Give your name or go to jail!

[Colleen Thomas]

This is reaching, I know, but in the event that revealing your identity could incriminate you concerning a different matter altogether, wouldn't it stand to reason that your right to remain anonymous remain in tact?

In other words, if they're searching for an assult suspect and your name happens to connect to something else (entirely unrelated) that you're essentially being forced to incriminate yourself?

With the statutes you posted from Nevada, I don't see much problem with the ruling, personally. I just have very little faith in the judicial system most of the time and wouldn't feel comfortable with leaving 'reasonable doubt' up to some judges and/or juries. I guess I stand on the side of, if there is enough suspicion for them to detain and question you then your identity will be a non-issue. They'd haul you in and find out anyway, but be forced to do so in a documented way, including the initial reason for detainment and questioning.

From what I can tell, if you're suspect for enough reasons, your name at the time of arrest matters very little. It just seems a bit of a loophole that whether or not you're the one they're actually looking for at the time, you can be punished for other lesser things just by giving your name, i.e. unpaid parking tickets, etc...

Maybe I'm way off, but I'm sure Colly will let me know.

~lucky

I think the intent of the law in this case is not so sinister. If you are looking for a rape suspect, find a man who fits the vague description in the area, you want to know if he is John Q public without even a traffic ticket against him or if he is John Q. Criminal with a rap sheet as long as your arm including doing time for forcible rape.

In the instance cited, the police are looking for a suspect in an assault. The defendent was in the area and apparently a local rancher without a criminal record. If he had identified himself he would have probably been let go, since he refused, how many officers and how much time was wasted on him while the real perp was making his get away?

In reguard to your fifth amendment rights, identifying yourself is not in and of itself incriminating, but if you are wanted for non payment of support lets say, then obviously giving your name would incriminate yourself. Via Waller, you would most likely be released on that technicality as officers would have a difficult time proving they were looking for you. In the more broad laws, that were struck down, there was no provision for protection your fifth amendment rights.

The Neveada law provides a specific protection:

"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."

Simply put, if you are detained under this law, you have to tell him you are. BUT, you don't have to answer any other questions, save those specifically related to why you were there. So if you said my name is John Doe he couldn't ask if you were the John Doe wanted in connection with such and such unrelated crime. Nor could he detain you longer than it took to explain why you were there. So, if you were detained in this manner, and provided your name, and you were wanted for anyting else, he could not arrest you. Should he do so, the arrest is wrongful and you would walk, as he would be in violation of that part of the statute.

The law protects you vs. self incrimination, via the severe limit placed on what an officer can ask you while so detained as well as the limited actions he may take. Arresting you for something else you were wanted for won't fly here, he has to link you to the crime he is investigating.

It's skirting the edges of your right to privacy, while trying to provide a balance that protects both you, the officers and the public at large. The precedent is scary, but the narrow scope and stronly worded dissenting opinion make it less dangerous than it would seem.

-Colly

 

[BlackSnake]

I think it's a good thing.

 

[minsue]

The intent of the law isn't what bothers me. It is the law itself. It is, IMO, a clear contradiction to the fifth ammendment and Miranda.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What they're worried about is that the police could position themselves outside of, say, a political meeting and collect the names of everyone as they left under the pretetxt of looking for someone else.

In the context of the US Patriot act, this is kind of troubling. You could find yourself on a 'watch' list because you've attended some lecture or fund raiser or even a social gathering, and you wouln't know you were on the list. Once you're on the list, under the provisions of the Patriot act they can start examining what books you took out of the library and other records, and you'd never be informed of it.

There's also the question of whether "identifying yourself" also includes providing an address and other information.

---dr.M.

 

[BlackSnake]

The intent of the law isn't what bothers me. It is the law itself. It is, IMO, a clear contradiction to the fifth ammendment and Miranda.

You are asked to ID yourself, not consent to search. This doesn't infringe on your rights against unreasonable searches

 

[Pure]

I share your concerns, mab.

BUT it should be noted, esp. since some new Supreme Ct people may be put in, that 'privacy' is only covered in the Bill of Rights in a limited way, i.e., as regards illegal search and seizure.

There is a series of SC decisions gradually *defining* or *constructing* such a right, and extending it, say, to using a
diaphragm; to 'private' phone conversations.

I'm not sure that the Bill of Rights, by itself, would preclude putting a camera in your home (1984 style) for surveillance.
After all, if you're not doing anything bad, what have you to fear.

How about the lobby and halls of an apartment building.? I believe that's already done. (So who sneaks up the hall to see whom can be ascertained.)

In short, the sphere of 'privacy' may well contract for the next decades.

 

[minsue]

You are asked to ID yourself, not consent to search. This doesn't infringe on your rights against unreasonable searches

True. It does, as Lucky pointed out, have the potential to infringe on your right to refuse to incriminate yourself. It also definitely infringes on your right to remain silent as worded since the Miranda ruling.

 

[BlackSnake]

What they're worried about is that the police could position themselves outside of, say, a political meeting and collect the names of everyone as they left under the pretetxt of looking for someone else.

In the context of the US Patriot act, this is kind of troubling. You could find yourself on a 'watch' list because you've attended some lecture or fund raiser or even a social gathering, and you wouln't know you were on the list. Once you're on the list, under the provisions of the Patriot act they can start examining what books you took out of the library and other records, and you'd never be informed of it.

There's also the question of whether "identifying yourself" also includes providing an address and other information.

---dr.M.

In some cases this may occur, and I still think its a good idea. Mistakes and advantages will be taken of this, but there is also a benefit to it. A much larger benefit.

I wouldn't mind if the police walked the streets of my neighborhood and ID everyone visible. When the police cross the line they should be held accountable for that as well.

 

[seasparks]

Anyone who believes that if you are innocent...

That you have nothing to fear from the police, obviously has limited experience with being on the wrong side of police scrutiny.
I once spent 12 days in jail waiting for a police department full of morons to figure out that they were looking for a cousin and not me.
The fact that I was at sea aboard a Navy ship at the time of the alleged crime didn't even faze them, and it took a JAG lawyer to finally get my ass out of that place.
Talk about a wasted shore leave.
BTW, my cousin did happen to resemble me in a general way, but that still didn't excuse the cops stubborn stupidity.
While I do respect the difficult job the police have nowadays, I still (20+ years later) have as little to do with them as possible.
In the state I live in now, Nebraska, the guidelines previous to this Supreme Court decision used to be based on State v Hicks. Where the judge ruled that a person not under arrest had no obligation to stop and talk to the police IF the person was merely walking down the street and the police had no probable cause to detain that person.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I think the intent of the law in this case is not so sinister. If you are looking for a rape suspect, find a man who fits the vague description in the area, you want to know if he is John Q public without even a traffic ticket against him or if he is John Q. Criminal with a rap sheet as long as your arm including doing time for forcible rape.

I agree that the intent is probably pure and good, however, I think we've established that even laws without malicious intent are often used maliciously. Wouldn't this qualify as one to avoid, like partial-birth abortion and gun control measures? Am I the only one that sees this as a stepping stone to more extreme measures of privacy violations?

Thanks, Colly, for the detailed response. Everything you said makes perfect logical sense, but I feel there is much to be desired in delineating the exact use of this ruling. Not real sure how to argue it, though, as you've pointed out that it is not in direct violation of Miranda and ammendments 4 & 5. Skirting, is right.

~lucky

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree that the intent is probably pure and good, however, I think we've established that even laws without malicious intent are often used maliciously. Wouldn't this qualify as one to avoid, like partial-birth abortion and gun control measures? Am I the only one that sees this as a stepping stone to more extreme measures of privacy violations?

Thanks, Colly, for the detailed response. Everything you said makes perfect logical sense, but I feel there is much to be desired in delineating the exact use of this ruling. Not real sure how to argue it, though, as you've pointed out that it is not in direct violation of Miranda and ammendments 4 & 5. Skirting, is right.

~lucky

Unfortuneatly, I think you are going to see a lot of 5-4 decisions in the arena of your civil rights. The conservative judges are far more likely to continue to expand the power of police & other law enforcement bodies. It does have the potential to be a stepping stone case, but that poetntial here is very narrowly bounded and I think a test case where revealing your name DID incriminate you the supremes would rule for the plaintiff.

Gauche and Minsue both have an interesting point. If under miranda, you have the right to remain silent, exactly how do you not have that right before you are under arrest? Does being arrested confer extra rights upon you? It would seem so. The court did not adress that inthe ruleing.

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

If under miranda, you have the right to remain silent, exactly how do you not have that right before you are under arrest? Does being arrested confer extra rights upon you? It would seem so. The court did not adress that inthe ruleing.

-Colly

Do you happen to know where I can find that ruling? All I've heard about it has been on this thread.

~lucky

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Do you happen to know where I can find that ruling? All I've heard about it has been on this thread.

~lucky

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...day/supremecourtkeepingnameprivatecanbeacrime

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=118NevAdvOpNo88&invol=2

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...day/supremecourtkeepingnameprivatecanbeacrime

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=118NevAdvOpNo88&invol=2

-Colly

LOL

You are nothing, if not thorough.

Thanks sweetie.



~lucky

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Okay, I think there's been some confusion here, at least on my part. I was under the assumption that this ruling was a sweeping Federal mandate that would affect all states, but as I'm reading through the links Colly so kindly provided, I'm finding that all this particular ruling does is uphold the law already in place in certain states. I think someone noted that twenty states have this law in place currently.

A quote I took from the second link states, "In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document."

Several people quoted in the various articles have speculated that this could be a window for a Federal law to include all states, as well as allowing for such broad uses as, I.D.-ing people for any suspicion at major sporting events, travel stations, large public functions, etc... This is where it frightens me. Helping police do their job is commendable but I suppose we'll have to wait and see how far reaching this idea goes.

~lucky

 

[gauchecritic]

With regard to the 'thin ends of wedges', breaking the law by not giving your name implies that your name be freely available to the police, on request.
To speed up the process and inconvenience, surely a chip reader is less intrusive and therefor, constitutional rights notwithstanding, a chip 'tattooed' or implanted at birth would be the natural progression. But it would obviously only hold your name for police convenience.

So what have you to fear if you have done nothing wrong?

Gauche

 

[Guest]

So what have you to fear if you have done nothing wrong?

I don't mean to be glib, but why should the concern focus on "fear". If a stranger approaches me and asks my name I do not need to give it, nor fear my decision. I'm not playing at logic, just getting at the fact that fear has entered the equation.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't mean to be glib, but why should the concern focus on "fear". If a stranger approaches me and asks my name I do not need to give it, nor fear my decision. I'm not playing at logic, just getting at the fact that fear has entered the equation.

Perdita

Fear comes with the prospect of being arrested for protecting your privacy. If a stranger asks and you refuse, there is no fear of ending up in jail for it.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Fear comes with the prospect of being arrested for protecting your privacy. If a stranger asks and you refuse, there is no fear of ending up in jail for it.

Colly, I'm a bit dulled today, but that's the point I was making. Doesn't the fact that fear is part of the discussion/concern cause part of the problem? It seems this law is going to give too much more power (and room for abuse) to the police, so that one's welfare will be dependent on what city or neighborhood one is in when asked for one's name (irregardless of one's innocence or whatever). P.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I'm a bit dulled today, but that's the point I was making. Doesn't the fact that fear is part of the discussion/concern cause part of the problem? It seems this law is going to give too much more power (and room for abuse) to the police, so that one's welfare will be dependent on what city or neighborhood one is in when asked for one's name (irregardless of one's innocence or whatever). P.

Dita,

Defintely the fear facor comes in when you view this as errosion of your rights. The next hit from this will probably come at Mirana laws. Basically, the ruling says you do not have the right to remain silent. The scope of the rulling is narrow, but it does openthe door to more legislation that infringes on what we consider basic rights to be heard as well as for new legislation that expands the power of law enforcement.

The Supreme court has 7 republican appointtes and only 2 Dems, both Clinton era dmocrats. Renquist is a nixxon appointee and is sure to retire soon. Should he be replaced by a liberal you would see more balance in the court immediatly. If the court picks up another liberal voice, this rulling will probably be overtuned in short order. As i mentione din another thread, one very strong reason to consider supporting Kerry, even if you don't like him.

-Colly

 

[snooper]

... A quote I took from the second link states, "In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document." ...

My question is which name? Many people have more than one. For example I write professionally as Charm Brights; I have a bank account in that name. I also have the name I was given by my parents (sometimes known as my "real" name); I have a bank account in that name also.

Which name can I legitimately give to the police?

 

[SummerMorning]

Over here the police can legally lock you up if you don't have an ID document with you - that means passport, ID card, drivers' licence, birth certificate.

This can be a real pain in the summer, at the seaside... fortunately, they do not apply the rule too strenuously, too often...

...but they are still pricks. The fact is that cops (over here) are more concerned with making money off speeding tickets and fines than protecting people and property:

Ex: a bunch of drunk high-school kids rolls an oil drum [the large, round, steel kind] down a slope and into our yard. We call the police, they ask: "Was anyone hurt?" We say, "No." They: "Then we can't do anything."

WHAT THE FUCK?!?

Ex2: I drive off with just my parking lights on by mistake. A cop pulls me over. From close up he can see the lights and thinks I turned them on afterwards. He insists on checking my engine, my trunk, all the car gear and in the end he takes a ruler and measures my tyre tread - and I had my tyres checked a week before - and he fines $400 for worn treads ($200 if you pay within the week).

Prick.

I make a point of trying to vaguely know station chiefs, then I can ask the local cops how the chief is doing and they don't hassle me...

 

[SummerMorning]

Another example:

A family of gypsies settles on a farmer's land. He calls the police. They ask him if the gypsies have stolen anything, broken anything.

He says: "No, but they're on my property!"

They say that's a civil case and he should file a lawsuit (which tipically last 2 to 3 years).

A group of farmers goes to the gypsies to try to get them to leave and the gypsies shoot one farmer in the neck.

So much for police protection. The police are just there to make money for the state. When there's a budget hole to be filled you can be sure there'll be more cops on the highways.

 

[snooper]

A side issue ...

... and perhaps a touch of levity.

In France it is illegal to be out of your house without your identity card (or passport for non-Schengen foreigners).

Where, exactly, do all those lovely ladies on the beach at St.Tropez carry their ID cards?