Personal privacy
 

Today I read at : http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/sc....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 to submit to fingerprinting or divulge more personal information.

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.

Justices agreed in a unique ruling that addresses just what's in a name.

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.

Justices had been asked to rule that forcing someone to give police their name violated a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that it violated neither.

"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests," Kennedy wrote.

The ruling left the door open for what Kennedy said would be an unusual case in which revealing a name would be incriminating. But he said generally, disclosing an identity is "so insignificant in the scheme of things."

Marc Rotenberg, president 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."

He said the ruling for Nevada "opens the door to what could become a routine fishing expedition among government databases," after police stop innocent people.

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

Over and over again Hiibel 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 dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Hiibel "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute." Also disagreeing with the decision were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

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



Do you side with the 5 or the 4? My view is if you wanna shutup you should have that right. Who you are is not near as important as what you have done.

whatever happened to: "You have the right to remain silent"?

Or is that only after you've been arrested...

Yes, you should definitely have that right.

If you haven't broke the law and don't have a warrant or two, then it is a non-issue. Therefore the only people who are worried about the cops learning their name are fugitives. But maybe I'm generalizing too much. Whatever.

What is the issue with giving your name to the police? Even in the military, if you are captured by the enemy, you are required to give your name, rank, service number and date of birth.

I don't see where basic identification is, or even should be, protected by the 5th Amendment.

...my sentiments are exactly the same as Bill O'Rights on this issue.

...no man or woman is an island.

I fail to see the point in not cooperating with the police, particularly when you haven't done anything wrong.

Hmmm,...I'm sitting on the fence with this one. If you have nothing to hide then there shouldn't be a problem. But what if one is in a situation where they witness wrong doing by ie,..mafias of any kind, corrupt cops etc. and want to protect themselves through an alias for fear of rebuttal.

If they give a wrong name that could be obstruction of justice and could be charged. Or they could use a politician's defence and say they don't recall if after giving a correct name. But then what happens to that name? Is it stored? Is it part of other databases etc, which could come against someone at a later date?

What happens if you lie? "No problem sir, I forgot my I.D. but my name is Naven R. Johnson, from New York City." You're not actually under arrest - is there a law against bullshitting a cop?

I'm not sure, but I would put money on it.

Providing False Statement. Usually it's one of those "tacked on" charges that the Prosecuting Attorney drops, in exchange for a plea. Worth around 60 days, depending on location.

Definition of "bullshitting" is feeding me a line of shit in the bar, by the way. You don't bullshit the police.

Paq -- you only have Miranda rights after you've been arrested.

Part of me wants to say fuck the police. The other part knows giving the police guff is not worth it. I'll give them my name and no hassle.

The whole "if you have nothing to hide" argument falls apart in the face of bad police. What if you are an organizer of a legal yet unpopular (with cops) protest group? There have been many cases where police have simply grabbed such people off of the street and held them on trumped up charges (this is becoming a common police tactic in response to demonstrations). Would you like to give your name if you were such a figure? Now you have to.

Not all cops are bad, but the few that are wield a huge potential for abuse.

I side with the four.

Unless there is evidence of a crime (which is not usually the case in a Terry stop), the police should be powerless to interfere with the citizenry.

I'm siding with that belief.

Arrest the man or let him go.

Your papers, please.
 

POST FROM MERGED THREAD

"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."

Article: http://slashdot.org/

SCOTUS opinion: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/03-5554.pdf


I'm with the four justices that said police officers should not be able to ask for identification without just cause. I think this opens the door for increased harassment by officers of innocent people (protests, political dissenters, people being asses inside the law, ect).

Simply put, this is just a stepping stone to more and more reductions of our civil liberties. So much for a free country.

I would understand this if a condition was required to include suspicious activity -- much as it is illegal to run away from police officers. In the case of fleeing police, even if you aren't suspected of committing a crime it is still suspicious activity which would justify arrest. If a policeman can arbitrarily stop people on the street and demand identification, as this ruling suggests, it is truly a sad day for Americans.

How does the saying go? Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither?

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
-Benjamin Franklin

POST FROM MERGED THREAD

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=59946

Agreed

POST FROM MERGED THREAD

ARG, mods can we get a merge.

/not only a double-post, but that song "we built this city" by starship is on my streaming radio and they just did the drive-time DJ part. I hate that part so damn much. I just can't seem to win.

It isn't "you have nothing to hide if you haven't done anything wrong", it is "you have nothing to hide if you haven't done anything".

If you are completely apolytical/conformist or support the local, state and federal governments, and any and all actions by people with power, then you have nothing to hide.

Lets say you are socially deviant in a way that isn't illegal. The police can simply show to an event, get the name of everyone present, and publish it the next day. You have nothing to hide, other than your wish to have privacy.

Of course, I doubt that arguement would work. Social deviancy is a bad thing, and they deserve whatever happens to them.

I'll give my name, address, license, whatever to the police if they have any sort of reasonable cause. As long as the officer is reasonable and provides me with a reason for asking, I have no problem. If I get yanked out of a protest march and held on BS charges, I won't have ID on me, and they can pick hairs off of my jail cell pillow and try to ID me by DNA.

I guess the way to sum it up is, if it's reasonable to ask for my name, it would be unreasonable to not cooperate.

the constitution needs an amendment to protect personal privacy in the modern age.

there is no way the framers could have envisioned someone tapping your DNA or snooping on you the way technology now allows. the intent of amendments prohibiting unwaranted search and seizure and prohibiting quarter of soldiers in private residences are clear indications that the bill of rights was set forth with the goal of protecting the personal property and privacy of American citizens. we should honor that and our populace by limiting our government's ability to collect personal information about ourselves and our private affairs. it is a non-partisan issue.

Couldn't they abuse this. Couldn't they go to a Islamic Mosque and ask for everyones name who is coming out. How about taking names of those who were at a meeting of some sort.

This is sarcasm, right?

Or people walking out of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, protest rally, union meeting, "Communist Fan Club" meeting, strip joint, casino, the unemployment office, a jail cell, a car, your house, your place of work.

Documentation, documentation, documentation.

Going on a road trip and paying for everything in cash. Think you left no mark? Not if a policeman asks for your ID.


Cheating on your wife and slipping into a hotel room? The guy behind the counter must respect your privacy. The police man doesn't.

Trying to slip out of the country because you've been falsely accused of terrorism? Maybe you attended an AA meeting with a known war criminal.

Function creep. That's "a process in which one tool which is used for a particular reason, is applied to a new, usually larger, set of purposes." Where is this data going? Where is it staying? Who is looking at? How long does the data persist? Do I believe it is my right to prevent it?

I find that many of the rights the Bill of Rights gives isn't in so much to give rights to people doing things wrong but isntead it gives rights to PREVENT people from abused.

And thats why I really side with the 4 - the chance for abuse out of this is too large. I find most cops to be great and brave people but I also realize that many are corrupt indeed out there. This gives them the possibility of doing thigns that can infringe on liberties.

And once you give the government power, it will never give back to the citizens /sigh

I see no reason a police officer should be able to arrest me, fien me, etc., for not giving them my name or other identification.

Yes, assuming I have done nothing wrong, then I have nothing to hide- but that does not mean I give up my privacy.

Land of the free, my ass.

upon further consideration, i wonder if you couldn't fight this as unconstitutional based upon the 5th amendment. if you think you might be wanted for something, would identifiying yourself be the same as incriminating yourself? or does that amendment only apply to court-admissible testimony?

the government doesn't ever think it is abusing the people when it does things like this, it thinks it is doing the best thing for society as a whole. segregation and jim crow were considered fabulous ideas in their age. only in retrospect do we realize the harms of such policies. and zeld is on the right track, it is so much harder to undo them once they are done.

it is always better to err on the side of personal liberty and choice, even though these might open up vulnerabilities and dangerous circumstances. if we really are the freedom loving nation we claim to be, the spirit of the law should always be in what the individual CAN do, not what we CAN'T do.

This is too much of a generalization. It's also the same reasoning used by people who think the government should have knowledge of the private details of one's life.

Police in various jurisdictions are now using a Blackberry product which gives them access to private databases containing such things as one's financial history. Given that providing one's name can launch a police officer's search through that data, withholding it is a reasonable response.

Yep, I think long story short is that for me to comfortable with this ruling, I'd have to forget that as much as I respect what the police do for me and society, they're still human with all the flaws the rest of us have.

ps. Bill O' I knew I should have been more careful when I was younger - I could have been in serious trouble a few times.

My thoughts exactly! Sure there is room for abuse, but there always is. Let's deal with that abuse when it happens. For now, I think a rule that requires me to identify myself if I am being questioned by police seems reasonable.

Absolutely... I can't really think of a valid reason for a law abiding citizen to not provide a name to a police officer when asked. It hurts no one, and may benefit society (in that you aid society's protectors - the police - to do their job)