Cops can demand ID, high court rules The Associated Press Updated: 10:47 a.m. ET June 21, 2004 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 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. (you know, since all people who don't give their names are only doing so because they're 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. What's in a name? 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.
I don't see the problem. Cops should be able to demand ID. They ask for your liscense and registration when they pull you over, nobody's comlaining about that. But if any cop ever asks, my full name is Heywood Jablowmee.
The problem is they shouldn't just be able to DEMAND you id. If you've commited no crime and they have no reason for asking for it, they why on earth should they? There are some people out there who might argue that if you've committed no crime, you should have nothing to worry about.....but on that same argument, if I've not committed a crime, then what business is it of theirs to know who I am? My b/f has dreadlocks and is frequently targeted by the police. alot of his friends use to accuse him of being overly paranoid and use to say that shit about "they don't just pull you over for no reason"....until one day when he was riding (not driving) with one of those friends, and the cops pulled them over. They didn't ask the driver to get out or anything else, but they went directly to the passenger side and demanded to know who he (my b/f) was and what the fuck he was doing. They made HIM get out of the car, for no reason other than the fact that they didn't like the way he looked. It's that kind of BS that makes this ruling so awful.
I agree, a cop should not be able to demand ID from you out of the blue. There needs to be a reason, like commiting or being suspected of a crime.
so say i am walking down the road and i have no id on me, wonder if they can arrest me for being over 18 and not having an id on my person???? my hubby got "pulled" walking to get gas in a can once and they demanded his liscense. now why did he need a liscense to walk??
Gas can be used for a lot of things besides running your car, and most of them are illegal. That's probably why.
well, the cops are just gonna hvae to take my word on who i am cuz i dont' carry any identification unless i'm driving. but i think this is seriously getting close to apartheid-style ID checking. i don't want no cop coming up to me and asking me all these questions about myself. getting arrested for not showing identification...thats just really stupid in my mind.
LOL!!!! 'bout fell outta my chair laughin'!! I dare ya to really do it! as for the cops, Nazi Germany ain't got nothin' on U.S.! Stop the Violence.
The key phrase here is "reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing". It is linked back to a Terry stop (read the extracted article again). This means a cop has no legal backing to ask for your ID if you are just walking down the street, minding your own business. It just comes down to how many ways that key phrase gets interpreted and by whom. But I believe the basis for this is that people, arrested for whatever or detained on suspicion of whatever, were claiming protection under some constitutional amendment against having to identify themselves. This ruling re-enforces an existing statute. It would be interesting to know the nature of the encounter the Nevada rancher had with that deputy, though. It's also interesting to note that this was a split decision, 5-4 in favor. Just did get by. If you're bothered by this, vote Kerry in November. If we get another four years of Bush, he will appoint one, if not more, justices to the Supreme court. And they might replace one of the more liberal justices. Ralph Nader will not help this. Kerry is the only way (this time) to avoid this. If this isn't abused, it only is troublesome for folks not walking right. If this is abused..... Papers, you vill show us you papers! Yeah, THAT would be scary.
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/ Draw your own conclussions. Whats not noted here is that the arresting officer first contacted the person who made the original phone call at their home and they gave a description of Dudley and the vehicle.
