Supreme Court decision gives cops broader powers,

[Guest Anglesault]

n/m

Edited June 22, 2004 by Anglesault

[The Metal Maniac 0]

So, what happens if a person either does not have an ID, or simply doesn't have it on them?

[Guest Nanks]

I'm with you on this one AS. This law has existed in Australia for years. Upon request one must provide police with your name and address (ie ID) and in turn, every police officer must provide their name, rank and badge number on demand. I can't recall too many instances of police harrassment as a result of this law. You Yanks are way too precious with your "civil rights".

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

So, what happens if a person either does not have an ID, or simply doesn't have it on them?

well then you better carry your ID. You should be anyway. If I get hit by a car when I'm on a walk I sure want people to know who I am.

[Guest INXS]

This is an example of an alarmingly increasing trend towards a police state. I can see the arguement that if someone has nothing to hide then there should be no problem in producing your ID..BUT, it does reek of government control and is open to abuse. I am opposed to this.

[Guest Nanks]

You aren't Australian???

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

This is an example of an alarmingly increasing trend towards a police state. I can see the arguement that if someone has nothing to hide then there should be no problem in producing your ID..BUT, it does reek of government control and is open to abuse. I am opposed to this.

They an ask to see ID. Oh fucking no.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

This is an example of an alarmingly increasing trend towards a police state.

Yeah, because after the po-pos ask for ID, the next step is book burning and GPS chips being implanted in our heads.

 

Still trying to figure out how this oppresses minorities...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't see how it hurts minorities, but it does strike a blow against the fifth amendment.

[Vyce 0]

Goddamn, am I the only minority on this board?

Probably. Mike's run all the others off with his "monkey" slurs, the fucking racist bastard.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think I should reiterate that I never said that anyone should disobey the cops when they do indeed ask for ID. Of course you should as your duty comply with a police officer's request. The issue was never, whether or not to follow the law. However, all I am saying is that ruling may open the door for unecessary and added harassment by cops.

 

If folks are acting suspicious or in a suspicious manner, a cop ALREADY has the right to find out what is going on and demand ID and all that stuff, so I am not sure why this new ruling was even needed.

 

In my opinion this will make the bad cops worse.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Those bastards will take away my birthday next.

[Guest Anglesault]

Those bastards will take away my birthday next.

Hush. Big Brother is watching you.

[Vyce 0]

They just want......information.

 

[Dr. Tom 0]

So, what happens if a person either does not have an ID, or simply doesn't have it on them?

That's what I'm wondering.

 

What if, on a nice night, I decide to walk to the convenience store that's a few blocks away? I leave my wallet at home and just throw some cash in my pocket and go. If a cop stops me, I'm not going to have my ID, so what happens? Do I get arrested for leaving my drivers license -- which I don't need, since I'm not operating a car -- at home? I do have my DL number memorized, but I wonder how useful that will be in this situation.

[Guest Anglesault]

So, what happens if a person either does not have an ID, or simply doesn't have it on them?

That's what I'm wondering.

 

What if, on a nice night, I decide to walk to the convenience store that's a few blocks away? I leave my wallet at home and just throw some cash in my pocket and go. If a cop stops me, I'm not going to have my ID, so what happens? Do I get arrested for leaving my drivers license -- which I don't need, since I'm not operating a car -- at home? I do have my DL number memorized, but I wonder how useful that will be in this situation.

I would assume that physically not having it on you-and, you know, saying that, rather than yelling "NO! and running away" is different than refusing to show it.

[NoCalMike 0]

So, what happens if a person either does not have an ID, or simply doesn't have it on them?

That's what I'm wondering.

 

What if, on a nice night, I decide to walk to the convenience store that's a few blocks away? I leave my wallet at home and just throw some cash in my pocket and go. If a cop stops me, I'm not going to have my ID, so what happens? Do I get arrested for leaving my drivers license -- which I don't need, since I'm not operating a car -- at home? I do have my DL number memorized, but I wonder how useful that will be in this situation.

I would assume that physically not having it on you-and, you know, saying that, rather than yelling "NO! and running away" is different than refusing to show it.

yeah cause I am sure that is ALWAYS the cause of harassment.

[Guest Cerebus]

A good article by a guy who has far more knowledge and authority in this area than I, or anyone else, here does.

 

Can a State Make it a Crime to Refuse to Identify Yourself to the Police?

In a Narrow Ruling, the Supreme Court Says Yes

By MICHAEL C. DORF

----

Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2004

 

Earlier this week, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.

 

Hiibel--who claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply the victim of mistaken identity--believed he had no obligation to tell the officer his name. But the Court found that neither Hiibel's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was violated.

 

In so doing, the Court took some liberties in construing its own past precedents, prompting four Justices to dissent. But despite its technical deficiencies, the Hiibel decision does not threaten civil liberties

 

Nor does it, as some commentators have suggested, pave the way for a system of compulsory national identification cards. .Moreover, even if it did, such a system would not necessarily be unwise or unconstitutional.

 

Background: Fourth Amendment Doctrine on Warrantless Search and Arrest

 

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," and authorizes search and arrest warrants only upon a showing of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. This language has been construed by the Supreme Court to require that in most circumstances, the police must obtain a warrant for a search or an arrest.

 

But there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, including for "exigent circumstances": where an emergency prevents the police from obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate, they may perform a warrantless search or arrest--if the facts known to them establish probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

 

In addition, there is an exception to the "probable cause" requirement for a warrantless search or arrest. In the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, the Court held that police could "stop and frisk" a suspect on "reasonable suspicion" that he had already committed, or was about to commit, a crime. Such a pat-down search, of course, would be warrantless.

 

It has been generally understood that the "reasonable suspicion" standard is qualitatively and quantitatively lower than the "probable cause" standard that applies to full searches and arrests. Why was a lesser standard appropriate? The Court reasoned that because a stop and frisk subjects the suspect to a lesser forfeiture of his liberty, it could be justified by a lesser burden of proof--hence, the "reasonable suspicion" standard.

 

Later, in 1979, the Court refused to go further, and establish a standard even lower than "reasonable suspicion." In Brown v. Texas, it held that absent reasonable suspicion of criminality, the police may not simply stop people on the street and ask for their names.

 

The Limited Issue Resolved in Hiibel

 

The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop--that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion--can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.

 

The Justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.

 

All nine Justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine Justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.

 

The only disagreement that split the Justices--and the specific issue the case addressed--was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question.

 

The Dissenters Had Precedent on Their Side

 

Drawing upon the Supreme Court's prior precedents, the dissenting Justices--led by Justice Breyer--noted that the Court had previously stated that a person detained for a Terry stop "is not obliged to respond" to a police request that he identify himself.

 

These dissenters acknowledged that the Court's prior statements were "technically dicta." ("Dicta" is a lawyer's term for non-binding asides that are included in a judicial opinion in the course of resolving other issues.) However, the dissenters opined that such "strong dicta" were by now part of the law.

 

The dissenters also thought that the suspect's right to decline to provide his name was part of the original justification for permitting Terry stops on less than probable cause. The idea behind the lower "reasonable suspicion" standard, they pointed out, was that a Terry stop was a relatively minimal incursion on liberty. But a requirement that the suspect give his name--and the reality that he would be prosecuted if he did not--is an additional intrusion.

 

A fourth dissenter, Justice Stevens, thought that requiring a Terry detainee to answer questions violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Citing cases such as Miranda v. Arizona, Justice Stevens insisted that the Court's own precedents recognized that the right against self-incrimination is not just a trial right.

 

If the right applies at the police station, as the Miranda decision says it does, Justice Stevens said, surely it applies at a Terry stop as well. And if it applies at a Terry stop, then the subject has a right not to give his name; after all, giving one's name to a police officer investigating a possible crime puts one at risk of prosecution. It is thus compelled self-incrimination.

 

The Majority's Response to the Dissenters' Objections

 

How did the majority respond to the dissenters? Speaking for the Court, Justice Kennedy pointed out that prior dicta were only dicta, after all. He noted that the Court had never formally decided the question at issue: whether a suspect must respond to a police officer's request that he identify himself.

 

Turning to that question, Justice Kennedy said that in many cases, knowing the identity of a Terry detainee would be of great value to the police in evaluating the situation. Consider Hiibel's case itself. There, the police had received a call describing an assault. Knowing the suspect's identity would enable them to know whether to make a full arrest, or to release him and continue to look for someone else. According to the majority, the same factors that make it reasonable for the police to ask a Terry detainee his identity make it reasonable to require that he answer.

 

Interestingly, Justice Kennedy's response to Justice Breyer's Fourth Amendment objections made his argument somewhat more vulnerable to the Fifth Amendment objections posed by Justice Stevens. Suppose one agrees with Justice Kennedy that the requirement that a suspect identify himself is indeed justified on the ground that his identity is relevant to determining whether he has engaged in criminal conduct. On that assumption, the requirement to identify oneself (or be prosecuted) appears to be a requirement that the suspect not just identify himself but in the process incriminate himself--in violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

Justice Kennedy and the majority nonetheless attempted to thread the needle between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments--contending that compulsory identification fell in the territory between the two, and thus violated neither. They argued that a suspect's identity could be sufficiently relevant to make the requirement that he reveal it "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, but could still not be so very relevant as to make it "incriminating" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

 

The majority acknowledged that there might be rare cases where the mere statement of a person's name--in connection with other information known to the police--was so incriminating as to privilege a Terry detainee in refusing to identify himself. But the majority thought that in the typical case, and in Hiibel's case, there was no basis for Fifth Amendment protection.

 

The Implications of Hiibel for General Identification Requirements

 

Civil libertarians may worry that in the wake of Hiibel, the government will require all persons to carry formal identification papers with them or risk arrest. However, as noted above, the Hiibel majority took care not to disturb precedents like Brown v. Texas. Accordingly, it is clear that even after Hiibel, the Supreme Court will protect the right to remain anonymous of persons who are not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing.

 

To be sure, as law student Danielle Sucher observed in a November 2003 column for this site), the reasonable suspicion standard is not as protective as the probable cause standard. But it is hardly toothless. On any given day, the overwhelming majority of the population takes no action that gives rise to reasonable suspicion for the police to stop and frisk.

 

Moreover, the fear that the Terry stop power will be converted into a police power to identify people seems backwards. A stop and frisk--in which the police physically accost and pat down a person--is more intrusive than a request for identification.

 

So if, as Sucher and others claim, the reasonable suspicion standard is toothless, then for thirty-six years it has been causing more serious privacy invasions than anything authorized by the Hiibel decision.

 

A little confusing I know but it does a good job overall in explaining what this case means and what it doesn't mean. Basically, from my reading of this article, it means that your identity can be demanded on the same standard that you recieve from a pat-down based on "resonable suspicion" from the Terry v. Ohio case.

 

Say I was walking down the street to buy a coke at the grocery store. Because the cop is having a bad day, and for no other reason, waves me down and asks me my name. Technically, I wouldn't have to give my name because the cop had no reasonable suspicion that I carried a weapon or was a harm to anyone else (to be fair, it is very unlikely that a cop would do that). Me walking down the street is not, in of itself, reasonable suspicion. So the cop doesn't have a right to demand to know my name anymore than he does to stop and frisk me (as the article points out all nine judges agreed on this point).

 

Now say I was having an argument with my wife, slapped her around, threatened her with a pistol, then left the apartment in a huff and go to my favorite bar for whatever reason. She calls the cops on me, tells them I was violent with her and brandished a pistol, gives them my description, and where I'll probably be heading (the bar I like). They notify a squad car who spots me walking down the road. Now, its more than reasonable for the cop to think that i have a weapon on me, in that case I am a danger. He sees me, but since he only has a brief description of me he doesn't know for a fact that it is me. So he hails me down and asks me for my name. As part of the cop's rights under Terry he has reasonable suspicion to pat me down for a weapon (I left the apartment with a weapon, I was violent and I am likely agitated. Easily a threat to myself, the cop, and the people around me) but he ALSO has the right to demand my name. Like the previous example, all nine judges agreed about this point.

 

The REAL question is if I could be prosecuted for not giving my name in the second example (I couldn't even be patted down for not giving my name in the first, so I obviously couldn't be prosecuted for it). This is where the case comes in and the judges split 5-4 in saying, yes I could be prosecuted.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Like THAT'S gonna stop harassment....

[Guest Cerebus]

Police "harassment" is an issue that doesn't really have to do with this case. Nothing that the Supreme Court said would encourage cops to harass people more than they already do beyond asking somebody's name when they have reasonable suspicion. I wouldn't say that opens the flood gates to anything.

[Styles 0]

They just want......information.

 

PRISONER~! marks out

[Guest Hero to all Children]

In Germany you are legally obliged to obtain a "Personalausweis" (Personal ID) at the age of 16 and always wear it on your person when you leave the house. You must also provide the ID upon request to the powers that be. Giving false information is actually a crime.

 

And I don't think the cops have been specifically targeting Turks and other minorities here late at night for ID checks. I've been only bothered for my ID when I was buying alcohol or for other, age-related things.

 

Hey, if you think providing an ID would incriminate you then attempt pleading the fifth. Pleading the fifth sure as hell screams "I HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE, ARREST ME AND FIND OUT WHAT IT IS!" so I wouldn't do that.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that law. The whole "coppers will use it to be mean to ickle minorities" is kind of redunant. Cops already have loads of power to do that, they don't need to make new laws for them to be able to search/detain you.

 

If you don't have an ID on you then say so, if they still think that you may be the suspect who allegedly beat up a nun they will most likely arrest you on the grounds of you being suspicious. But frankly speaking they could have done that before this decision too.