Supreme Court says no name = breaking law


Recommended Posts

if you did nothing wrong, you have no reason to hide your identity.

If you were asked for an ID out of the blue, didn't have it, then were detained, that would be bullcrap.

That whole "If you did nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" theory is very dangerous thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were asked for an ID out of the blue, didn't have it, then were detained, that would be bullcrap.

That whole "If you did nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" theory is very dangerous thinking.

I wouldn't be asked for an ID out of the blue. And if i didn't have my ID, which has happened to me, you tell the cop your name and address, and he looks up on his little nifty computer he has in his squad car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

It starts to get into ground that I don't think police officers should have the right to get into. If I got pulled over for speeding, fine, here's my ID. If they're just blanket searching cars, why should they know who I am? If they wanted to they could run my plates and get the info, but I don't see why under no pretense they should be asking for information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad thing is they are all using the trade centers as an excuse. I bet if I wore a turban and drove by those police stops, they would pull me out of the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

I have heard people who are anti-government protesters complaining about having to give their name. They say that this way the government can track your activities and see if there is a pattern of you being subversive. Not sure I buy that, but I guess I can see their point, especially if you extrapoate it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody else catch the other 4 cases? Re-quoted for further discussion:

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.

I don't mind the first one, but the second one bothers me. It amounts to a search without justification, don't you think? I suppose they can also track your movements and document where you are at any given point in time, just like they do with border crossings and even traffic cameras and red light cameras and things like that. If these new police powers are abused, that is when things can go bad. But if they don't abuse it, I guess there is nothing to worry about at this point.

Edited by Bearded Kirklander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed...on points

Names only matter because we need ways to identify people for law inforcement, they need to know so its easier to do background check, if i remember correctlly, cops seem to ask "Name, Licence, and Registration", therefor its for checking to make sure its your vehical, and that your driving it legally/making sure you have no past things/need to arrest you/revoke licence...

if your suspicous...you'll be detained

If your black...you will be beat down first, and then detained... :p

names don't matter much in some cases...its how you look/talk/smell....if some girl got assaulted and she described the man, the police look out for people who look like said features, and grab them based on that for interigation/lineups

same with robbery(unless they have fingerprints/dna)/murder

"Upheld "informational roadblocks" where officers seek the public's help to solve crimes. A man was arrested at such a stop for driving erratically." ----um that seems to be interigation points.../drunk driver spoting/drug checking....i swear there have been numberous cases about things like that, and they have all had different rulings

next thing you know they will want people to have "the Mark" so they can just scan you, then if your beliefs are not part of their area(either, black, arabic, mexican, asian...or gay, or outspoken/vote for wrong person for that area, or if your hatted by certian individuals that wrote stuff about you/a police officer has a thing against you due to like dating his EX....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.