The Right to Remain Silent? Should You Have to Give Cops Your Name?

[GiovanniC]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html">Story Here

Police in Nevada got a complaint of a man striking a woman in a pickup truck. A police officer goes to that stretch of road, where they see a man standing near a pickup truck. His daughter is the truck. The officer asks the man to identify himself. The man refuses, saying he has done nothing wrong. The officer asks nearly a dozen times for the man to give his name. The man said that he had done nothing wrong, and that if the officer had any evidence to the contrary, that he should arrest him, but he wasn't giving his name.

The officer arrested him.

He was charged with a misdemeanor offense for failing to disclose his identity to a police officer. That crime carries a max sentence of six months in jail (this man's sentence was a fine). The man appealed the conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that he had no right not to give his name to an officer on request.

In his dissent, John Paul Stevens said that the fifth amendment protects a person from self incrimination and allows a person to refuse to make any statements to the police.

Some law professors are speculating that, taken to an extreme, this 5-4 Supreme Court ruling could make it acceptable for police or other government agents to compel people to identify themselves as they, say, leave an abortion clinic, or an Islamic Mosque, or a gun rally. In other words, you do not have the right to be anonymous in public.

Thoughts?

[slackmaster]

1. Dupe

This is already being discussed in J/PS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=66461&mesg_id=66461

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Who cares?

I don't like J/PS.

[slackmaster]

25. LMAO!

:toast:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. I'd be willing to go to jail for this one.

I don't care whether it is illegal or not. I have a right to not identify myself to the police and they can't take that right away from me just by jailing me for exercising it.

[GiovanniC]

4. I Agree

I'd rather spend six months in jail on principle... before I heard about this, I probably would have just identified myself because I have nothing to hide.

But I see this country constantly sliding in a direction away from the Constitution.

And into Orwell-land.

[Worst Username Ever]

7. Agreed

[northzax]

8. actually, according to the Supreme Court

you don't have that right.

of course, according to that same Court, GWBush was elected President, so take it for what it's worth.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. I don't care what the Court says.

A court can't take away your rights, they can only refuse to recognize them.

[sam sarrha]

5. you can be arrested, fingerprinted and held for 3 days and get the ass

raping by a bi-partisan group of Crips and Bloods after the Skin Heads get through wth you...that the cops think you deserve for F'n with them over something that stupid.

go for it..........

[sam sarrha]

a small price to pay to live in a free country...??

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. Depends on the law.

I have no problem with making it a crime for someone to ID themselves if they have already been arrested on something else.

I do think its wrong to make it a crime for someone who has done nothing that warrents an arrest, to ID themselves.

I agree with the Texas law on this.

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
~ ~ (1) lawfully arrested the person;
~ ~ (2) lawfully detained the person; or
~ ~ (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
~ (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
~ (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

[northzax]

10. ah, does this mean you have to speak to the officer?

As far as I am concerned, there is no constituional obligation to ever actually utter a word to an officer of the court or the law. You, quite literally, have the right to remain silent, should you choose to.

[Jack_DeLeon]

16. Maybe

Its possible that the officer doesnt know the full wording of the law offhand and he might just remember the part about failing to identify yourself is an offense. As such he might still arrest you and whatever, but once your under arrest then you could have your lawyer do all the talking and clear it up.

In an ideal world though cops would actually know all the laws and they would just leave you alone when you arent committing any crimes.

[HFishbine]

11. Note the distinction

The law you cite makes it a crime to refuse to give your name AFTER and arrest. Supposedly, this would mean there is some probably cause for an arrest which would then compel one to provide his or her name. The supreme court ruling, however, makes not giving your name the crime. There's a difference. Both are violations of the constitution, one is more egregious than the other though.

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. The supreme court ruling doesnt make anything a crime.

It means that the laws that would make such a thing a crime arent unconstitional.

The legislature of Texas would still have to pass a new law if they wanted to change this to make it like the law in Nevada is.

[tom_paine]

12. Well, it WOULD be unacceptable to a Free Nation and Free People

But Imperial Amerika has neither of those. If it does, I would have to see some evidence before I could believe it.

My thoughts are: The Imperial Family is almost ready for their Penultimate Assualt on Amerika. They are going to bring us into line... "Gleichschaltung" as the Germans called it.

[Journeyman]

13. If freedom of speech is to have any practical value. . .

it must include the right to be silent.

-Ring Lardner, Jr. (one of the Hollywood Ten)

[Bandit]

14. Well I think the police should have the ability to identify a person

It is their job to protect society and take violent people off the streets. How are they to know if they can not identify people? What is so wrong with showing your drivers license when asked. I feel better about this law not worse. After showing identification you do not have to answer any questions without a lawyer present. You still have the right to remain silent. To me this is as important as having to show a drivers license when stopped for a trafic violation. They are one and the same to me.

[GiovanniC]

15. So Say You Go to a Kerry Meetup

And an officer is standing outside demanding everyone leaving the Meetup identify themselves. Is that all right by you? If someone wants a list of all the names of all the people who attend a particular political event, is that cool?

Does that really make you feel better, not worse?

[Bandit]

17. You are afraid of too much ~ I suspect you sleep with a gun

:shrug: Don't feel bad most Americans are true cowards who need their guns to feel brave.

[GiovanniC]

20. I Don't Even Own A Gun

But nice ad hominem.

I ask you again... if a police office was standing outside of a democratic political rally, compelling everyone leaving to identify themselves to him, would you comply? Do you see any problem with that at all?

[HFishbine]

23. Nice diversion

You completely avoided the question.

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. Let me see your papers.

We arent Nazi Germany.

[slackmaster]

29. We aren't Mexico either

And I've been asked for ID in Mexico by police a lot more times than I have in the USA or in Nazi Germany.

[northzax]

22. what if you happen to be out jogging

and don't have ID on you? what if you lost your wallet? what if it's in your other pants? should they be able to hold you until you can prove your identity?

There is a big difference between showing a license to do something (like drive a car, carry a gun, operate a business) and needing a license to go outside. You are required to show a license while driving because that same license is a prerqeuitiste for driviing. By driving, you agree to the licensing procedures. Same with purchasing alcohol, tobacco, or getting on an airplane. fine. but walking down the street to get a taco? you need ID to do that now?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Show me your papers!

Hmm, your papers do not appear to be in order.

[slackmaster]

28. Sorry, I've only got a pipe

:hippie:

[TreasonousBastard]

21. Threads all over the place on this...

almost as many as Jeri Ryan, but it's not quite as bleak as it may seem.

It's simply an expansion on Terry stops, and you are not required to actually "prove" who you are. There is is no requirement for you to actually pull out ID if asked.

It is, however, extremely problematic, since most people won't know that they aren't required to pull out their licenses when asked.

Most people also don't know that they should NEVER, EVER talk to the cops when there is the slightest hint that they may be under suspicion.

Ray Crone, released from death row in Arizona when they eventually found the real killer, made his mistake by cooperating in an investigation. It started small, but then they hauled him downtown. Not having done it, he refused a lawyer and cooperated with the investigation. They then took his statements over 12 hours of interrogation and condensed them to half a page of "evidence" for his trial.

When they say you have the right to remain silent, you better believe it.

[BigDaddyLove]

26. Personally, I would give my name to a police officer.........

if asked.

[slackmaster]

27. A wise policy IMO

BTW - You have the right to ask the police officer for identification as well. They could get in deep shit if they refuse to provide that information.

[welshTerrier2]

30. freedom from illegal searches

the laws that protected citizens from being stopped by police have been severely eroded over the last couple of decades ...

police can now stop your car for any reason or no reason ...

giving your name could put your entire life's history at a cop's disposal within seconds ... it allows them to look into every little piece of data in big brother's database ...

this is not a small matter ... "the what's the big deal" crowd is failing to understand this as a small piece of information that unlocks a very large file ... and who's to say how this information will be used ...

"i want all you cops to go down there and take down the names of everyone holding those signs protesting the President ... we'll enter them into the "big database" later ... no need to take any action against them just yet ... "

it's a bad idea .. the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling shows that "4" understand what civil liberties are all about and "5" helped put bush in the White House ...

this is a tragic ruling with far reaching implications ... don't write it off as a minor inconvenience required for a "free society" ... this is a very evil step on a very slippery slope ...