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

Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

[cinFLA]

But it also means that the police do not have to show probable cause, and this sets a bad precident in favor of police power.

No. This would be left intact if the USSC rules against Hiibel.

[cinFLA]

Let me make sure I understand this. It is OK for someone to make incriminating statements which he knows are false so that when he gets arrested he can make fun of the cops for being wrong?

You twisted his post.

[cinFLA]

You asked me and I answered. I ask you the same and you ask me if I am trying to be funny here. Ha Ha ha.

[cinFLA]

I never indicated a person has the right to withhold ID. I am not sure what to think about that.

But you are siding with the 9th in Califoria vs the Utah district court. That is the issue.

[connectthedots]

From the article;Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that the court has never given police the authority to demand someone's identification without probable cause that they have done something wrong. But she also acknowledged that police might want to run someone's name through computers to check for a criminal history.

Hiibel was approached by a deputy in May 2000 next to a pickup truck parked off a road near Winnemucca, Nev. The officer, called to the scene because of a complaint about arguing between Hiibel and his daughter,

So, a cop arrives at the scene of an accident, which he didn't personally witness, and where a driver has wrapped his car around a light pole. No injuries.

When the cop approaches the driver, he detects the odor of alcohol and proceeds with ascertaining whether alcohol had anything to do with the accident. He finds that it did and arrests the subject for DWI (DUI in some states), which is a misdemeanor.

As you can see from the article, the guy wasn't drunk; and he wasn't driving. Your scenario does not fit the facts of this case (at least as presented by the article).

However, under your scenario, the cop would have been a witness since he would have seen that the guy was drunk and had hit a pole. He therefore would have had probable cause to arrest the guy. Drunk driving is a felony in many states, so the rule about it not being lawful to arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless the cop witnessed the crime would not apply.

You're wrong as far as attempting to establish that a cop has to witness a misdemeanor before he can arrest and book a suspect.

While you may not think I do not know the law concerning this issue, you are the one who is wrong.

Do you live in Canada, maybe?

Check my FR home page.

[Sweet Land]

The first step in an investigation is to determine the identities and relationships of the persons involved.

In a free country, the first step in an investigation is to determine whether a crime has been committed.

[cinFLA]

Do you believe everything that an activist, liberal reporter writes?

[cinFLA]

In a free country, the first step in an investigation is to determine whether a crime has been committed.

Like the other poster I guess your solution would be to take down the guy and handcuff him till you could determine if a crime had been committed.

[mrsmith]

"If the Supreme Court decides we must provide ID"
That's not at all the point despite all the hyperventilating.

Of course the police can require ID of a person if they have good cause to- if they don't they can't. 'Requesting' ID can't be a form of general warrant.

The court will be defining "good cause". Good luck to us all.

[Sweet Land]

In a free country, the first step in an investigation is to determine whether a crime has been committed.

I guess your solution would be to take down the guy and handcuff him till you could determine if a crime had been committed.

No, that would not be necessary in order to ask the girl, "Was this man hitting you?" And why was knowing his name necessary in order to ask the girl?

[freedom moose]

can anyone direct me to writings (either opinion or reports) about this sort of thing from early on in America's history?

[judgeandjury]

Show me zee papaers young man of vee vill have to take you in.

I would imagine that this is asked of individuals by law enforcement personnel in just about every other country in the world.