Court: No Right to Keep Names From Police

AP ^ | 06/21/04 | GINA HOLLAND

[B.O. Plenty]

Frustrating...yes...and a huge delima for me. We are in a war for our lives. If radical islam wins this war, my children and grandchildren will be forced to live in the dirt sometime in the 12th century. Your daughters and grandaughters will be forced to live ignorant, wearing berkas and basically "owned" by some jerk.

So the delima for me is: I am highly offended that I could be forced to present my "papers"....but would I be more offended if some terrorist took advantage by not being required to be identified...then loaded his car with explosives and blew up a shopping mall or resturant?....

This situation gives this conservative Walter E. Williams radical libertarian....,well,......fits.

[Skooz]

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250.

Silence is a crime? Is this written down anywhere? Was the law passed by a legislative body?

[Protagoras]

Then again, I don't fear the cops, and I have nothing to hide.

Good, so you won't mind all manner of surveillance on you and your family, after all, you have nothing to hide.

[Huck]

against unreasonable searches

Sorry, but it is far from clear to me that the 4th amendment was intended to prevent a police officer from getting someone's ID. And it is definitely not clear that that's what the words mean. It's an easily fixed problem, if the people care enough to fix it. I'm betting they don't. I'm betting most people think it's reasonable to obtain someone's ID during a stop.

[eno_]

There is no dilemma.

Freedom Lite is not worth defending.

Plus, the real war is fought in the caves of Afganistan and Pakistan and other places outside the U.S.

If our immigration laws had been enforced, there would have been no 9/11, or it would have been one or two planes at most.

Freedom makes us stronger, not weaker.

[freeeee]

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

I had this strange idea that freedom, not government interests was the purpose of this country.

I guess not.

[Petronski]

If you are peaceably walking down the street and you are confronted by police, you now must identify yourself.

That's new.

[CatoRenasci]

You'd think that, and you'd be wrong. Unfortunately. This actually an area where a fair number of libs retain a connection to the more libertarian tradition that resists the encroachment of the police into the life of the ordinary citizen. The real beginning of that intrusion came during WWI, both here and in England. Bertrand Russell, the leftist and pacifist philosopher wrote quite a good early piece on the problem as Freedom vs. Organization.

[Protagoras]

I wonder how the court would have viewed this if the defendant actually did remain mute instead of sticking his finger in the cops eye by saying essentially, 'I don't have to say sh@t to you copper'.

I'm sure that would have made all the difference. After all, the attitude of the citizen is the deciding factor in upholding rights.

[eno_]

I'm betting most people think it's reasonable to obtain someone's ID during a stop.

Unless you can trace specific authority for this back to the Constitution, it isn't a power of government. "Reasonable," much less "convenient" is subordinate to the rights of the people.

[candeee]

Except for the "privacy" to murder our unborn children.

[coloradan]

You can't rent a car, apartment, get a mortgage or anything else without identification proving that you have had no Jews in your ancestry for three generations. It's always been that way, citizen, so how could you possibly think it's wrong and shouldn't be expanded to other things?

[freeeee]

It's an easily fixed problem, if the people care enough to fix it. I'm betting they don't.

I don't think they will either. Americans for the most part are spineless doormats.

[thegreatbeast]

The police shouldn't be able to just come up to you and ask you to identify yourself. If there were reasonable cause for them to identify and interview you that is another thing but simple carte blanche to do so is a real blow at our democratic freedoms.

[ZULU]

"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."

There you have it in a nutshell.

If the guy was an Islamic terrorist or a Colombian drug lord, the decision would have been very different.

[nwrep]

You guys have it totally wrong. This ruling is consistent with current law. Police already have every right to see your ID at a traffic stop. A ruling against them in this case would make it difficult for them to do routine stops, thereby increasing dramatically the costs of law enforcement, and opening a gold mine for lawyers.

Bottom line, you have to show your ID now, and that is no different than revealing your name. All this paranoid rambling about "show your papers, please" is nonsense.

[Protagoras]

When the state troopers pull you over and ask for your driver's license you have NO right to refuse.

Of course you do. And the police have the legitimate power to detain you for driving without a license. Government roads, government rules for the privilege of driving an automobile on them. It's quite a different thing.

[Gone GF]

So in this case the conservatives on the court are idiots. I can't believe this.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Not up yet.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

[ClintonBeGone]

After all, the attitude of the citizen is the deciding factor in upholding rights.

It shouldn't be, but you're right. It often is.