Cue the Imperial March

[Ghost of]

Nothing sweeter than the smell of the growing power of the State and the erosion of our rights. According to the votes, looks like the so-called conservatives and so-called liberals like to tag team on pet issues to take freedom away. Like some sort of damned game. By the time both sides get finished, this country will be a mismash of fascism and socialism with competing elements of statist fanatics beating the drums for worship of the Gubmint and increasing its reach and scope.

Scalia never misses an opportunity to increase police power and sadly Thomas, who had started to show some a slightly more libertarian(read: Constitutional) approach didn't vote the other way in this case.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040621/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_identification&e=1

Court: No Right to Keep Name From Police

Mon Jun 21, 6:59 PM ET

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.

Photo

AP Photo

The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity.

The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work.

Privacy advocates say the decision gives police too much power. Once officers have a name, they can use computer databases to learn all kinds of personal information about the person.

The loser in Monday's decision was Nevada cattle rancher Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor after he told a deputy that he didn't have to give out his name or show an ID.

The encounter happened after someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck parked along a road. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel repeatedly refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."

In fighting the arrest, Hiibel became an unlikely constitutional privacy rights crusader. He wore a cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie to the court this year when justices heard arguments in his appeal.

"A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone, but lost," said his attorney, Harriet Cummings.

The court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.

"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. 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," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses, but Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) said requiring people to divulge their name still goes too far.

"A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases," he wrote in a dissent. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) also disagreed with the ruling.

Crime-fighting and justice groups had argued that a ruling the other way would have protected terrorists and encouraged people to refuse to cooperate with police.

"The constant danger of renewed terrorist activity places enormous pressure on law enforcement to identify suspected terrorists before they strike," said Charles Hobson, an attorney with the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

But Tim Lynch, an attorney with the libertarian-oriented think tank Cato Institute, said the court "ruled that the government can turn a person's silence into a criminal offense."

"Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert their right to remain silent without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," said Lynch, who expects the ruling will lead more cities and states, and possibly Congress, to consider laws like the one in Nevada.

Justices had been told that at least 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

The ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said America is different 36 years after the Terry decision. "In a modern era, when the police get your identification, they are getting an extraordinary look at your private life."

The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I don't like it. What's next--a walking license?

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I don't like it. What's next--a walking license?

Why not? After all, many of those sidewalks is 'public property.' There must be a 'compellin' gubmint interest" in assuring the safety of our public walkways, don't you agree? The idea that you're part of the public and thus you own it as much as a copper or bureaucrat never seems to enter into their empty skulls.

Trust me, this will be abused. I thought we had a right to remain silent if arrested? So if we ARENT observed committing a crime and instead one of the lords demands to see a peasant's ID, we have to submit?

In the days when the EPA has an assault team, and when cops retain rights once held by all American citizens and when no one is sent to jail after innocent people are killed in raids where police don't identify themselves--well, I'm waiting for it turn the other way like it KIND OF did with asset forfeiture.

Saw a point on another board:

Now, if you even resemble(subjective, of course) someone who MAY have committed a crime you can be stopped and your identity demanded by the cops or you can be arrested. Great expanded powers they got. When do I get neat-o authority like that?

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Why not? After all, many of those sidewalks is 'public property.' There must be a 'compellin' gubmint interest" in assuring the safety of our public walkways, don't you agree? The idea that you're part of the public and thus you own it as much as a copper or bureaucrat never seems to enter into their empty skulls.

Trust me, this will be abused. I thought we had a right to remain silent if arrested? So if we ARENT observed committing a crime and instead one of the lords demands to see a peasant's ID, we have to submit?

In the days when the EPA has an assault team, and when cops retain rights once held by all American citizens and when no one is sent to jail after innocent people are killed in raids where police don't identify themselves--well, I'm waiting for it turn the other way like it KIND OF did with asset forfeiture.

Saw a point on another board:

Now, if you even resemble(subjective, of course) someone who MAY have committed a crime you can be stopped and your identity demanded by the cops or you can be arrested. Great expanded powers they got. When do I get neat-o authority like that?

Wow. I am pretty speechless by this. The point is made in the article, that people will be confused about when the right to remain silent can be exercised. Silence now becomes an offense. It's ok though- because you see, it's only self-incriminating sometimes. How can you make that comment? We only break the 5th Amendment sometimes with this ruling, so that makes it ok.

Blinded by what they supposedly see as the greater good, the people in power once again strip away rights of individual citizens.

[Nerm]

Although I consider myself a libertarian, I’m ambivalent on this one. I can think of a lot of reasons that I think it is wrong for government officials to invade my house or even my car. I am, however, trying to think of a situation where I wouldn’t tell a cop my name. Unless I already have a warrant out for my arrest... I can’t think of a reason I would want to withhold my name.

If I have done nothing wrong, or even if I have done something wrong and no arrest warrant has been issued yet, why would I want to withhold my name? Unless you are supposed to be in custody already, why would you withhold your name?

Again, I am fairly libertarian on these issues, but how are innocent people harmed here? It seems that the only people who are harmed by this law are people who should be in custody already.

I want to believe cops don’t have a right to this info, but I couldn’t really say why. Just so we can say, “I don’t have to talk to you!”? Do cops have information that isn’t related to criminal history or current arrest warrants? I don’t think the police have a right to look up my income, profession, or voting history, but they should know if I am wanted for a crime. Obviously they shouldn’t just stop people at random, but I don’t see why they would waste their time doing that in the first place.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Nerm

Unless I already have a warrant out for my arrest... I can’t think of a reason I would want to withhold my name.

If I have done nothing wrong, or even if I have done something wrong and no arrest warrant has been issued yet, why would I want to withhold my name? Unless you are supposed to be in custody already, why would you withhold your name?

Someone that understands it. What is the difference if a salesperson asks your name? The cop wants to know your name so he can talk to you. They are also doing this because had they did this when the sniper was around they would have had him faster since he was talking to cops about 3 times. They would have known there was a warrant out for the younger one and it would have been over instead of another 5 or 6 innocent people getting killed. If you haven't broken the law you have nothing to worry about.

Remember at work you can't go hiding around without giving out your name. Some of you need to just relax a little.

[Larry]

Now, I thought I was about the most "pro-privacy" person around here. I guess I was wrong.

I think it's absolutely ludicrous that people would claim to have a right to refuse to identify themselves.

(I would claim that there are limits as to when an officer can make you identify yourself. No, they can't require everybody who's, say, protesting against Bush's War, to show ID.)

OTOH, there's a point, for example, where the cops have an obligation to, say, see if there're any warrants out for somebody.

I've had an attorney who was representing me (Brendan Sullivan, the attorney who later represented Ollie North) point out that the Miranda "right to remain silent" does not include a right not to identify yourself if arrested. (Actually, he said, you have a right to not identify yourself, but the cops have a right to hold you for however long it takes to identify you. If I'm not mistaken, that's how McVeigh got caught: He would've been released if he'd identified himself, because the cops weren't looking for him by name, but he didn't know that.)

Now, as to the complaint that a name can be used to access, say, your credit card records; the problem isn't that the cops shouldn't have your name, it's that they shouldn't have your credit card records.

[Ghost of]

Larry

The problem is, this is not about being arrested. This is about walking down the frliggin street and being asked for your ID by the most proximate government agent and having no choice but to comply. This is about "reasonable suspicion" now being a refusal to just hand over ID.

"Papers please, citizen."

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Larry

The problem is, this is not about being arrested. This is about walking down the frliggin street and being asked for your ID by the most proximate government agent and having no choice but to comply. This is about "reasonable suspicion" now being a refusal to just hand over ID.

"Papers please, citizen."

Ghost as long as you didn't do anything what is the problem???

The cops are only going to use this if you are involved in an accident, look like someone they are looking for, etc...

You have too wear an ID at work so again what is the big deal??

[Murdering Purple Turds]

Does anyone else see the irony in these types of rulings and laws brought about by this Republican administration and conservative Supreme Court? For decades, the Republican party has stood for small government. Rulings like this, the Patriot Act, and pretty much everything John Ashcroft does is a complete contradiction to Republican values. So funny. It goes to show that values and democracy mean nothing to Republicans in this country. They just do whatever it takes to keep their man in the White House, their wallets filled, and their egos stoked.

-MPT

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Larry

Now, I thought I was about the most "pro-privacy" person around here. I guess I was wrong.

I think it's absolutely ludicrous that people would claim to have a right to refuse to identify themselves.

(I would claim that there are limits as to when an officer can make you identify yourself. No, they can't require everybody who's, say, protesting against Bush's War, to show ID.)

OTOH, there's a point, for example, where the cops have an obligation to, say, see if there're any warrants out for somebody.

I've had an attorney who was representing me (Brendan Sullivan, the attorney who later represented Ollie North) point out that the Miranda "right to remain silent" does not include a right not to identify yourself if arrested. (Actually, he said, you have a right to not identify yourself, but the cops have a right to hold you for however long it takes to identify you. If I'm not mistaken, that's how McVeigh got caught: He would've been released if he'd identified himself, because the cops weren't looking for him by name, but he didn't know that.)

Now, as to the complaint that a name can be used to access, say, your credit card records; the problem isn't that the cops shouldn't have your name, it's that they shouldn't have your credit card records.

You say there are limits on when cops should be able to identify yourself. If you truly believe that, then they need to codify those conditions. As far as I know, there are no conditions- as the beginning of the article states: "A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong."

I've been out with some good friends of mine, and I've seen the police follow some of my friends around for no reason. Well, I can guess the reason, I'm pretty sure it was race. Of course, not all cops are bad, I am not trying to imply that, and even these particular cops may have issues, but at least they didn't really hassle us (although they may have if we had continued walking on the sidewalk, we went into a restaurant and they looked in and then walked on).

Personally I still find that one comment that Scalia appears to make odd - that we'll only break the 5th Amendment sometimes with this.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Larry

The problem is, this is not about being arrested. This is about walking down the frliggin street and being asked for your ID by the most proximate government agent and having no choice but to comply. This is about "reasonable suspicion" now being a refusal to just hand over ID.

"Papers please, citizen."

I think, from the article, that this case wasn't "papers, please, citizen", it was:

• Cops recieve complaint about man and woman arguing in a car at a particular place
  
• Cops arrive at that place, find a man and a woman in a car, at that place.
  
• Cop begins asking questions of the people he found, and one of them refuses to identify himself.
  

Now, it's possible that no crime's been committed, here. It's also possible that this couple has a history of domestic abuse complaints.

How the cop responds, depends on the prior history of these two people.

[Fred Jones]

Murdering Purple Turds, I have to agree with you. The Republicans claim to want to fight terrorism, put conservative judges on the bench, support the Patriot Act, support the 2nd Amendment, ect, but they don’t want to be inconvenienced and have their life intruded on. Having said that, I don’t want to get into an argument over it. I have to work with many people with these same hypocritical thinking and I get tired of it.

I agree with fighting terrorism, putting conservative judges on the bench and support the Patriot Act, and don’t mind if I have to provide by ID. Law Enforcement can’t just walk up to you and ask for your ID for no reason. They need reasonable suspicision at the very least that you were involved in a crime, suspicious activity or involved in some incident that Law Enforcement needs to look into. This ruling only applies to providing your identification. This does not require providing any further information.

Law Enforcement would be severely limited if people could simply ignore them and not be required to provide them with their identification. By the way, if you commit a traffic infraction and are stopped by a police officer, you are required to provide your identification.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that Law Enforcement will abuse this privilege. Every profession has had apples, and some local communities around the country probably target people because of race. Luckily, I think this thinking is a minority in the Law Enforcement community.

Just to let you know. Local and State Law Enforcement have very strict rules governing checking criminal histories and strict rules governing inquiring into someone’s driving history. Also, for people like Jbooma, Arlington County is the only local jurisdiction in Northern Virginia that has a law on the books that you can arrest someone for not providing their identification.

[Cskin]

It should be... a policeman can ask for my name ONLY and AFTER he states why he has approached me.

I don't like this decision.. not at all.

But, only when the people wake up and start to take a vested interest in their govt. will these types of infringements stop creeping into our lives.

[KevinthePRF]

Well, as a police officer it's safe to assume how I feel about the decision.

MPT reflects my sentiments exactly.

Anyone griping about this needs to check their post history in what we should do about the war on terrorism.

I say it's no different than say, the war on drugs in our country.

[Prosperity]

This incident is a good example of what has been going on lately in the U.S.

This country is going in the wrong direction; our rights are being taken away left and right, and almost no one seems to care about it. The government can arrest citizens call them enemy combatants and then hold them indefinitely without a trial or even pressing charges against them.

(link to Padilla case: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040613-102538-2455r.htm )

[Bigkatt]

While this does mean you have to tell police your name when asked. It in no way abrogates an earlier Supreme Court ruling that said it was unconstitutional to require citizens to carry I.D. papers of any kind. (This ruling specifically addressed many state laws that require you to carry a Drivers Licence. ) This of course does not mean that you don't have to have a valid licence to drive, just that your not required to carry it. ..........The flip side is that the police can detain you until they are satisfied that your licence is valid so you might as well carry it. In short having to tell someone my name doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

[Ghost of]

Hog53, Death of a Thousand cuts, frog boiled in water--take your pick of the approach. Compulsion of speech, even by the "authorities" is a grave incursion by our overlords.

[ZkinsFan]

Yeah,its bad enuff when cops mess with me for no reason other than to mess with me......Now i can't withhold my right to remain silent? F that. Meanwhile young Rahaad al whatever is making a bomb nearby............

[Bigkatt]

Ghost: I understand that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I just don't believe that this is the step that leads down the trail of lost Liberties.

[Ghost of]

hog---no, that step was taken during when Andrew Jackson kicked civilized Indian tribes off their rightful land. Or if you want to make that the exception, then it was Lincoln suspending habeas corpus--or at the VERY least, the various gun control acts, regulation and the New Deal. Hell you could go back to the Alien and Sedition Laws, though they were struck down eventually.

take your pick

[codeorama]

I've never had a problem with cops. I guess not doing anything wrong helps.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by codeorama

I've never had a problem with cops. I guess not doing anything wrong helps.

I have a few friends in Oakland who would disagree with that assessment (something about being the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood).

[codeorama]

Funny how that works... I've had to go into the "Hood" in my city looking for a lost child (the parent couldn't find them after they got home from school, happens all the time) and as the only white guy in a predominantly black area, the police always ask me if I'm ok....LOL.

[Ghost of]

Ancal,

And the race element is but ONE small part of it.

Last time I checked, Randy Weaver's wife and son were white. So was the guy who was MURDERED by police anti-drug nazis so they could seize his house and large property--he had his cell phone in his hand and was calling 911 on the invaders.

When people in power abuse, they abuse everyone.