Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right

Posted by timothy on from the facial-recognition-renders-this-a-moot-point dept.

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."

42 of 1,492 comments (clear)

  1. Possible scenarios by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  2. Backwards reasoning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Backwards reasoning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      yes, i agree with the converse poster, you should have posted non-anonymously, what gives you the right not to reveal yourself so we can laugh at you?

    2. Re:Backwards reasoning... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We shouldn't need a reason to not give information. Rather, the Goverment should need a reason todemand it. It seems so simple. We always decried countries where police could demand "papers'' at will for no reason. Now we are, i n effect, one of those countries.

    3. Re:Backwards reasoning... by Zareste · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well here's the thing: You don't have to show identification, you just go to jail for not doing so. Try refusing to show your papers thinking 'ha, he can't just find another reason to arrest me and throw me in the bin anyway. The police would never do that!'

      It's the great work-around governments have used for centuries. The police can't check your car without your permission either, but if you don't let them, who's to say your 'body language' or something of the sort wasn't giving off a bad vibe? The only reason the police need to give to put you in a holding cell is 'suspicion'. Just invoke the old 'oh my God, he's coming right for us!' trick and they can do whatever they want.

      It's as easy as using 'abuse' in place of 'torture', y'know, calling POWs 'detainees', or putting a country in a police state without declaring a police state. So the info given in this article was really nothing new. Don't have papers? Go to jail. The only difference is that now they don't need an excuse. Simple as can be, and further confirmation that authority needs not obey authority's rules. Anyone surprised?

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    4. Re:Backwards reasoning... by gessel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, this is all backwards. The police have long had a right to hold a suspect if there's probable cause, name nor not. That rule was never in question in he Nevada case. The defense against abuse of that right is an unlawful arrest lawsuit. The balance of tension between fear of the police departments faced with unlawful arrest lawsuits vs the fear of letting criminals go to some degree balances the previously presumed rights of everyone to privacy and freedom of molestation by the police vs the rights and expectations of the same that the police are useful.

      Were the officer to have believed there was probable cause of violence he could have arrested Hibble name or not, just not solely for refusing to give his name. In some states, in responding to a domestic, the officer would have been obligated by law to arrest one of the parties no matter what.

      This ruling in no way whatsoever improves the public welfare or security or safety as it provides no additional power to the police in cases where there is defensible reason to believe that a crime has taken place.

      This does create a whole new class of crime, the crime of refusing to answer a police officer's question. Though you claim that it doesn't make it a crime to fail to carry papers, what good does this ruling do without two additional assumptions: one that it is illegal to lie to a police officer (it is already a crime to lie to a federal officer) and two that if the officer suspects that you have provided a false name, that he has cause to either arrest or demand proof. It may not be a crime to fail to carry papers, but you can legally be punished for not doing so by being arrested on suspicion of providing a false or misleading answer when asked your name.

      Once the officer has a legal right to ask, the law means nothing if it isn't backed up by a legal right to demand proof, and none of those legal rights mean anything if they're not backed up by arrest. Therefore if the new ruling was worth the effort of the supreme court, we can only assume that police officers now have the right to demand a name and refusing to answer or answering falsely is, itself, a crime, and suspicion of said crime is itself cause for arrest.

      Now part of the ruling is predicated on the Nevada law, which states that the demand must be proceeded by probable cause to ask the question, and without establishing the chain of probable cause, one cannot be arrested. That seems like the same reasonable protection afforded by the defense against wrongful arrest in the first place, at least at first blush.

      But one must consider, given that the Supremes knew full well that the officer could simply have arrested Hibble had he any reason to believe that circumstances warranted it, why not simply remind the state of that power and suggest that in the future rather than creating a new class of crime, refusing to provide one's name, they rely on the established principles governing arrest with probable cause?

      The answer is quite simple, the threshold for asking someone's name is far lower than the threshold for making an arrest - therefore it's a low bar entry to arrest.
      If you're a black man walking down the street in a white neighborhood and no crime at all has taken place, and you have, say, enough money and education to know the law and be able to hire a lawyer, were a white police officer, merely passing by, to arrest you, you'd have at least some chance of winning an unlawful arrest case. Imagine being in the jury and hearing the story, the police producing no evidence they had a reason to suspect a black man of having committed a recent crime (though surely they would pretend to have received a tip, perhaps an anonymous phone call). Most of us would find it reprehensible that a black man was arrested merely for being black. (Those who don't might attempt to imagine the converse situation, getting lost in a black neighborhood and being arrested by a black officer.)

      Now imagine that instead of a one step arrest process the o

    5. Re:Backwards reasoning... by QuickSilver_999 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Since I don't have mod points right now, I guess I'll have to respond instead of modding you to oblivion.

      Did you read the same brief? I got my info from FindLaw.

      Read the opinion. There is no requirement of probable cause in the demand for one's name. A police officer can do it at any time for any reason, under this Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

      For those of you that haven't read the decision, here's some highlights. If you don't care, you can skip to the ---- and read the rest of my comment.

      "2. Deputy Dove demanded that petitioner identify himself under the authority of NRS 171.123, which provides: 1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. [Emphasis added] * * * * * 3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. [Emphasis added] Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."

      "Requiring a person to identify himself during an investigative stop does not intrude on any legitimate expectation of privacy."

      "Of particular relevance, the Court has held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his voice or handwriting. In United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973), a grand jury witness argued that a subpoena requiring a voice exemplar for identification purposes violated the Fourth Amendment. This Court rejected that claim, holding that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the sound of his voice."

      "The principle that a person can claim no Fourth Amendment protection for what he "knowingly exposes to the public" (Katz, 389 U.S. at 351) is readily applicable in this case. "Except for the rare recluse who chooses to live his life in complete solitude" (Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted)), a person routinely exposes his identity to the public. Individuals exchange their names as a matter of course in everyday social interactions, and regularly display their names when using credit cards or checks in commercial transactions. And a person must reveal his name in order to drive a car, obtain a job, open a bank account, or receive mail. In short, disclosing one's identity is an essential part of everyday life."

      "'This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,' Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-744, and 'has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities,' id. at 744 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, accordingly, officers could have followed petitioner to his home or workplace and learned his identity from his neighbors or coworkers-an entirely lawful practice that most would consider a more significant invasion of privacy than a mere requirement to provide one's name."

      "The relevant inquiry is whether the particular item sought by law enforcement implicates a legitimate expectation of privacy, not whether that item might facilitate discovery of other information that implicates a cognizable privacy interest.4"

      "The Court held in Terry, however, that when officers form a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a brief, investigative detention for purposes of questioning the suspect is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 20-23. The Court has made clear that the questions put to the subject of a Terry stop can include a request for the person's name. [Emphasis added] See Hayes,

      --
      - No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
    6. Re:Backwards reasoning... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And conversely, the existence of some valid reason to want to be anonymous in some circumstance does not mean that there is an overriding, inherent right always to be anonymous in any and all circumstances.

      Saying that I do not have a right to be anonymous is saying that it is right and proper for an agent of the state to threaten me to make me divulge my name. Are you sure that's a claim you want to make?

      If I went around pointing my gun at people to make them tell me their name, that would be insane behavior. Why is it ok if the state does it?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  3. Re:cowards hide anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    or slashdot, even

    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, ... albksl

    ^^^^
    above poster has some kind of disorder and has fallen on his keyboard. please feel sympathy for the anonymous.

  4. Implications by sglider · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Easy way out by isomeme · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  6. Of course it does by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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.
  7. Re:cowards hide anonymously by RLiegh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any c by Damiano · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. It works both ways by ozbird · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.)

    1. Re:It works both ways by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was at an antiwar protest a few months ago. One of the people near me was being hassled by a cop, so he asked the cop for his badge number.

      The cop said "You want my badge number? HERE'S my badge number!" and he flipped the guy the bird. I had my video camera with me, and I laughed and said to the cop "whoa! Do that again, let me get it on tape!"

      The cop grabbed me by the collar and yanked me toward him and growled at me "you want to get arrested, asshole?"

      You live in a fantasy world, my friend. There are reasons citizens have protections against abuse of power - because people with power often abuse it.

      We just lost one of those protections.

      --
      This space available.
  10. Re:canada anybody? by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  11. Not so fast... by applemasker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This isn't a blanket license for law enforcement to ask for "papers" or whatnot. To put it in context, the holding is that neither the 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures or the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination protect a citizen against giving their name in conjunction with an "investigative stop." If there was no investigative stop, and a citizen were mere asked to identify themselves, then the result could (and probably would) be different.

    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.
  12. Re:So much for the right to remain silent. by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
  13. Read the opinion by Carnage4Life · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Identify only in Specific Cases by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This ruling doesn't change the fact that police just can't ask to for your name for no reason at all.

    That doesn't change the fact that the officer in question is the sole person responsible for deciding whether or not you're "under suspicion" for some crime...a crime which may be invented after the fact.

    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.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  15. Re:cowards hide anonymously by mandalayx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :)

  16. Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e by tooba · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:So much for the right to remain silent. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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:

    Held: Petitioner's conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination.

    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.

  18. Re:So much for the right to remain silent. by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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?
  19. Re:cowards hide anonymously by cheezedawg · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  20. Re:cowards hide anonymously by ryanmfw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  21. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  22. Re:Identify only in Specific Cases by c0dedude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, actually, they can. If you refuse, you will likely be arrested because it is suspicious that you aren't giving your name. Combined with Terry stops, this makes facist-style checkpoints very easy, and in the information age, one could track the movements of a citizenry. Remember the true meaning of Catch-22: They can do whatever we don't prevent them from doing.

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
  23. Party Affiliations by Glamdrlng · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  24. Re:Sound familiar? by DarkSarin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  25. Re:5th Amendment and request for reason for stop by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Canada the police in fact can be compelled to tell you why you are being arrested.

    An immigrant friend o mine put that to the test a few years ago ...

    Pulled over for no reason, the cop asked him to shut off the car and get out of the vehical.

    He shut off the car, put the keys on the roof to show he was going nowhere. But would not get out of the car until he was told why he had to do so.

    Of course that just angered the cop. Cop called for backup. After much time had passed, the cop's commanding officer arrived and put the damn junior cop in his place, and told the driver to have a nice day.

    Why did my friend do this? Because in his home country he had no such rights, and wasn't going to get abused here where the law does protect him.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  26. Re:Identify only in Specific Cases by cheezedawg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Um, yes they did. The police were called out on a report of a domestic disturbance between Hiibel and his daughter. Hiibel and his daughter were fighting -his daughter admits it when they start to question her- so I would say that the police did have reasonable suspicion to question him.

    --
    "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  27. Re:Sound familiar? by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Police are here to protect me.

    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?
  28. Change of name. by wiresquire · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's it.

    I'm changing my name to "Fuck Off Pig".

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

  29. Re:cowards hide anonymously by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  30. Re:Sound familiar? by BC+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Two weeks ago I would have said "Fortunately the constitution is there to protect me from people (voters) like you.". Now, I just shake my head and wonder "How did they misunderstand the argument?? The issue is not one of anonymity!! The issue is one of police authority over anonymous and (presumably) innocent civilians and bystanders.



    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...

  31. Re:Be pleased you're not in the UK by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting


    "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.
  32. Re:Identify only in Specific Cases by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Exactly.

    I had that happen to me - I was sitting on church steps with a girl and cops pulled up and demanded ID. I truthfully told them that I didn't have any ID. I was cooperative, asked them if they wanted us to leave, etc.

    I was arrested. Only after I was finally released hours later and got to read the arrest report did I find out that I was apparently being charged with "disorderly conduct" and "refusal to comply with a police order to disperse."

    Bottom line is, if a cop wants to fuck with you just for the sake of fucking with you, he can - and the Supreme Court just made it easier for them.

    --
    This space available.
  33. Powers delegated by the citizens to officers? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Oh, no. No, no, no. Not at all. Powers are delegated by legislators, and certainly not for rewards that descend from the citizens. Legislators do what they do for rewards that descend from the rest of the power structure - perks, money, tenure, speaking engagements, you name it. Not from the citizens.

    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.
  34. Re:Sound familiar? by QuickSilver_999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  35. Case in point by maximilln · · Score: 5, Informative

    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