Give your name or go to jail!

[amicus]

By a 5/4 Supreme Court decision, you can now be arrested for refusing to provide your name to the police.

That is not good.

amicus

 

[lucky-E-leven]

In what instance? Like as a witness to a crime, or if they're serving a warrant, or what?

~lucky

 

[amicus]

Anywhere any time as I understand it...if they ask, you tell or they can arrest you for the crime of not providing your name.

 

[SnoopDog]

Is this so strange ???
Here in Germany it's quite normal that you get some trouble if you can't ID yourself. Of course they won't just ask you your name by chance, only when you have some issues with the law but they'll definitely take you into custody if you won't tell them your name or if you can't prove your identity by showing them your ID or passport or whatever.

Snoopy

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Anywhere any time as I understand it...if they ask, you tell or they can arrest you for the crime of not providing your name.

Is that throughout the states?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Doesn't sound like a good thing to me, however, I don't think I've ever thought of NOT cooperating with police. Maybe I'm just not bad enough. I can only think of a few instances where you'd want to withold information and in those situations your fifth amendment rights should come into play, right?

~lucky

 

[SnoopDog]

I don't know too much about the american constitution or rights and stuff. So I can't speak intelligently about that.

But it's plain simple. If you haven't done anything wrong, why should you refuse to tell your name to the authorities ???

Snoopy

 

[Guest]

I don't know too much about the american constitution or rights and stuff. So I can't speak intelligently about that.

But it's plain simple. If you haven't done anything wrong, why should you refuse to tell your name to the authorities ???

Snoopy

You might not be doing something that is legally wrong, but you might be doing something that is morally wrong (in the eyes of those near and dear). For example, you shouldn't be there (a strip joint, for example), but you aren't necessarily breaking any laws. What if a follow up letter, or something, falls on your doormat two days later, in regard to the stop and check? Would that happen?

Lou

 

[SnoopDog]

You might not be doing something that is legally wrong, but you might be doing something that is morally wrong (in the eyes of those near and dear). For example, you shouldn't be there (a strip joint, for example), but you aren't necessarily breaking any laws. What if a follow up letter, or something, falls on your doormat two days later, in regard to the stop and check? Would that happen?

Lou

Well, that explainable nevertheless then.
And I'm not sure if something like that would happen.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for personal rights. And I know being anonymous (is there such a word, don't have a dictionary nearby, lol) can be important sometimes.
But I don't see too much trouble in giving your name to policemen.

Then again, I come from a country where issues with the authorities and legal situations are not comparable to the US of A.

Snoopy

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I don't know too much about the american constitution or rights and stuff. So I can't speak intelligently about that.

But it's plain simple. If you haven't done anything wrong, why should you refuse to tell your name to the authorities ???

Snoopy

Your rights remain in tact, whether you've done anything wrong or not and if you choose to keep your identity from someone that is your choice/your right.

Lou gave some good examples of other reasons but to me, the bottom line is that it crosses the line and could get out of hand.

~lucky

 

[gauchecritic]

Sounds unconstitutional to me.

Have they re-written the Miranda warning too? "You have the right to remain silent (except for giving your name)"

What name do they put on the docket?

Gauche

 

[amicus]

Supreme Court ruling affects all states and maybe territories of the US.

Americans, take them or leave them, are brash and argumentative, demand the right to own guns, protect their property with the use of force is necessary and surely do not like authorities making inquiries with no prior cause.

This law..as it is being spoken of on the news today, my be part of the Homeland Security push to combat terrorism, but has no place in this country that prides itself on protecting individual rights.

Should old amicus be absent for a while, it will be to prepare a court case to challenge this new assault on individual rights.

regards...

 

[Guest]

 

[ABSTRUSE]

amicus, do you have a site that we can read this on? This is one to keep an eye. It does make some sense, about the Homeland Security parts, but as Gauche states, where does it stand to make sense in the amendments?
Thanks for the post.

 

[amicus]

Abstruse...I just heard in on the news this afternoon have not searched..but I will...thank you..

amicus

 

[amicus]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court (search) 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just a news item...seaching for full article...

amicus

**This is the case law history site

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554

 

[Remec]

Doesn't sound like a good thing to me, however, I don't think I've ever thought of NOT cooperating with police. Maybe I'm just not bad enough. I can only think of a few instances where you'd want to withold information and in those situations your fifth amendment rights should come into play, right?

I only read a short piece about the case several months ago, but essentially that's what it was about.

Police were called to investigate something. Man refused to identify himself because he had been involved in a dispute that he thought would affect how the police would react to him during the current situation.

That's what I recall of the core of the whole thing. Am going to check out what the paper says tomorrow about the whole case.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It sounds a lot worse than it is. Almost all states have stop & identify laws. In the previous six court cases those laws were found to violate a person's 4th & 5th amendment rights because they were to vague. In this case, the person was stoped and the courts have deemed that there was resonable suspision. therefore, identifying himself was NOT a violation of his 4th amendment rights as outlined in Brown V. Texas.

According to Brown v. Waller, his fifth amendment right to protection versus self incrimination was not violated because disclosing your name is not in and of itself incriminating in any way, nor does this law abridge or abrogate in anyway your right to plead the fifth during a trial or hearing.

Basically it is saying if there is reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer stopping you (in this case they were searching for an assault suspect) you do not have the right to refuse to identify yourself.

Gauche's note on miranda dose not apply because you have not been arrested at the point where an office asks for identification. The dissenting judges ruled in thier opinion that he was well within his rights. The narrow scope of this ruling does not really affect you unless you are stopped as part of an investigation and the officers can provide to the courts reasonable suspicion that would force you to reveal your name, i.e. Suspicion you have been drinking won't cut it. If you are stopped because you car fits the descript of an APB or you are within reason physically similar to a suspect they are actively persuing, then you would have to give your name.

It's a chilling precedent to set, but with the narrow scope and strong dissenting opinion it is unlikely to significantly effect the laws already in place in most states. If however this ruling concerns you, vote Democrat. Cause another conservative justice or two and the next one up may actually braoden police powers in such situations.

Edited to add: the actual provisions of the statute in Nevada which keep it from being too broad.

"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.

. . . . .

"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."


-Colly

 

[minsue]

It sounds a lot worse than it is. Almost all states have stop & identify laws.

The radio broadcast I heard on my way home from work today stated that 20 states have laws allowing the police to jail a person for refusing to identify themselves. I tried looking for more info, but all I can find on an admittedly quick search is an AP article stating

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.

I'm curious now, but too tired and lazy to find out.


edited for the typo that Lucky was oh-so-kind enough to point out to me. I'm sure there are more. I'm tired. I don't want to know, dammit.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

edited for the typo that Lucky was oh-so-kind enough to point out to me. I'm sure there are more. I'm tired. I don't want to know, dammit.

Liar.



~lucky (edit queen)

 

[Xelebes]

You might not be doing something that is legally wrong, but you might be doing something that is morally wrong (in the eyes of those near and dear). For example, you shouldn't be there (a strip joint, for example), but you aren't necessarily breaking any laws. What if a follow up letter, or something, falls on your doormat two days later, in regard to the stop and check? Would that happen?

Lou

No. That would be a criminal offense to whomever processed it. Such laws that would place that would cause this ruling to be thrown out.

Or at least that is what I would suspect that would happen.

 

[Pure]

Interesting point, amicus.

I think I'd agree with Colly here; it makes one uncomfortable, but the actual scope is narrow, in requiring some reasonable grounds or suspicion.

This particular law is limited to name only, but I can imagine requiring ID, even 'official' , like a passport.

I predict that in fighting 'terrorism', a number of such rights of anonymity will be lost, like, to walk down a street without being on a surveilance camera.

Also rights to live in places you don't inform the government of, and to move about in random fashion (so that cops are unaware of where you are).

As Snoop says, much of this machinery exists in Germany, from what friends say. One was visiting Germany (but a German citizen) and moved in with someone temporarily, in a place not specified upon entry, and the cops ended up at her door within a couple days, to check.

I am not applauding any of these trends, merely noting them. One might mention that several very arbitrary measures were introduced under Clinton.

 

[wishfulthinking]

Hmmm....interesting.

At the top of my head I can think of 2 justifications for this law in the states other than reasonable suspicion of committing an offence like robbery or assault.

1. suspected terrorist. If person refuses to give their name, at least the police now how power to hold to charge that person, rather than letting them go on their merry way.

2. illegal immigrants. If unable to provide id, then can be arrested and charged with little evidence beyond unable to prove who they are or how they got in the country.

although the law is obviously more far reaching than what I have listed, and I'm not saying this justifies the law, just makes me want to know what it is about before I decide.

I also think that 'if you have nothing to hide' motto is not in itself a valid argument to contravene privacy rights of the individual, but I do support it - crime is not a game.

Enough thinking for me today.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

According to Brown v. Waller, his fifth amendment right to protection versus self incrimination was not violated because disclosing your name is not in and of itself incriminating in any way, nor does this law abridge or abrogate in anyway your right to plead the fifth during a trial or hearing.

Basically it is saying if there is reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer stopping you (in this case they were searching for an assault suspect) you do not have the right to refuse to identify yourself.

-Colly

This is reaching, I know, but in the event that revealing your identity could incriminate you concerning a different matter altogether, wouldn't it stand to reason that your right to remain anonymous remain in tact?

In other words, if they're searching for an assult suspect and your name happens to connect to something else (entirely unrelated) that you're essentially being forced to incriminate yourself?

With the statutes you posted from Nevada, I don't see much problem with the ruling, personally. I just have very little faith in the judicial system most of the time and wouldn't feel comfortable with leaving 'reasonable doubt' up to some judges and/or juries. I guess I stand on the side of, if there is enough suspicion for them to detain and question you then your identity will be a non-issue. They'd haul you in and find out anyway, but be forced to do so in a documented way, including the initial reason for detainment and questioning.

From what I can tell, if you're suspect for enough reasons, your name at the time of arrest matters very little. It just seems a bit of a loophole that whether or not you're the one they're actually looking for at the time, you can be punished for other lesser things just by giving your name, i.e. unpaid parking tickets, etc...

Maybe I'm way off, but I'm sure Colly will let me know.

~lucky

 

[snooper]

... Here in Germany it's quite normal that you get some trouble if you can't ID yourself. ... they'll definitely take you into custody if ... you can't prove your identity by showing them your ID or passport or whatever.

That is precisely why a number of Brits are very much against the issue of identity cards in the UK. We live(d) in a free country where a British subject has an absolute right to "pass along the Queen's highway about their lawful purposes without let or hindrance" and many of us wish to keep it that way.

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
... If you are stopped because you car fits the descript of an APB or you are within reason physically similar to a suspect they are actively persuing, then you would have to give your name. ...

Of course this applies, since in any country in the world you are allowed to travel by car only by virtue of a licence; you don't have a right to do so.