Veer ar ur paperz

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Frohickey, Jun 21, 2004.

  1. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #1
    Court: No Right to Keep Name From Police

    WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.

    The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity.

    The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work.

    Privacy advocates say the decision gives police too much power. Once officers have a name, they can use computer databases to learn all kinds of personal information about the person.

    The loser in Monday's decision was Nevada cattle rancher Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor after he told a deputy that he didn't have to give out his name or show an ID.

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

    Hiibel repeatedly 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 fighting the arrest, Hiibel became an unlikely constitutional privacy rights crusader. He wore a cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie to the court this year when justices heard arguments in his appeal.

    "A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone, but lost," said his attorney, Harriet Cummings.

    The court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.

    "One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

    The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses, but Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) said requiring people to divulge their name still goes too far.

    "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases," he wrote in a dissent. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) also disagreed with the ruling.

    Crime-fighting and justice groups had argued that a ruling the other way would have protected terrorists and encouraged people to refuse to cooperate with police.

    "The constant danger of renewed terrorist activity places enormous pressure on law enforcement to identify suspected terrorists before they strike," said Charles Hobson, an attorney with the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

    But Tim Lynch, an attorney with the libertarian-oriented think tank Cato Institute, said the court "ruled that the government can turn a person's silence into a criminal offense."

    "Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert their right to remain silent without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," said Lynch, who expects the ruling will lead more cities and states, and possibly Congress, to consider laws like the one in Nevada.

    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.

    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.

    Marc Rotenberg, head 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."

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

    ======

    Here is the SCOTUS opinion[/url]

    =====

    Veer ar ur paperz?!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
    I guess we should be glad that it took us close to 70 years before we are like Nazi Germany. :eek:
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  3. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #3
    Boy, I'm glad this ruling went down the way it did. I feel so much safer now. I mean, if those terrorists would think of giving a false name, then we'd be in trouble. But they wouldn't ever think of that, would they?

    What's one more loss of freedom when the benefit is ridding the country of terrorists?

    I mean, all it says is that, if any police officer happens to think that maybe you might be doing something wrong, they can get your name and therefore learn anything public about you. Sounds fair to me.

    Of course, I'd hate to be a woman that an officer took a fancy to (or a man). You could go to jail for not answering his/her request for your name. And thus your phone number, address, criminal record, etc. Even if you weren't doing anything illegal. 'Cause just not answering would be illegal. I mean, all the cop has to do is mention that they thought you might be doing something wrong, right?

    Well, at least we can round up all those refusing-to-give-their-name terrorists. God Bless America.
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    Hey, Frohickey, whatcha griping about? Don't you know, there's no right to privacy in the Constitution?
     
  5. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #6
    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Ben Franklin
     
  6. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #7
    Please explain to me...

    If there is no right to privacy in the US Constitution, does that mean the government can intrude on it?

    I dunno if you have figured out by now that I treat the US Constitution, not as what is allowed for the people, but as what is allowed for government. If its not written in as allowed for government, then it belongs to the states or the people.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    Perhaps I've misunderstood your position, but I had the impression that you admired the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Did you hear that Limbaugh? The Supremes say there is no right to privacy. You're in trouble now...
     
  9. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #10
    I do. But in this case, they are not acting like strict constructionists.
     
  10. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #11

    Cool... can I come in and tear up your house??? I mean afterall, you have nothing to hide...
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    So, you're saying they pick and choose the cases where they interpret the Constitution literally? How "strict" is that?
     
  12. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    Yay.

    Maybe as technology advances we'll get to the point where we all have RFID tags implanted in us and cops don't even have to stop and ask for a name. They can just drive by and pick up your signal. Or better yet, we can be tracked by satellite.

    Miranda<sp?> can be changed to, "Ocasionally you have the right to remain silent."


    Lethal
     
  13. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #14
    This is pitiful.

    This is one of the worst court cases judgements ever.

    next it will be 'if you don't have anything to hide let us see your wallet'
    or 'if you don't have anything to hide, let us check out your house'



    I don't get how anyone can see it a problem.


    there was no reason for him to be arrested for just saying no for papers, arrested for violent acts -- yes, not for this.

    horrible.
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    Welllll...You can always move to a state that HAS NOT had such law on the books for many decades. It's not a uniform condition across the country.

    A guy on another board checked the Texas Code of Jurisprudence. Unless you're involved in a state-licensed activity--driving a vehicle; hunting, e.g.--you need not carry ID. There are other such states...

    'Rat
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    'Rat, doesn't a decision by the Supremes override the Texas Code of Jurispridence? Even if you aren't required to carry ID during certain activities as you state, that still doesn't mean you aren't required to correctly identify yourself if asked by law enforcement. As I read it, the decision means you must identify yourself when asked, not that you must carry ID at all times.
     
  16. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #17
    My question is, given the title of this thread, do people throughout the world now use a phony and offensive American accent to reference the denial of civil liberties?
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    Ouch. :eek:
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    VE ask ze kvestions!

    A phoney and offensive German accent still comes over much better on paper...
     
  19. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    Can you do an American Accent "on paper" ?? A Southern one, maybe even New England, but I have problems hearing a mid-western/standard accent.
     
  20. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #21
    Dunno, but the title of this thread communicates the outrage and issues much clearer than anything else. Besides, through the mass medium of movies, the 'German' stereotype fits, if only because it was the first that was captured in cellulose.

    Gestapo, Nazi, Fascist, Stormtrooper, etc. These are all words in the world consciousness that denotes authoritarianism, which is what this SCOTUS decision starts us on the road to. :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
  21. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #22
    the sad thing is that those words are often(not always) torn out completly out of their meaning.....not the words should be in the world consciousness ...the things/concepts the words stand/stood for should be at that place...

    you know ..in english there are still no words for "Volksverhetzung","Volksverführung", etc.
     
  22. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #23
    Farfignuggen?

    Far Fig Newton? ;)

    I don't think in german, they have words for chunky-monkey either. :p

    Seriously though, I think that this issue of requiring identification is starting us down a path we do not want to go on.
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Perhaps you could attempt a translation nevertheless? Otherwise, I for one am none the wiser. "Volks" I understand. :)
     
  24. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #25
    i have my problem with "verhetzung" no translater/dictonary found a word for that arghhhh
    Aufhetzen = Instigate (sp?) might mean something completly different...
    you know when
    political leader A claims that group of people C is the reason for all the problems the economy has
    politcial leader A claims that minority D is resposbile for event XY
    etc...

    ....the verführung part means (roughly translated) .. misleading through propaganda/lies/false facts the believes of the ordinary people and make them do things which they would perhaps not do without those lies/facts etc....you know: the bigger the lie the more people will believe it
     

Share This Page