Supreme Court pissing on freedom

["Sixhits"]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html

>>>
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.

The decision was a defeat for privacy rights advocates who argued that the government could use this power to force people who have done nothing wrong, other than catch the attention of police, to divulge information that may be used for broad data base searches.

Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.

The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote.
<<<

[alaric]

I actually agree with this decision. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to keep your identity private from the government. In the past, it was possible to remain anonymous by just simply moving to another part of the country, but we lost the last semblance of that with in the introduction of Social Security Numbers.

I personally don't have a problem with this as long as the person has committed and detainable/arrestable offense to begin with. Police should not be allowed to wander the streets checking IDs, that's a little too Gestapo for my tastes.

That said, authorities have a right to know who they're dealing with and what their criminal history is (if any). If I stop some guy on a remote road some night I want to know that he's got a history of assault, domestic battery and resisting arrest. It also increases the power of small-time departs by giving them national reach. This is one of the few times where if you have nothing to hide you really have nothing to fear.

Even in wartime prisoners are required to give their Name, Rank and Serial Number to their captors.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

What ever happend to the right to remain silent (maranda rights) that the police have to read when they arrest you. That means you realy dont have to say anything to them.

[theweakspot]

The right to remain silent only kicks in once you have already been arrested, right?  So from what I read they can arrest you for not ID'ing yourself, and THEN you have the right to not talk to them.

[BTs_FahQ2]

Well, let's actually use logic in this arguement.  Unless you actually have something to hide or you are some moron like this guy from Nevada, why wouldn't you just tell the goddamn cop your name.  I mean, unless you have something to hide, or would like to raise suspiscion that you do, there should be no problem in to telling the cops your name.  The whole problem started when they asked the guy his name and he refused.  They didn't ask for ID at first, the guy was an asshole, it made him look suspiscious and things went a lot further than this idiot thought it would.  And greatly enough, he got a citation for it.

Living in the times that we do now, I hope they would allow cops to ask for a name or identification if further attention is needed.  Unless you would like to broaden the rights of those that wish to do further harm over here in America, you shouldn't have a problem with this.  

[seth]

Fahq2 is totally right, unless you are a bad guy or a moron, why wouldnt tell your name to law enforcment ?

["Sixhits"]

The problem isn't that this guy got the shit end of the stick for not identifying himself.

It's that the right to shut the fuck up is one of the cornerstones of the constitution.

The 5th?

Anyway, that and miranda are the essence of non-self incrimination.

Being compelled by your government to id yourself -- for any reason -- is a Bad Thing.

Cop, arrest me. Then I don't have to talk to you. And if you arrest me unjustly you stand to suffer the consequences.  But now I have to speak to you. Whether or not I'm part of an investigation, whether or not I'm at a crime scene, whether or not I'm engaged in suspicious activity.

COME ON! This is so off the charts! It sounds reasonable, but you have got to put it into perspective -- This is a general shift away from the presumed Right to Privacy and the factual Right to not Incriminate Oneself.

I could care less whether a cop wants to know my name. But I do care when the Supreme Court rules on an issue that threatens general prinicpals I've lived with my whole life.

[BTs_FahQ2]

Heh, well then you fail to realize the exact role of what the Supreme Court is.  It's an office created to rule on law in accordance with interpretation of the constitution and what is right for that time.  

Besides that fact you aren't thinking up your reasons cleary.  Imagine this, you are guaranteed the right to a quick trial and there are also limits on how long you can be held without charges being presented against you.  So what you are saying is that you should also be given the right to not say your name which in turn blocks due process on your other rights.  I believe the court here is saying that they would rather have your guilty or non guilty ass give an identity so less time is lost and they can give you due process.  I say sure then, if you want to withhold your name then let them hold you until everything is figured out.  Because you can be held on suspiscion and it is also clear that you are acting suspiscious.  It the same reason you are required by law to carry identification.  So that they know who the shit you are.

And as your right to privacy, you are outside bonehead, the courts have long held then when you are not in your home how the hell can you have privacy.  they didn't rule that the cops can come to your door and ask your name.  And on further note, how can a name be self incriminating?  Please elaborate, I would be quite interested in the tall tale.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

I don't mind their decision on giving out your name, but this decision Supreme Court rules for HMOs over patients  http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/8978291.htm?1c pisses me off...

[BTs_FahQ2]

I agree, that one is just funny.

["Sixhits"]

Heh, well then you fail to realize the exact role of what the Supreme Court is.  It's an office created to rule on law in accordance with interpretation of the constitution and what is right for that time.  

Besides that fact you aren't thinking up your reasons cleary.  Imagine this, you are guaranteed the right to a quick trial and there are also limits on how long you can be held without charges being presented against you.  So what you are saying is that you should also be given the right to not say your name which in turn blocks due process on your other rights.  I believe the court here is saying that they would rather have your guilty or non guilty ass give an identity so less time is lost and they can give you due process.  I say sure then, if you want to withhold your name then let them hold you until everything is figured out.  Because you can be held on suspiscion and it is also clear that you are acting suspiscious.  It the same reason you are required by law to carry identification.  So that they know who the shit you are.

And as your right to privacy, you are outside bonehead, the courts have long held then when you are not in your home how the hell can you have privacy.  they didn't rule that the cops can come to your door and ask your name.  And on further note, how can a name be self incriminating?  Please elaborate, I would be quite interested in the tall tale.

Sry, I suppose I wasn't clear enough:

"So what you are saying is that you should also be given the right to not say your name which in turn blocks due process on your other rights."

I disagree and that's not what I was talking about. When you are arrested you have the right to shut the fuck up. Simple enough. You cannot be compeled to say anything. However after this ruling, if I am walking down the street and a cop asks me my name, I must give it to him -- I am required to speak.  The essence of the Court's decision seems to suggest that a person under arrest has more rights than a person randomly queried on the street. Would you agree that that is a proper state of affairs? It has little to do with expiditing due process and everything to do with a citizen's rights. Indeed, foolish as it may seem, what's to stop a cop from walking down the street, with a wi-fi link to his criminal database, asking each citizen their name and cross referencing their names with known criminals? Aditionally? Hasn't the election issues of 2000 shown how the government can use your name to improperly deny you your rights? There were hordes of citizens bared from voting in Florida because they had names that were similar to convicted felons -- how far a leap is it to assume that the government isn't capable of discerning your innocent name from those of wanted men? It isn't a case of due process, it's a case of your rights.

"Because you can be held on suspiscion and it is also clear that you are acting suspiscious."

You can be held on suspiscion. In that case your are not required to tell the cops anything. What this ruling does is circumnavigate our usual rights to due process. You want to know what would expediate due process? A dictatorship, where the cops could just dissappear you. We live under a moderately complex sort of lawful government precisely to avoid such "expediation".

"So that they know who the shit you are."

Again, its not a question of knowing who you are. It's a question of whether or not the government should be allowed to demand for no reason your identity. Do you think it's right for the government to stop you and demand you identify yourself? Do we live in 1939 Germany?

"And as your right to privacy, you are outside bonehead, the courts have long held then when you are not in your home how the hell can you have privacy."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a cop doesn't have the right to search your car unless you give him permission or unless he has, and I forget the proper terminology, the correct suspicion. What, would you like our lives to be open books, fair game for anythin agent of the government to read?

"And on further note, how can a name be self incriminating?"

We now live in a country that presumes our guilt unless we do as they say. Know how a name can be self incriminating? When not giving one is a crime. In anyevent, for me the issue isn't whether or not a name is self incriminating. It's the fact that this Court's ruling is an erosion of our existing rights. It is also a stepping stool to assualt other rights -- such as miranda rights, such as the right to privacy. As you say, the Court rules on law in accordance with an interpretation of the constitution and a supposition for what is right for our time. Better hope they start thinking Freedom and Liberty are right for our time, rather than oppression and oversight.


Oh, and Probable Cause?

IT JUST BECAME NOT GIVING YOUR NAME

["Sixhits"]

I want this to be a seperate post:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096927/

>>>First, many states and the federal government will pass statutes like Nevada's (many already have) making it a crime to refuse to identify yourself to the police on less than probable cause. Then, say during an orange-alert period for terrorist activity, police near an airport, or in a busy urban center, see a dark man looking around furtively, who turns and walks away rapidly. With Terry and Wardlow and Hiibel (if it is decided for the government), the police may run him down and?without suspecting him in particular of anything specific?demand his identity and arrest him if he refuses to give it. Is this America?

This will happen to thousands of dark young men, and I would venture not one suicide bomber will be among them. Or at least not one will be revealed without other investigation. Meanwhile, in the name of security, we will have abandoned our much-vaunted liberty to walk freely on the streets surrounded by a zone of privacy and even anonymity?not numbered and in place; not responsible to explain ourselves on demand by the government.

I wish that we who value this as a precious incident of liberty had a more impressive representative than Dudley Hiibel?more coherent, less loud?who made a nobler record for the precious right to be left alone. But he is a little better than he seems in the video. For the record, he was not driving the car, so his drunkenness did not supply additional cause for the arrest. No one asked the daughter what happened, and the domestic-assault charge was dropped before trial. Hiibel's defense lawyer says the daughter actually hit him. Most important, he obviously thought he was being stopped for parking too near the highway. No one told him otherwise in the entire videotaped encounter. Even the most ardent supporters of police power would not approve the investigative work done here.
<<<

[The Golden Shark]

I personally don't have a problem with this as long as the person has committed and detainable/arrestable offense to begin with. Police should not be allowed to wander the streets checking IDs, that's a little too Gestapo for my tastes.

And that is the scary thing, who is to say what causes police attention... anything, a police officer can say anything "got his attention" to get a name and ID

[BTs_FahQ2]

But all in all, the logic you are stating is that your name is incriminating.  This is not true, the act of the crime that you may have commited incriminated you, not your name.  The failure of you not to give your name only arises to the fact that you have something to hide.  This is the basis of the arguement.   Furethurmore, you are arguing the fact that you have the right to remain silent when you are arrested, well, in this case of the law, you haven't been arrested yet.  It is just a law stating that a peace officer has the right to question who you are and nothing furthermore.  Whether or not it leads to them finding out you have 10 warrants for jaywalking or you are the wanted baby eater, they are allowed.

Not only this, but you are taking in account that are cops are evil and not following their own laws and rules.  Maybe this is out of your own suspiscions of law enforcement, but who knows.  But for anyone who acutally knows anything about laws and how the police enforce laws, it is at their own disgretion on how they choose to use them.  

Basically, if you read the support and dissention for the arguments you are entirely missing the points of the whole ruling.  It is a police officers right to know the identity of someone in order to have the ability to do their job correctly in the most able manner in not only serving themselves, the public, but also the criminal.  It is not their intention to go around in a giant name hunting expedition, but it gives them the ability to just do their job.  

Also, why does everyone think this is a Terrorist hunting law?  Are you nuts?  Do you actually have any idea what makes up the Supreme court right now?  If you did, you would know that they wouldn't support this measure if it's intent was to find terrorists, stop trying to spread your insane ideas and learn the facts.

btw, are you actually sticking up for a conservative issue.  I am truly amazed

["Sixhits"]

But all in all, the logic you are stating is that your name is incriminating.  This is not true, the act of the crime that you may have commited incriminated you, not your name.  The failure of you not to give your name only arises to the fact that you have something to hide.  This is the basis of the arguement.   Furethurmore, you are arguing the fact that you have the right to remain silent when you are arrested, well, in this case of the law, you haven't been arrested yet.  It is just a law stating that a peace officer has the right to question who you are and nothing furthermore.  Whether or not it leads to them finding out you have 10 warrants for jaywalking or you are the wanted baby eater, they are allowed.

Not only this, but you are taking in account that are cops are evil and not following their own laws and rules.  Maybe this is out of your own suspiscions of law enforcement, but who knows.  But for anyone who acutally knows anything about laws and how the police enforce laws, it is at their own disgretion on how they choose to use them.  

Basically, if you read the support and dissention for the arguments you are entirely missing the points of the whole ruling.  It is a police officers right to know the identity of someone in order to have the ability to do their job correctly in the most able manner in not only serving themselves, the public, but also the criminal.  It is not their intention to go around in a giant name hunting expedition, but it gives them the ability to just do their job.  

Also, why does everyone think this is a Terrorist hunting law?  Are you nuts?  Do you actually have any idea what makes up the Supreme court right now?  If you did, you would know that they wouldn't support this measure if it's intent was to find terrorists, stop trying to spread your insane ideas and learn the facts.

btw, are you actually sticking up for a conservative issue.  I am truly amazed

Yah, amazing -- I don't like the government sticking it's nose into our business for no reason. On that I think Liberals and Conservatives agree.

It is not what the purpose of the ruling is that concerns me. On the surface, a police officer asking my name dosn't faze me. What is troublesome is that this ruling sets a precedent, and laws and the interpretation of laws are grounded in such precedents. I am concerned, particularly when I consider the oversight laws like the Patriotic Act grant the Federal government, as our government seems to be bent on giving itself more power than I feel it should. And, it is setting the precedent to take more power.

I don't think cops are evil -- where do I say that? I think that our rights are important, and defending them is our duty. If you disagree with what I'm saying, fine. But I am pretty damn comfortable with the police. What makes me uncomfortable is when more and more power is consolidated into individuals. It's not that I believe police officers will go down the street harassing ppl, it's that they are now lawfully entitled to do so. If it's legal, how far away until it is common?

Again, you try to hit on this supposition, that I presume giving your name to an officer is in essence self incriminating. That is not my argument. My argument uses the fact that there are laws and rights in place designed to protect us from being compeled to do things at the whim of those entrusted with power over us.

This ruling denies us an aspect of that protection. I was using the examples of an arrested individual, as such a person would now have more legal protections than before he was arrested. Is that sensable?

In making your assumption that because someone refuses to give their name they have something to hide I feel you are rationalizing something that smacks of Nazi Germany, or some sort of toltalitarian state. What country do we live in if we must be ready to identify ourselves at the whim of those that rule us?

What this Court's ruling does, as I suggested earlier, is to set the bar for probable cause incredibly low. The police can now arrest you for refusing to identify yourself. That means, the low water mark of suspicious activity is now not saying your name.

Doesn't that strike you as over the top?

You can be arrested if you don't give your name. You can be tossed in jail with murderers for not giving your name. You can generate an arrest record for not giving your name. Is this a reasonable right to grant law enforcement? I don't think so.

In sum: I take issue with the lawfulness of arresting someone for not giving their name. I take issue with the removal of a previously held right. And I worry over the legal precedent that this ruling sets.