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.
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,
People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian?
"What's your name?"
"Rutherford."
"Rutherford is an unperson."
"Ogilvy."
"Ogilvy's a dead war hero."
"Uh--"
"To Miniluv with you!"
The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name.
"You are under suspicion for extreeeme bestiality."
"Uh, no."
"What's your name?"
"Forget it."
"To Miniluv with you!"
The coolest voice ever.
... the US is the same as France...
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.
ah, you're not driving? doesn't matter - papers please.
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.
Here's a link to Dudley Hiibel's side of the story: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/.
Thanks for fighting for my rights, Mr. Hiibel!
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.
I think it's very kind of the Supremes to provide such a simple way out of this otherwise intrusive situation. If a police officer asks you for your name, simply inform him or her that, as you are wanted for another crime, you would prefer not to give your name. See how easy that is? I love this country!
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
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."
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
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
"Your papers, please?"
Sallah (laughing): Papers? Of course!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes.
Sallah: Papers. Got it here! Just finished reading it myself!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes?
Sallah: "Egyptian Mail," morning edition!
[to Marcus]
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Did you say, uh...
(Sallah punches German Dude)
Sallah: RUN!
The coolest voice ever.
If all I have to give is my name, then I'm not particularly concerned. Just make up a name that doesn't sound too suspiciously bland (like John Smith) I think my new police officer name just became Bryan Wendy.
Of course, I will continue to list my address as
1060 West Addison
Chicago, Illinois
60613
And my social...
078-05-1120
ruling to end the FL recount.
It was a 5-4 ruling with
Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, Thomas, and Scalia in favor and Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg opposed.
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."
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.
"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!"
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.
You have the right to ask the police officer for their ID. If you cannot confirm that they are indeed
a police officer, you have no obligation to give them your ID.
(However, saying "If you show me your's, I'll show you mine" will probably get you arrested.)
If all I have to give is my name, then I'm not particularly concerned. Just make up a name that doesn't sound too suspiciously bland (like John Smith)
And what if you really are John smith? Even worse, what about the Michael Boltons of the world?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
"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.
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.
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.
Not only can they ask your name but if you meet a cop in the street they can look at your face, see how tall you are, see how you dress, see where you were at that moment in time and glean a whole lot of other information from you without even asking and without you even knowing. Hell, if you have a personal problem like acne on your face they can see it there and then unless you make a special effort to hide your face. It's shocking and nobody's even talking about what a scandal this is!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
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.
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!
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:
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
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.
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.
Thicker surely? Come to think of it, all aspects of this case are definitely thicker than the average blanket. Quilty is highly appropriate!
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Just because you have a police uniform and a badge doesn't necessarily make you a cop. I can go buy a police uniform, fake badge and a gun tomorrow and have myself a blast with it. If I have to identify myself to a cop, the cop has to positively identify {him,her}self to me. That's all there is to it.
It's a very dark ride.
The supreme court claims that the principles of a Terry stop require your name. Interestingly enough, Terry clearly said that you don't have to answer. For this reason, I feel the decision is self-contradicting.
They attempt to rationalize this as below:
You have to answer, but if your answer matters, it and anything else you say may be thrown out (From end of decision follows)(possibly the only saving grace in this mess of an opinion):
Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.
The judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court is Affirmed.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
If you maybe shared a name with a known criminal, and were tired of being harrassed?
If you have committed a crime yourself (and are thus protected from self-incrimination by the 5th Ammendment).
If you refuse to cooperate with a jerk of an officer.
If you don't like the idea of being stopped just because you 'look suspicious'.
If you are proving the point that this is still the U.S., where we are supposed to have certain inalienable rights.
These are just off the top fo my head. I'm sure others have better thought-out situations.
Registered Republican & unhappy with our country's direction,
-bZj
.sig
"those that ignore history are bound to repeat it." two words, nixon era.
Serenity now, insanity later.
For what it's worth, the courts also cited vagrancy laws dating back to 1787 in their decision. I thought that was pretty amusing, but I don't find it surprising or threatening.
Well, the door was open...
"Am I suspected of a crime?"
"No, but you must identify yourself when asked."
"Well in that case I refuse."
"You are under arrest!"
--or--
"Am I suspected of a crime?"
"Yes, actually. So who are you?"
"I'm not telling!"
"Move along, then."
I think this little uncertainty will be sorted out in short order.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Prehaps we all need to standardize on a fake name? Sure, it exposes us easier to being identified as having given a phony name, but the civil disobiedience effect can not be denied.
I propose Emmanuel Goldstein become our chosen name. Imagine 10,000 arrests filed each month against Emmanuel Goldstein for refusing to give an ID. Seems almost too appropriate to me.
Here in Boston, the transit police are implementing a policy of randomly checking the IDs and bags of subway and train riders. They will be patrolling trains (with police dogs) starting before the upcoming Democratic National Convention in July. This is not a temporary policy change for the DNC, it is a permanent change.
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.
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.
That's it.
I'm changing my name to "Fuck Off Pig".
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
They can't charge you for how you PRONOUNCE your name, can they?
What SCOTUS also did was take away your right to refuse to answer in any state that does have such a law.
And the Republinazis who control Congress can easily pass a national law ("The Freedom Identity Act of 2004", say) that requires you to identify yourself whenever you're asked by an agent of the government, upon pain of going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Not to mention that this clears the way for national ID cards, which clears the way for a whole host of tyrannical Republo-crime.
I guess it's time to try and become a billionaire so I can buy some rights. Hope they haven't stopped allowing people to become billionaires yet.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
The third movie sure made up for the lame bullshit of the second one :) The first is still my favorite, but the third came close; it was actually *funny*, which is what the whole idea was in the first place. I wonder if Ford cringes while viewing the second movie (whose name I shall not utter here)? Talk about horrible lines!
The interaction between Indiana and his father (whoever scripted Connery for that role was a genius) was very, very well done. I enjoyed TLC immensely and still do.
Dad! DAD!!!!
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
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
Funny I get more work than I can handle, yet I somehow manage to squeeze it in.
Maybe the Court should be made up of IT people. We get the job done. Period.
8000 cases? No problem I have a bash script I wrote in '97 that will take care of it.
-- taking over the world, we are.
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.
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.
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.
if you have the right to remain silent after you are arrested, why cant you remain silent before you are arrested?
I love all three (and of course, Raiders of the Lost Ark is both my favorite and the greatest of the three, and one of the all-time great movies period), but I have particular affection for Temple of Doom that I don't for Last Crusade, the conventional wisdom about how Last Crusade is "better" notwithstanding.
Before he can ask "Where are you going?" say "I'm lost. How do I get to (this place where I'm not going)?"
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A person's identity obviously bears informational and incriminating worth, "even if the [name] itself is not inculpatory." Hubbell, 530 U.S., at 38. A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases. And that information, in turn, can be tremendously useful in criminal prosecution. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that a person's identity provides a link in the chain to incriminating evidence "only in unusual circumstances." Ante, at 12.
The officer in this case told petitioner, in the Court's words, that "he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification." Ante, at 2. As the target of that investigation, petitioner, in my view, acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Stevens (or his clerk writing for him) in his dissent seems to be the only member of the court who addressed the issue of just how revealing a name can be in an age where large databases are omnipresent. IANAL, but his reasoning seems quite convincing to me. In some circumstances revealing one's name is indirectly, but powerfully, self-incriminating, and thus should not be compelled.
The Queen has virtually no power over the *British* people and you think she has real power over Australians?
Look up the term "constitutional monarchy" sometime. While you're at it, look up "Charles I" for an example of what happens to monarchs who try to seize absolute power (Hint: it involved him, a chopping block and a decent sized axe).
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.
Back when I was in college in the 70s, bus tickets and train tickets and airplane tickets weren't things that only applied to one particular person who'd been granted permission to travel - they were bearer tickets that said you'd paid for your seat.
Getting around in a car _does_ often require you to carry papers. Cops can stop you any time they feel like it and demand them. Usually they only do this if you've done something either wrong or suspicious-looking while driving, but if you think that cops can't or don't ask for papers without that, then you must be a clean-shaven short-haired white boy who didn't start driving until you got out of college and acquired a clean non-sporty-looking car. Furthermore, many state and local police run sobriety checkpoints on heavy-alcohol weekends and inspect everybody's papers when they go by.
Back when I lived in New Jersey, I was once stopped at a checkpoint coming back from an election-night party, and the cops were not only asking for my papers, but asking where I was coming from and where I was going. Unfortunately, at that time I had a burned-out taillight that I did not want to call attention to, so I did not tell him what I was thinking, which was that I was going to America but had obviously made a wrong turn and could he direct me back across the border.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The Cato Institute provides a useful list in their amicus brief.
Many states have enacted that a police officer "may demand" the name of a Terry-stop suspect, but provide no explicit criminal penalties for refusing to acede to that demand.
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.
I am Sparticus!
Is this the end yet?...How 'bout now...how 'bout now...how 'bout now?
A number of few years back (1993ish) I was walking down the street when I was stopped by a rookie police woman who asked me several questions, then demanded my id saying there had been a theft in the area recently.
Having taken a couple of law classes, and being a cocky kid, I refused. I was then handcuffed and placed under arrest for obstruction. At that point I demanded she call her supervisor which she did.
10 minutes later the supervisor came over to the intersection, got the story. He chastized the rookie and let me go, asking if I would like to file a complaint. I responded that all I'd like is an apology. A week later I was sent an official one signed by the chief and the rookie.
The excuse I got was there was a car theft earlier in the day. It turned out to be by the car owner's boyfriend who was 10 years older and whom I looked nothing like.
I feel good about standing up for my rights. I also feel lucky I was smart enough to call in the supervisor before everything was made official.
-
A Canadian
Personal Anecdote:
A few years ago when I was pranking my highschool (senior prank), before we got far someone called the cops.
When the cops arrived an officer came up to me and asked what my name was. I responded by directly questioning him: "Am I legally required to tell you?", to which he said no. I then asked "Am I legally required to stay here", to which he responded something like "no, but I would recommend it" in a huffy tone. After that I just walked away, and he didnt do anything about it.
Later when the cops left some of my friends who were hiding called my cell phone to say the coast was clear, and the pranking continued (albeit more stealthily).
General Case Logic:
So anyways, even though the laws may vary from place to place, and the laws may have changed from then until now, if you directly ask a cop whether you are legally required to divulge information before you do, you are more likely to get a better outcome than if you unquestioningly divulge the information or if you flat out refuse. Remember, cops, like regular citizens, are allowed to ask you pretty much anything they want. However this also means that every question a cop asks is not necessairily backed up by the force of law.
In this sort of situation there are 2 relevant peices of data that form a 2x2 grid of options,
(1) Whether you legally obliged to show the information.
(2) Whether the cop *thinks* you are legally obliged to show it.
These make up the following cases:
(A) Laws require you to state your name, but the cop doesn't think you are required to(or isn't sure about it): Cop says you dont have to state your name, so you don't. You win even though the law is against you.
(B) Laws require you to state your name, and the cop knows it. The cop demands your name with force of law, so you tell him. You lose, but you are not any worse off for asking.
(C) Laws don't require you to state your name, and the cop doesn't think you are required to(or isn't sure about it). Win/Win. The cop says you are not legally required to divulge your name, so you don't, and you win.
(D) Laws don't require you to state your name, but the cop thinks otherwise. The cop says you are legally required to state your name, so you do. You lose (in terms of divulging information), but later you can probably use the fact that the cop misled you to fuck him over in a court of law.
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
citizen-criminals have no right to anonymity in the eyes of the law
all citizen-criminals in the United States are already assumed guility unless they're really police or government employees working for any of the three-letter criminal services.
it's vital for citizen-criminals to identify themselves and submit to any degredation deemed fitting by police--anything less would put the citizen-criminal on a greater or equal footing with the officer and that's just not right,right?
citizen-criminals are never too young to enter the criminal-justice system--and with an ever lowering barrier to entry it won't be long before the privitization of the criminal-justice system (notably the prisons) begins generating serious revenue for domestic and international interests
it's all about money
in the end, everyone loses to the system
and in a system with no apparent winners there will
be those who will gather to eventually destroy it
the gamble taken by the 10% controlling the show is that they
get a good return on their investment before everything is sacked
or the hope that they're lucky enough to control whatever is left
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
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.
I think Germany has found a pretty much acceptable way:
You are required to carry your driver's license while driving (duh) - it acts as an ID too (contains a picture of you, your adress etc.)
Also its recommended that you carry your ID (Personalausweis) but not absolutely required.
They can ask you for your ID if they think you did something wrong/committet a crime (shoplifting, whatever) or are a (imporant) wittness for a crime or routine checks while driving (usually only for trucks) - if you cannot provide an ID then you will be taken to a police station where your identity will be confirmed (pretty logical, otherwise we'd have alot of "John Smiths" here who just had forgotten their ID while being criminally active)
The only other time you will be asked for ID is near the border, where (since the normal border checks were no longer used) police will randomly stop cars (where randomly usually means, looking somehow suspicious) to check for illegal aliens, wanted criminals etc.
And of course there are the ever popular "suprise" checks near the border to the Netherlands, looking for illegal drugs (lots of drugs are smuggeled in this way)
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
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
This is tough because a lot of my friends are cops and I see both sides of the dispute. But as much as I like them I know they'll push whatever limits they're given. Many times there will be political pressure to push the limits. The police are not our enemy, but an excess of police power, for any justification, is the enemy of a free people. I think we're far enough down the police power road now that our claim to the title "home of the free" could reasonably be disputed.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If you are that busy, and the places are that important(and legal), be polite and inform the officer that you have someplace urgent to be, no need to be specific, "I'm due at work in 5 minutes", "I have a doctor's appointment around the corner", etc.
Unless you are behaving suspiciously, or in the wrong neighborhood(FYI I lived in the "wrong" neighborhood for 10 years, never stopped never harrassed), Walk like you have a purpose, and behave as if you've done nothing wrong.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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
This post isn't directed at the parent but rather most of the tin foils that fly off without RTFA.
From papersplease.org:
Dudley was standing around minding his own business...
No, actually, he wasn't. According to this AP article, he was having an argument with his daughter. The cop didn't randomly approch him demanding ID, he was investigating a disturbance.
Did anyone even read the first line of the case:
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.
Further in the report:
The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had "any identification on [him]," which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification.
The officer was investigating a reported disturbance, not approaching random people demanding "papers". Actually, I'm surprised this even made it to supreme court. You are obligated to identify yourself when you are under suspicion of commiting a crime. Ever been pulled over for speeding? Hell, in this case the officer even stated the fact that he was conducting an investigation. The only weak point I see here is that it (the case document) doesn't quote the officer stating the exact nature of the investigation or informing Hiibel that he was under suspicion. All it says is that he "was conducting an investigation".
I agree the outcome of this case is a blow to civil rights, however, I think the events that lead up to this case have been blown way out of proportion. In the 33 years I've been around, I have yet to see police officers approaching random people demanding "papers".
Yeah, I'm posting this a day late so no one will probably see this post anyway...
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
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.
The ACLU provides a list of handy tips that can be printed and stored in a wallet in the event that you're stopped by the police
Earlier, some people voiced concerns about being stopped by police imposters. You can always call the local police station to find out whether an officer has been deployed to your area.
Personally, I think this recent ruling is outrageous. I would be willing to inform an officer of my identity if and only if he first told me why he was asking.
Incidentally, a lot of people have brought up the fact that the officer who stopped Hiibel didn't pay attention to his daughter, the supposed victim. This is the only circumstance where I believe the officer acted completely correctly. If it were really an abusive situation, it's best to get the suspect under control before checking on the victim. Similarly, if you happen to witness a crime, force yourself to watch the offender, not the victim. The offender is not likely to remain in the area long, and the split-second you devote to him alone may help you see a scar or tattoo that would positively identify him in the future. Once he is gone, help the victim.
I use the pronoun "he" as a gender-neutral term.Live free or die
Yeah, I would agree that the officer didn't to too hot a job here. But I don't think the plaintiff was contending that he thought he had to give up his driver's license and refused on that basis, so the Court didn't consider it.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
When the only countries I can think of are Iraq, Russia, Canada, and Mexicoke, then I can conclude that America is the freest on Earth. Thank you American educational system.
MARGE: It took the children thirty minutes to locate Canada on a map!
HOMER: Oh, Marge. Anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there.