Posted on 07/25/2011 9:38:36 AM PDT by reaganaut
- A mystery man arrested on minor charges more than three weeks ago remains behind bars in Utah while law enforcement officials try to determine his true identity, which he refuses to reveal.
"This is really a strange case," said Lt. Dennis Harris with the Utah County Sheriff's Office. "He just doesn't want to be found."
The unidentified man, who has graying hair, a light beard and is believed to be in his 60's, was arrested on July 1 for trespassing in a parking garage.
He was booked into jail on three misdemeanor charges and has thwarted any chance of release, with or without bail, by refusing to identify himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I guess they will have to rewrite Miranda , you know you have the right to remain silent, unless we want the info.
So that gives rise to a chargeable offense for which the man, as “John Doe,” is entitled to a speedy trial.
Nope.
You see, Utah is one of 15 states that have a adopted the Stop and identify statutes.
In 13 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
.... In states whose “stop and identify laws” do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”. For example, the Nevada “stop and identify” law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[24] constituted a violation of Nevada’s “obstructing” law.[25] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah’s “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000).
and finally
Whether an arrested person must identify herself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question her, they are required to inform the person of her Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.
Odds are that as soon as he cooperates, he is free to go. I suggest that if this is offensive to you, stay away from the 24 states that have enacted this sort of restriction. I'll give you a hint; it was likely brought about because of illegal immigration.
So, in your opinion - if I understand correctly - soldiers in a war must give Name, Rank and Serial Number - but people who are caught in the commission of a crime need not say anything? Does that apply to US Citizens, or illegals too? How do you suggest we tell the difference? Who do we take to court? He's not being tortured; he simply has to say "My name is ...." and he'll likely be free to go.
I say follow the Constitution. 4th and 5th apply.
Soldiers are not being questioned by US police forces so it is BS that you even bring that up.
And, if you read my sources, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You seem to champion chaos, and chaos never leads you to order. The police are charged to promote Law and Order, not Law and Chaos.
If you don’t like the law, work to overturn it. I like this law, as it can be used to champion the cause of “good”. Here illegally? Wanted on a prior conviction? Bail jumper?
Don’t like it? Then I’d suggest you stay away from the states that have these laws on the books. But, this power does, and should, reside with the state.
George H. W. Bush?
Looks a little like Harrison Ford.
I work on a base every single day. Try to enter a base or other military installation, and refuse to identify, please. Go on, do it. I dare you.
Yes, we MUST identify, there is no option. Also, my learned friend, a little piece of paper called "The Geneva Convention" states specifically that any POW must state his name, rank, and Serial Number, and NOTHING ELSE.
Even in warfare, complete silence and non-cooperation is not a supported option.
Cuz the supremes have already ruled on it a long, long time ago.
Nothing new under the sun, as it were.
Additionally the police had a crime to detain him on so they should have charged him with that, they did not need the stop and identify, they had a crime (tresspassing).
2004 is not that long ago.
You are talking apples and oranges, civilian verses soilders not the same thing. Entry onto a base is by choice to gain entry you must meet the requirements.
Agreed, they had the crime. This individual has simply refused to comply with a very reasonable request, simply "What is your name?". Now, having been arrested, the police have the right to search his person - apparently this man carries no identification in his wallet, or multiple pieces of identification. Until he identifies himself - he is a ward of the state. It's very likely that he can walk free very soon after he cooperates with this request. The police are proably sick of taking his crap - if he doesn't want to give his name, then he can cool his heels in prison until he rots. I'm fine with that; provided that AS SOON as he gives his name, he's processed and released for whatever his offenses are.
My issue is this; if an illegal is apprehended committing a crime; and refuses to give his name - how do we determine whether he is a US citizen, or in the country illegally? If he's here illegally, and refuses to give his name; not only does he leave a 'free man'; the fact that he was caught 'x' times committing a crime, is not part of his record. He is therefore 'better' than anyone else. If I steal something, I have a record. If I get a record for committing a crime; then I demand that everyone get the same treatment as I get; no more, no less.
Regardless, you are in error.
He should be held to no higher standard than the occupier of the White House.
Give me the Utah code, not wiki. I’m still not buying it.
You say I am in error I say the USSC is in error.
I’ll give you a hint; it was likely brought about because of illegal immigration
- - - - - - -
That would make no sense in Utah since Utah leans to being a santuary state.
You seem to be supporting the idea of this guy being held indefinitely, against his 4th amendment for just refusing to give his name??
Its simple tresspass, he wouldn’t have served more than 3 weeks anyway, just let the man go already.
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.