Supreme Court says no name = breaking law

[Bearded Kirklander]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.p...e.id/index.html

Just read this story. I am kinda surprised. What about you?

Keeping name private can be crime, court rules

Ruling seen as win for police, defeat for privacy advocates

Bill Mears

CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has again given police greater power to stop and question suspects, ruling Monday that a Nevada cowboy could not refuse to give his name to officers who tried to question him along a roadside.

The case was the fifth victory for law enforcement this term in cases involving search and seizure by law enforcement.

The narrow 5-4 ruling was seen as a defeat for privacy advocates.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, the Nevada rancher at the center of the case, had become a minor celebrity for those who believed he was standing up for his constitutional rights.

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

In its ruling announced Monday, the justices upheld Hiibel's misdemeanor conviction. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Asking questions is an essential part of police investigation. In the ordinary sense a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment."

Kennedy noted that having identification has benefits to both police and suspect. "Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted of another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder," he wrote. "On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere."

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that because Hiibel was the target of a police investigation, he "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute."

Stevens said, "There is no reason why the subject of police interrogation based on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, should have any lesser protection."

Monday's 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, according to a report from The Associated Press. 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.

The court in previous weeks ruled for police in four other search and seizure cases that tested the limits of police intrusions and privacy rights.

In the other cases the court:

• Allowed police to kick down a suspect's door after only 15 seconds if they believed the suspect was dangerous, or that evidence could be destroyed.
  Upheld "informational roadblocks" where officers seek the public's help to solve crimes. A man was arrested at such a stop for driving erratically.
  Permitted drugs found in a suspect's car to be used as evidence after federal agents dismantled his car at a border checkpoint.
  Ruled lawful a suspect's arrest next to his vehicle after drugs were found inside the car. The court said it was not always necessary for the suspect to be inside his car to have evidence used against him.
  

Some legal analysts say these cases could have broad implications for law enforcement and the public.

"We have this idealistic notion in this country that we can live in kind of splendid anonymity, we can walk around and be left alone," said Edward Lazarus, a former Supreme Court clerk and author of a book on the justices. "And this question really raises, in the post-9/11 era, the issue of whether that's really true anymore."

According to an AP report, 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.

[OPaul]

Any idiot who hinders the police deserves everything they get. Of course you should have to give your name, there's no reason not to it's just stupidity. And the fact this had to go to the Supreme Court is sad.

[nemo]

I can see it now, It's all bush's fault, taking away your rights, Patriot Act, etc.....

It should be a crime. It's protecting the police's saftey, and what if they let a criminal get away because they wouldn't show the cop an ID?

[[david]]

it's my name, not theirs.

[LOC Veteran]

This is all Bush's fault! Damn nazi regime narf head!

No really, I think this is good for the police. But again, privacy is a major concern these days as more and more rights are fiddled away. However this one to me, seems to be a no-brainer.

[nemo]

it's my name, not theirs.

:angry: you've got to be kidding me

So you get pulled over for doing something illegal - and you refuse to give them your ID? You think that's okay?

@ LOC - it's not your rights being taken away. When you do something illegal and a cop questions you for your ID, you give it to them. That's how it works.

[[david]]

:angry: you've got to be kidding me

So you get pulled over for doing something illegal - and you refuse to give them your ID? You think that's okay?

@ LOC - it's not your rights being taken away. When you do something illegal and a cop questions you for your ID, you give it to them. That's how it works.

nope. i don't get pulled over. i personally would give them i.d. if i had it, but some people wouldn't want to and should have the choice.

[b3n]

nemo you sure do like your :angry:'s

i know better than to give the cops a fake name

they always find out

[nemo]

nope. i don't get pulled over. i personally would give them i.d. if i had it, but some people wouldn't want to and should have the choice.

and if you have a warrant out for you for a murder... the cop is supposed to just know? or he should just let you go?

if you did nothing wrong you should have no reason to hide your name

[nowimnothing]

I think its funny that people think their name is something private.

Of course, in the anonymous world of neowin, that should be expected... (when's the last time a mod pulled you over and asked for your name? ;) )

But i have no issue with this ruling. I can remember an earlier thread that started (i think) when the supreme court decided to hear this case. That was a fairly healthy discussion back in the day if i remember correctly.

@nemo - i don't think they're talking about when you do something illegal. I think they're talking about when you didn't do anything illegal and you get stopped (which i think was the case with this rancher)... i can sorta almost slightly in a not-so-much sorta way see where they're coming from. But as far as i'm concerned, if it'll help the cops expedite the process of solving a crime, and all i have to do is say my name... who the **** wouldn't want to do that?

Edit: I think this is a fairly clear case of public good versus personal privacy... and in this case, its such a minimal, almost non-existent, invasion of privacy (i'm really trying hard to convince myself that it is one at all), whereas the benefits to the greater good of the public are enormous.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

They shouldn't be able to just walk up to a random guy and ID him. That is wrong. However, they should be able to ID someone if they were at a crime scene. This stuff isn't nearly as bad as the Patriot act.

[nemo]

I think its funny that people think their name is something private.

Of course, in the anonymous world of neowin, that should be expected... (when's the last time a mod pulled you over and asked for your name? ;) )

But i have no issue with this ruling. I can remember an earlier thread that started (i think) when the supreme court decided to hear this case. That was a fairly healthy discussion back in the day if i remember correctly.

@nemo - i don't think they're talking about when you do something illegal. I think they're talking about when you didn't do anything illegal and you get stopped (which i think was the case with this rancher)... i can sorta almost slightly in a not-so-much sorta way see where they're coming from. But as far as i'm concerned, if it'll help the cops expedite the process of solving a crime, and all i have to do is say my name... who the **** wouldn't want to do that?

Edit: I think this is a fairly clear case of public good versus personal privacy... and in this case, its such a minimal, almost non-existent, invasion of privacy (i'm really trying hard to convince myself that it is one at all), whereas the benefits to the greater good of the public are enormous.

i see what you are saying. But cops don't ask for ID because they are bored. I am all for the requirement of showing your ID.

For example, I was walking home one night and all of a sudden 2 cop cars pulled up to me and surrounded me. they got out, approached me with their hands on their guns and asked for ID. I gave it to them and one went into the car and ran a check and came back and told me that I should go home. I asked why and he told me that some guy just stole a car, robbed a bank a gunpoint, and when he got in the car and drove away he got into an accident and fled the scene about 2 blocks away from where I was.

Now, what would have happened if I refused to give them my ID? I would have had a gun in my face, been thrown on the ground, searched, and most likely arrested.

I think it's better I refuse to give them my ID and tell them my name. :rolleyes:

[b3n]

what happens if, like me, you have no ID?

[Aaron Veteran]

what happens if, like me, you have no ID?

Why not?

You probably will be detained until someone will vouch for your identity.

[[david]]

if you did nothing wrong you should have no reason to hide your name

that's if you like your local police and your local police like you.

and have you never seen an identikit picture?

[nemo]

what happens if, like me, you have no ID?

You give them your Name and Address, and they look it up on the computer.

If you dont like your local police, and they don't like you, you obviously did something that caused them to not like you. Which gives them a reason to think you're doing something wrong.

[[david]]

like being an anti-war protester/scruffy-looking schoolkid? i'm one of those two most of the time i'm out.

[LOC Veteran]

I didn't mean that rights are being taken away in this case. Or that when you do illegal crap that it shouldn't be legal to give your name to the police. I was simply stating in this day in age in the US, when private citizen's rights are being taken away left and right, that we have to be careful.

[nuka_t]

i always thought htey should do this, but i just dont like it. first they ask your name, and then they start taking your other rights away like silence and a lawyer.

[nowimnothing]

Because i seem insanely incompetent and have a massive inability to figure this out, could someone please answer this quesiton, in simple, explicit terms?

How is being required to give your name or otherwise identify yourself taking away a right, or restricting your privacy?

Edit: Reworded the question slightly...

[[david]]

it isn't very rational. i guess if you haven't done anything, the police are going to need your name to arrest you. without a name they can't convict you or even take you into custody. in practice, of course, they just smack you in the face and arrest you for escaping arrest or something.

[hoyablue]

:angry: you've got to be kidding me

So you get pulled over for doing something illegal - and you refuse to give them your ID? You think that's okay?

@ LOC - it's not your rights being taken away. When you do something illegal and a cop questions you for your ID, you give it to them. That's how it works.

What if you weren't doing something illegal? And I think probable cause in this scenario is subjective.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

You probably will be detained until someone will vouch for your identity.

Which would be bullcrap if you did nothing wrong.

[b3n]

i am constantly stoped by police

its a bit of discrimination

but i dont actually care

[PseudoRandomDragon]

DWB

Driving While Black