Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right
Anonymous Arrestee writes "Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anybody can be compelled at any time to identify themselves, if a police officer asks. People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian? The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name. On this latter point, someone will have to bring a separate case. And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any case it doesn't like. The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada [pdf]. Previous Slashdot story here."
From a link:
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.
This bodes well -- it would seem to put the kibosh on any effort to turn this into a "must produce your National ID card on demand" ruling.
A name is a name (Jack Brown), and gives the officer something to call you besides "Hey You", but as long as we're not required to produce some sort of definitive, unique-identity-signifying number of the beast, I'm not too worried.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
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.
No, that is just not correct. The court held that police, based on reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity can compel him to identify themself.
This ruling doesn't change the fact that police just can't ask to for your name for no reason at all. At least get the facts right in your own damn summary before going off on "your rights".
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
The fact that some people behave badly when (they believe) they can do so anonymously does not imply that there aren't perfectly valid reasons for wanting to be anonymous. So there.
Here's a link to Dudley Hiibel's side of the story: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/.
Thanks for fighting for my rights, Mr. Hiibel!
or slashdot, even
... albksl
i mean, uh, no, oops, um, please don't mod me down, i'm not anonymous, i mean, or a coward, or trolling, or, um,
^^^^
above poster has some kind of disorder and has fallen on his keyboard. please feel sympathy for the anonymous.
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.
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.
Yep, Penny Arcade did a wonderful comic which illustrates that exact point.
Doesn't change that anonymity is one of the cornerstones of a functioning democratic society, however.
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
The reason the Supreme Court only hears cases it wishes is twofold.
1) As the original poster suggested, it allows them to only decide cases they feel are "ripe"
and more importantly:
2) The Supreme Court receives over *8000* requests for cert each year. They can only hand 80-120 cases or so. Needless to say they have to be able to filter some of the "junk" out.
- Hiibel's contention that his conviction violates the Fifth
Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure
of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.
eg. you shouldn't be forced (by imprisonment, torture, or otherwise) to admit to some crime. But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating. If the authorities already have some evidence against you, then they do either way, and hiding your identity won't change that."There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Also, a number of Philip K. Dick's books addressed the power of the drug war to instantly criminalize somebody, a power which oculd be used selectively against dissenters and political troublemakers. This is another example of a law which can be used selectively - the police choose who to ask, thus biasing the pool of possible arrestees. Demanding identification under duress - from people you know will be unwilling to provide it - has the benefit that it's all above board, and the ensuing arrests are in the interests of "security".
"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
Incriminating, no, but it could be intimidating. This is, IMO, dangerously close to saying "if you're innocent, you should have nothing to hide".
Freedom: "I won't!"
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"
so, how come we aren't seeing the mass migration of all you intelligent americans to canada yet?
It's already happened -- he crossed the border last Thursday.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
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?
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.
Actually I've seen some of the most insightful comments come from Anonymous Cowards. Yes there are AC's that troll, flame, and do other shitty things. But you've seen good comments from AC's and so that's why they're here. Similarly important historical documents were sometimes posted anonymously, great literature has been written anonymously or under psuedonyms, and great web surfing has been done anonymously too :)
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:
Doesn't this fly in the face of the cherished "right to remain silent"?
No. You have the right to remain silent when you are under arrest or are no longer free to leave. But even beyond that, your right to remain silent is to allow you to prevent incriminating yourself. Police do not have to mirandize you if 1) the information is non-incriminating in nature or 2) the information you've given is given voluntarily. Giving your name says nothing about your guilt or innocence. This is what the justices have ruled, as indicated in their holdings:
For those who are concerned about the ruling, however, take solace in the fact that the decision was 5-4 which means, historically, that the decision is prone to be overturned. After a very cursory examination of the dissents, Justice Stevens' opinion seems to be that that the Fifth Amendment does not provide for even a narrow exception like this. The other three dissenting justices (Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) seem more interested in why the justices reserved judgment about why answers to "what is your name?" can be compelled if it might lead to conviction on a different offense. As he puts it, "I would not begin to erode a clear rule with special exceptions."
IANAL, of course.
Well, on the one hand, since the U.S. doesn't have a national ID card, does this now make driving mandatory? On the other hand, it should make it easier for cops to get dates....Whoa! Where did that come from?
Seriously, this would seem to necessarily take us one step closer to requiring a national ID card in the most extreme of likely outcomes of the court ruling.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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.
"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.
"Last I heard, Canada has it too."
Canada does not have such a law, police must have a reason to ask for such information and unless you have committed a crime you are not forced to oblige.
Before this ruling, we were not required so much as identify ourselves to the police if they had no probably cause for arrest. Now, we are.
What? This case was a challenge to the laws that 20 different states, including Nevada and New York, ALREADY have on the books that required people to identify themselves to the police if the they have "reasonable suspicion" to ask for it. This ruling doesn't change anything.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Secret Ballots. Otherwise a sufficiently motivated group could bully voters who previously voted for another party.
Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
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.
Holy shit, where to begin?! First of all, governments do not have rights with respect to citizens, it's the other way around. Govt's have powers not rights. The gov't can't possibly reserve a right to itself. It has none.
As to having responsibilities to the state, again, this is simply not true. I have a duty to be an informed voter. That's not due to the government, that's what I owe to my fellow citizens. I owe nothing to the gov't.
Try reading the pramble to the constitution. It's "We the people" reserve these rights, not "we the gov't will condescend to give you these rights"
Yes, the police's rights can be abused.
Oddly enough, the rights of the police are almost never abused. If you're a cop, other cops will respect your rights. Or did you mean the powers of the police, which is another question entirely?
Let me spell it out in case you're as dumb as you appear to be: the police have the same rights as any other citizen. No more, no less. If you don't understand the difference between rights and powers you have no business commenting on gov't powers or even voting. Go watch the Three Stooges and stay away from any ballot, please.
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.
That's all fine and dandy, and to a large degree I think you're right. That said, there is something wrong with a world in which all too often, one is afraid that the police and/or government might do something harmful with your identification.
I don't trust the government, not because I think it is run by bad people, or that anyone there wants to hurt US citizens. On the contrary, I don't trust the gov't because they are responsible for setting their own salaries, and for raising the taxes that pay those salaries. It sounds basic, but the problem is that they have far too much personal interest in high taxes and lots of power (in order to be able to collect those taxes).
It is sad, but I honestly believe that there will come a time when we will no longer have certain freedoms, all in the name of security. That day, unfortunately, is now. We have lost so many freedoms due to security concerns. Unfortunately we live in a country where the vast majority feels that the gov't should take care of them (re: social security, gov't healthcare, welfare, etc.), and have extended this to personal safety (a road we have been on for a long time with things like anti-gun laws and even speeding laws). The further we go down this road, however, the less freedom we have. I personally would rather have more responsibility, and more freedom.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
I'm gonna argue this one becuase I think it's a point of view that needs to be considered, even if rejected, so bare with the devil's advocate here.
Police ain't here to protect you, except in limited circumstances. Police certainly protect a stalled car by slowing down traffic with their lights and similar instances, but when it comes to criminal investigations the police have no duty to protect you. The police man's only duty is to find out who committed the crime, and arrest him. In this regaurd, police are reactionary elements, not proactive gaurds of your security. Police show up after a crime has been committed, and at that point you're already a victum. How is this protection?
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
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?
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.
Of course it does. There are any number of reasons why I might not want anyone to know who or where I am. The battered wife (or husband for that matter) that doesn't want to be tracked down. The whistleblower that wants to be able to let the authorities know that his or her organization is doing something illegal, but doesn't want their life destroyed by doing so. The ex-con that served his time and paid for his crime, and only wants a job. The journalist that has sources to protect. Hell, I won't even give out my real name on Slashdot. I would venture to say that people in any functioning society, be it a democracy, republic or what-have-you, need a certain degree of anonymity. History tells us this much: when your life is under a microscope you live in fear, and under a microscope is exactly where the United States Federal Government would like to put us. All of us.
But more to the point, I'm getting very tired of the presumption of guilt that I see pervading our society, and the way it is being used to justify barratry and civil rights abuse. The RIAA/MPAA/DirecTV crowd have decided that EVERYONE is to be presumed a thief, regardless of whether there is any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. That wouldn't bother me, in and of itself, since I don't care what they think about me, but they've conscripted the Feds to enforce their beliefs (witness the DMCA, copyright extension and Orrin Hatch's repeated appearance out in left field.) That makes them dangerous. The Feds themselves have decided that we are, all of us, "potential terrorists" and in order to weed out that one in a million that might actually be a terrorist the rest of us must suffer the indignities of an invasive law enforcement community and a dismantling of two hundred years of tradition and law regarding our civil liberties. So yes, we need anonymity, if nothing else to protect us from ourselves.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If a police officer can walk up to you out of the blue and demand anything then the original concept of personal liberty is lost. What's the difference between the Hiibel example and the cops showing up at your door without a warrent? Not much. Que Benjamin Franklin quotes ad nauseum...
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.
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.
Some of the cops are worse than the local thugs. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a cop, EVER.
Some of the black people in the US are criminals and murderers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a black man, EVER.
Some of the Jews in the US are embezzlers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Jew, EVER.
Some of the Arabs are terrorists. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Arab, EVER.
Some of the Italians are in the mob. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Italian, EVER.
Some of the Russians are mobsters. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Russian, EVER.
Some of the gay men are pedophiles. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a gay man, EVER.
Some of the Unions take bribes and kickbacks. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a union, EVER.
Some of the minorities in the world get their jobs strictly through affirmative action. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a minority, EVER.
Some of the Liberals/Moderates/Conservatives in America are corrupt. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Liberal/Moderate/Conservative, EVER.
Some of the Environmentalists are extreme idiots that use junk science to justify their own whims, or are hypocrits who do exactly what they don't want anyone else doing. Not all of them, but as long as there a few like this, I won't trust an Environmentalist, EVER.
Is everyone out there starting to get the point? Or must I go on longer? Statements like these are prejudicial. Including the one about cops. Prejudicial: To judge someone or something without fact.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
But you're not *required* to receive those services. You can be poor as dirt in the desert and you don't have to give up your ID to the government. But when you go ask them to help out, *then* you have to prove who you are, and not only that, but why you think you should be *given* money for nothing.
I believe in the original intended purpose of social security, welfare, etc. I think it's a fair trade that you have to give up certain information in order to receive those services. Without that information, how the hell is the government supposed to figure out who qualifies for the service and who doesn't?
But that's not what the GP said, is it. ;) The GP said "But I in *NO* way believe that they gov't should be able to demand my papers in any situation." I grokked that as "I don't think the government can demand my ID arbitrarily". As in, they have to have a good reason. The cop that stops me for speeding (a law I oppose, btw) has to see my ID so he can write me the ticket. I can refuse to give up the ID. He can also arrest me so I can serve my fine in jail instead, along with interfering with justice or whatever it's called. But a cop that just sees me in a store, I don't think he should be able to ask my ID on "suspicion that I will commit theft in that store".
For example, I don't think this should have happened at all. However, in that situation, the cop had all the power, so I tried my best to accomodate him without getting into trouble. As for my rights? You don't claim those when the cop starts looking for you. You claim those in a court of law. They *can* hold you for too long, in violation of due process. And then you can claim your rights in the matter, have the charges dismissed, and sue the piss out of them for fucking you over. But if they just lock you up and throw away the key, what are you going to do? Can't Do Shit. Not unless someone outside knows what's going on and can go claim your rights for you.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Since when was giving an officer your name a bad thing? To anyone who does business, spreading your name around is actually pretty everyday stuff. If it's part of a policeman's procedure, well, being polite rarely gets a negative response.
:D
;)
I'd give him a business card, and tell him to call me when he needs a computer fixed. If he looks me up, he'll just find a lot of satisfied customers.
What I don't understand is why people assume the police are made up of thugs who want to dominate people... most policemen are simply your average guy who's trying to do their job, and pulling their hair out when they get no respect for it. Their pay isn't all that incredible. They likely have families that they want to keep safe. And many times, their lives depend on a piece of plastic that they wear about their bodies... and the training they received. So do they really deserve to be snubbed when all they want is to be sure you're not someone they're going to have to risk their lives against?
More importantly, if you act like an asshole, expect to be suspected of something. Manners go hand in hand with honesty. You don't have to tell him what your political affiliation or your annual household income is. Just something that you would likely give to an attractive stranger in any case.
*shrug* maybe I'm missing something.
The Penguin Producer
The headlines for the newspapers in this area do not read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for name", they read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for ID". No matter what the technical ruling of the Supreme Court is, the powers that be are spinning this to spread the impression that a formal, state issued ID is always necessary.
Take for example: If an officer asks for your name and you give it the officer may ask for ID to prove it. If you fail to produce the ID then you are guilty of obstructing justice. At this point the Supreme Court ruling would not apply because you would indeed be guilty of hindering an investigative action--verification of identity.
Take for another example: A fellow on the block always mows his lawn at 8 AM on Saturday morning. He likes to get it done before it gets to be 104 degrees outside and also likes to have it out of the way so that he can enjoy the rest of his Saturday. On a particular Saturday the elderly woman who lives two doors down from him isn't feeling well and calls the police for a noise disturbance on Saturday morning. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the elderly woman is the mother-in-law of one of the police captains. The captain isn't actually on duty but the patrol officers know that he's going to be in a sour mood if he has to come in to work on Sunday after receiving a telephone call from his mother-in-law early Saturday morning. The patrol officers decide that they'll just take a casual cruise by to see what the situation is. They find the guy mowing his lawn and ask him to stop to speak with them. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the fellow has had a rough week at work and just wants to get the lawn done to go back to bed. The police ask for his name so that they can fill out their paperwork and the fellow quips "John Doe". He doesn't feel that his name should be included on a report for a noise disturbance because 1) he's mowing his lawn, and 2) the police have declined to identify the person who made the complaint. The police ask for his ID to verify his name. He's out mowing the yard and informs them that the ID is IN HIS HOUSE.
How long can the police detain the man? They certainly don't want to let him go back into his house because then they'll need a warrant to get him to come back out.
Can the police enter the man's home to retrieve the ID without a warrant?
From my understanding of (experience with) the law the police can detain the man for as long as they feel like chatting. If the man turns away from the officers to leave they will physically restrain him and possibly charge him with "obstruction of justice". The situation can continue indefinitely until 1) The man calls his lawyer (which he cannot do because he's out mowing the lawn and the cell phone is in the house), 2) the police get bored (they're always bored which explains why they would detain the man to chat indefinitely), 3) the man takes any action which can be misconstued to be hindering the duties of a police officer.
The stalemate is this: The police will not leave until they have the man's ID. The police will not let the man enter his house to retrieve the ID. The man will NOT give the police permission to enter his house to retrieve the ID.
The solution: The police detain the man until he becomes agitated enough to turn away and try to walk back into his house. The police reach out to restrain the man and immediately charge him with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. At this point the police have just cause to enter his house and retrieve his ID. By this time the man is explosive with rage and the police can lock him up or send him to the psyche ward.
Honestly, all of this existed before the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruling just makes it public debate and shows how some lawyers have far too much free time on their hands.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80