Withholding Identity From a Law Officer: Your Right or Not?

Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

[Wolfie]

Slam dunk. Of course you have to identify yourself to police.

[Sweet Land]

At the heart of the case is an intersection of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches, and the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

The courts are too busy inventing new "rights" (e.g., abortion and gay sex) to protect the ones we already have.

[joesnuffy]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...a corrupt Police State is what we will reap..
imo

[Sweet Land]

Of course you have to identify yourself to police.

Why?

[blanknoone]

I dunno...could go all sorts of ways. Constitution means whatever a coupla people in robes say it means nowadays.

Wasn't there a penumbra of an emanation of privacy at the basis of Roe v Wade? Does that apply?

[Redbob]

The cops had nothing - NOTHING! - to charge him with, so they charged him with not identifying himself?

This was in the United States?

Do you know how Fascist that sounds?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Why not have a look at your bank and tax records. Nothing to hide, eh ?

[Centaur]

Er, uh, as of now, no you don't.

[Sweet Land]

Wasn't there a penumbra of an emanation of privacy at the basis of Roe v Wade? Does that apply?

You may exercise your privacy only at the expense of babies' lives, not at the expense of the authority of the State.

[green iguana]

Of course you have to identify yourself to police.

But a name really isn't identification - too easy to give them someone elses. So do we have to provide a drivers license? Those are pretty easy to fake - especially if you use an out-of-state one the officer wouldn't be familiar with. So I guess we have to give any officer who wants it our fingerprint? That would i.d. us - with a national fingerprint database of course.

[Wolfie]

We're close enough to that point already, don't you think? Seriously, I say the cops can screw off, but the Supreme Court won't. Bet on it.

[FreePaul]

The cops had nothing - NOTHING! - to charge him with, so they charged him with not identifying himself?

NO! They charged him with resisting arrest according to the article. That makes even less sense. Unfortunately the courts, particularly the "conservitive" judges never find a police state action that they can't accept.

[American_Centurion]

I have viewed the tape, and I believe that since Mr Hiibel freely admitted to parking the truck where it was, and that parking spot was on the shoulder of a public right of way, the police officer should have been justified in asking Mr Hiibel to provide an operators license.

However, the officer asked for ID, and said it was only "to investigate and investigation". That is not the same as proving one is licensed to drive.

Now if Mr. Hiibel, or any American citizen, is not operating a vehicle, and is not trying to enter any space that is limited for security, then no police officer should have the right to ask you to identify yourself.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I think the cop was sent there for a legitimate call. I would have locked the guy up too.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The cop was way too full of himself.

[Sweet Land]

I think the cop was sent there for a legitimate call.

That's irrelevant to whether he was obligated to identify himself.

I would have locked the guy up too.

On what charge?

[Cap'n Crunch]

Here it would have been Obstructing Official Business. Or Domestic Violence or Disorderly Conduct, Persisting. Whatever I felt like at the moment.