WASHINGTON (AP) "” 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. (Related link: Privacy ruling)
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, other than catch the attention of police, to divulge information that may be used for broad data base searches.
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.
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 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.
The ruling left the door open for what Kennedy said would be an unusual case in which revealing a name would be incriminating. But he said generally, disclosing an identity is "so insignificant in the scheme of things."
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said America is different 36 years after the Terry decision. "In a modern era, when the police get your identification, they are getting an extraordinary look at your private life."
Tim Lynch, an attorney with the libertarian-oriented thinktank Cato Institute, said the court "ruled that the government can turn a person's silence into a criminal offense."
"Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert their right to 'remain silent' without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," he said.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, noted that police can only demand names of people reasonably suspected of being involved in a crime.
The police encounter with Hiibel happened after someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name.
Over and over again Hiibel refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Hiibel "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute." Also disagreeing with the decision were Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554.
To me, a name is no more incriminating than a face. What next? Are people going to start wearing masks when they are pulled over by the police? I don't see what the big deal is here.
I agree with the Cato Institute on many issues, but I'm not so gung ho about this one. Getting searched without probable cause or a warrant is one thing, but getting upset over the police asking your name? It's part of who we are, and there are a lot of us in this country. It makes sense for the police to try and distinguish between one individual and everyone else. They have a job to do, after all.
Well, maybe we should allow these people to give up their indentities altogether. No name, no SSN, no protection as an individual under the law, etc. That way everyone's happy.
Most people, if they haven't done anything wrong, are probably willing to give the police your name..I don't see a problem here. If you don't want to give your name, could you be hiding something ??? or what have you done wrong ???
__________________
It' s a dog eat dog world, and I' m wearing Milkbone underwear
I always thought that you had to provide some type of ID when questioned!
I don't see anything wrong with having to identify yourself!
I once had a friend that ended up going to jail for fishing without a licence! The warden was going to write him a ticket, but who do you write a ticket to if they don't have an ID or give you a name?
__________________
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety!
Ben Franklin
I LOVE my country, I FEAR my government!
If your mother was an abortion proponent, would you be reading this right now?
By a 5-4 vote, the justices said that as long as an officer reasonably suspects wrongdoing is underway, the state law under which the rancher was charged does not violate either the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
This ruling is not as broad as some of the idiot media are portraying. It doesn't give police carte blanch to randomly question anybody for their name and jail whoever refuses to provide their name. This ruling states that police are entitled to ask a person for their name "as long as an officer reasonably suspects wrongdoing is underway." that means an Officer suspects somebody is either a suspect, victim or witness or is not yet sure how they may be involved in some type of crime.
I know we all argued about the initial stop in Nevada but the guy demanded to be taken to jail and got what he wanted. He was being a bonehead and earned that little sidetrip. there are times when being an AH just doesn't pay and that was one of them for him.
I wish the media would educate themselves a little more than maybe an 8th grader on how the laws and other things work in this country. I would place the vast majority of this board's members head and shoulders above the media in comprehension and intelligence. Not trying to blow smoke up anybody's orifices but just stating the facts as I see 'em.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.
I agree that people should at least give their names, but I don't like the fact that the police are using the "terrorist" card to win this argument. They should never use the Patriot Act or anything remotely related to terrorism as a tool to gain political advantage. That in itself is a fear tactic and also a form of terrorism.
I wish the media would educate themselves a little more than maybe an 8th grader on how the laws and other things work in this country. I would place the vast majority of this board's members head and shoulders above the media in comprehension and intelligence. Not trying to blow smoke up anybody's orifices but just stating the facts as I see 'em.
Could you explain how the media came into this argument, please?
You've obviously got a bug up your butt about the media, you can't seem to make a post without dragging the media into it and generalizing about how stupid they all are.
If not for the media, you wouldn't know anything about the above ruling until it was posted on a bulletin board at your station or talked about in a training session, and you wouldn't know about most of the other things that you get on here and gripe about.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Theres always gotta be a few boneheads that gotta be difficult and claim the government is stepping on their rights. Pricks..
This is not worth dignifing
Cops might have a job to do but I am against giving up any freedom no matter what the perceived good at the time or how insignificant the loss seems. Seems the younger generation is constantly and consistently for giving up basic rights to improve their protection. Remember even if you trust our government to be good, lists no matter how seemingly insignificant will be there if we should be taken over by some foreign government or terrorist group. Of course we do not see that happening in any foreseeable future but all regimes have eventually fallen.
You'll be arested if you don't give your name
