wanna start a church? No sweat, we just LOVE churches, we'll just tax everyone else extra to hold up your end while you attempt to bamboozle all humanity half blind. And, really... it's so much easier when you don't have to pull your share of the load, isn't it? Just remember to have fun, Reverend Billy-Blob!

I'll tell you what. When the weight of your vote is equal to the weight of your reason, when your contribution to a cause is equal to the worth of that cause to you, when the fruits of your labor are distributed as YOU see fit, rather than as society sees fit, when you have to contribute to the infrastructure at the same ratio of earnings to contribution that I do... then you can tell me we're not just a wee bit socialist. Your plan for me is not my plan for me, and I am not in the least impressed by it, though you can indeed force me to abide by it.

People aren't created equal. One person's labor is not always (or even, often) equal to another's, nor is the value of their opinion. The politically correct idiocy that attempts to disenfrancise those who have, for the benefit of those who have not, is most decidedly socialist. And it is everywhere in US society, courtesy of our legislators.

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e

[Threni]

> "Michael Moore [revoketheoscar.com] is a screwed asshole"
>-Ray Bradbury

Is that one of those sites run by right-wing clowns with plenty of vitriol and hate, but precious few facts to hit him over the head with?