Posted on 06/21/2004 7:35:01 AM PDT by Pikamax
Court: No Right to Keep Names From Police
3 minutes ago
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.
The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.
The decision, reached by a divided court, was a defeat for privacy rights advocates who argued that the government could use this power to force people who have done nothing wrong to submit to fingerprinting or divulge more personal information.
Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.
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.
Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote last year.
Justices agreed in a unique ruling that addresses just what's in a name.
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.
Justices had been asked to rule that forcing someone to give police their name violated a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that it violated neither.
"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests," Kennedy wrote.
"Papers please."
Well, so much for the right to "privacy."
Like to see how the votes fell.
Sad ruling.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) said that Hiibel "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute." Also disagreeing with the decision were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=1&u=/ap/20040621/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_identification
Given that Kennedy wrote the opinion, I presume it was the usual suspects that voted for the decision, plus Kennedy. In dissent, it was probably Scalia, Renquist (although he's funny on first amendment stuff) Thomas, and O'Conner. It's possible Renquist could have flipped with one of the extreem liberals.
Not quite. When it comes to police powers, the conservatives tend to side with law enforcement. At least the decision is clear that reasonable suspicion is a necessary predicate to ID questioning.
WOW was I wrong.
A completely arbitrary element...
Looks like you got it completely backwards.
Look at #6.
Scalia never met an unenumerated right he could not subjugate to the whims of police.
Yeah. I make the mistake of letting my personal feelings (that it's more of a first amendment situation) influence what was really a law enforcement case, at least in the eyes of the court. It baffles me since it's such a natural right to not be compelled to say a word. Frustrating.
Which I suppose says something good and bad about my ablity to predict things. :) Find the horse I bet on, do the opposite and you'll be a millionaire in no time.
Whats next, a permanent tattoo with your SSAN or will it be the chip.
I don't get the problem with telling a policeman my name when asked.
Then again, I don't fear the cops, and I have nothing to hide.
No surprises here. None of the conservative justices have much concern for the right to be left alone. I think the ruling is a case of hard cases making bad law. The guy stopped was not simply walking down the street minding his own business. The problem is that the police will abuse this. I guess I'm with the libs and the ACLU on this one.
Good morning, citizen. Papers please.
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'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.