Court: No Right to Keep Names From Police

[Rose Siding]

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......

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-police-identification,0,3639567.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Occulus]

1. Doesn't this dircetly conflict with Miranda?

"You have the right to remain silent."

Now, suddenly, it turns out we don't have the right to remain silent.

[Mr.Green93]

2. Your papers, please

[fdr_hst_fan]

3. Welcome to

Nazi Germ-, I mean, Nazi America!

[Kagemusha]

4. You can still be silent if they arrest you. If not, you spill your guts.

That's the meaning of the ruling. You must give your identity if you're detained, you can refuse if you are arrested.

[Occulus]

6. I thought Miranda was in effect all the time. n/t

[hightime]

21. There are some exceptions...

The Miranda rights do not protect you from being arrested, only from incriminating yourself during questioning. All police need to legally arrest a person is "probable cause" -- an adequate reason based on facts and events to believe the person has committed a crime.

Police are required to "Read him his (Miranda) rights," only before interrogating a suspect. While failure to do so may cause any subsequent statements to be thrown out of court, the arrest may still be legal and valid.

Also without reading the Miranda rights, police are allowed to ask routine questions like name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number necessary to establishing a person's identity. Police can also administer alcohol and drug tests without warning, but persons being tested may refuse to answer questions during the tests.

Source: Court TV Legal Survival Guide

[Occulus]

80. Ye, yes, but

"You have the right to remain silent." There's a period at the end of that sentence, not a ", but...."

I was once returning on from from the grocery store. The streets and crosswalks were arranged with a single crosswalk in front of me crossed by two major roads, closely spaced. There was a school between. Think of the letter 'I', where the vertical stroke extends above and below. That part was the crosswalk.

There are two pedestrian signals, and they're spaced so closely (the school is the only structure between the roads, which slowly diverge) that one can run through both signals. On this day, I did so.

A police car pulled up next to me shortly thereafter and said I "matched the description of a potential shoplifter." Hooey, but it was an interrogation- he even asked where I lived, to which I replied "up there a way" and waved my hand in the general direction I'd been traveling- and to be honest was really the first thing that made me aware of something rotten in the state of America.

Did I at that time have the right to remain silent, or is that right only bestowed at the time of arrest? If the latter, what can be done to us if we decide to exercise a right, one which is apparently arbitrarily granted and revoked?

This is a rather disturbing ruling.

[Tight_rope]

102. What if telling your name will incriminate you!

Sir what is your name?

My name is Osama bin Laden!

"Sir please put your hands behind your back....you are under arrest."

At this point you don't have the right to remain silent...everything you have said and did is being held against you.

[bain_sidhe]

26. Actually, Miranda only applies during trial

according to a Supreme Court decision last year. I remember it because I was really surprised that there wasn't more outrage about that decision. It was the case of Chavez v. Martinez (also known, somehow, as Marinez vs. Oxnard). Basically, the police shot and continued to question a "suspect" while he was receiving emergency care - even though both the suspect and the doctors treating him repeatedly asked the police to stop - without ever giving him the Miranda warning... but it was ok, because they never prosecuted the guy. And even if they had, apparently the only thing they *couldn't* use would be the guy's actual words... they can still use any evidence gained against him as a *result* of the interrogation.

From the FresnoBee:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court narrowed the historic right against self-incrimination Tuesday, ruling that police and government investigators can force an unwilling person to talk, as long as those admissions are not used to prosecute them.

The 6-3 opinion undercuts the well-known "Miranda warnings," in which officers tell suspects of their right to remain silent. It appears to allow more aggressive police questioning of reluctant witnesses in the hope of obtaining evidence. While a witness's words cannot be used against him in court, evidence can be.

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/6862175p-7799407c.html

[AP]

45. Miranda is only required in order to use evidence at a trial.

If you use the information for something else (to locate a co-conspirator) you don't need to read Miranda rights.

At least that's my understanding.

[bain_sidhe]

55. That's pretty much what I got...

Or, to be more precise, the rights that Miranda is about only apply at trial - at least that's what I THINK the ruling said. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on t.v. either. But the whole argument seemed to be about whether the Fifth amendment means a suspect has an absolute "right to remain silent" during questioning, or that the state can't use anything he says IN COURT without having *warned* the suspect about the fact that "anything he says can be used against him in a court of law." The SC seemed to come down on the side of those who say that giving the "Miranda warning" is only relevant in terms of what can be used in court.

Any lawyers out there with a more knowledgeable analysis of what the Martinez decision meant?

[AP]

51. Without reading the article, it just means that states can criminalize

the failure to give your ID, just like they criminalize the refusal to give a blood or breath sample for people suspected of DUI.

The ID isn't incriminating information, would be the argument. You can't be compelled to give evidence against yourself (to be forced to provide facts relevant to the suspected crime). But you can be compelled to provide basic stuff that doesn't have to do with admitting guilt.

I think this is a bad decision.

I think Americans should be free to not speak when questioned by their government. It doesn't mean that people get away with crimes. It just puts the burden on teh gov't to do their groundwork.

But look at how this law would play out. You refuse to give your ID. You're charged with a misdemeanor. Tried as a John Doe. You maintain your silence throughout the trial. They have no idea who you are (or maybe they can prove who you are). You serve your time for the misdemeanor. You're released. Is that a reasonable way to treat someone in America who doesn't want to say who they are?

It's an interesting issue.

[TX-RAT]

53. Would you go to jail for failure to identify?

Just to prove a point.

[AP]

54. If revealing my identity would mean that I'd get convicted of something

more serious than a misdemeanor. Obviously, yes.

But, by not indentifying myself, I'm going to raise suspicions, right?

This is a fascinating issue.

[TX-RAT]

56. by not indentifying myself, I'm going to raise suspicions, right?

Wrong
You will be taken to jail and held until they can identify.

[AP]

58. If I know they'll be able to identify me, I would stay silent in the first

place? Probably not.

I would only stay quiet if there's no chance they can identify me.

Right?

[TX-RAT]

63. They will hold until they can ID

[Toucano]

69. That's their business.

They can hold me, follow me, put me under surveillance or put my face on a milk carton. Go nuts!

But they can't legally compel me to incriminate myself. It violates my 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

By the way, there used to be an America where they had to charge you with a crime in order to hold you. Try hard and maybe you can remember it. It was when Asscraft was still in MO losing elections to dead people.

[TX-RAT]

84. America where they had to charge you with a crime in order to hold you

Failure to identify is a crime.

[Toucano]

92. No, it isn't.

I have a right to privacy. I have a right against self-incrimination.

The state has no compelling reason to know my identity.

On edit:

And if the state does need to know my identity, it's their job to find it out, not my requirement to assist them.

[TX-RAT]

95. Explain it just like that.

To the next officer that asks for your ID.

[Toucano]

100. Will do.

I'll leave coooperating with the bastards to you and the other enablers. :)

[Occulus]

81. That's about ten minutes for most of us.

Particularly if we're driving. I always carry my wallet; most other people I see around me daily do as well.

soooooo....


Can the police reasonably claim that they held you for eight hours longer than was necessary (or legal) because they had to identify you?

Also, I read somewhere that one cannot be directly penalized for exercising a Constitutional right; as I understand Miranda, it relates to the First Amendment at least: if one has the freedom to speak, the converse is also true; one also has the right to be silent. To be honest, I've never understood why Miranda even contained its first sentence; I would think the First Amendment makes that obvious.

Am I wrong on that?

[Occulus]

83. Can you express yourself by your ability to remain silent?

Freedom of expression. Has an argument in favor of Miranda ever been made on 1A grounds, that is, one has the freedom of speech, thus one also has the freedom of silence?


This ruling is onionlike in that respect.

[ashling]

48. Miranda only takes effect upon arrest.

The police can ask for your id prior to an arrest.

[Dover]

5. Well, you always have the option of doing as Bushco does....

...just ignore whichever laws don't suit your interests.

"Necessity" is the mother of intentions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56715-2004Jun20.html

[hlthe2b]

11. Actually do as the Bushies* do: just say "you don't remember!"

[bowens43]

7. Conservative judges take another giant step

toward their fascist police state. Now you can't walk down the road without identification.


"Your papers please comrade"

[NashVegas]

29. Aye

you know it's fucked up when the more supposedly liberal judges agree with the Cato Institute!

[tom_paine]

8. Wow, the Old American Republic really is DEAD, isn't it?

How swiftly it died! How fast the corpse grew rotted and cold!

Sad. So very sad.

[benfranklin1776]

10. On life support my friend but the condition is indeed grave.

This should put to rest any notion that "conservative" justices are somehow stewards of liberty and protectors of individual liberties. That is laughable in the extreme. The decision is indefensible on fifth amendment grounds, however, what the press is misrepresenting is the fact that this decision still does not allow police to randomly approach people and ask them for identification. The police are still required to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop a person in the first place. Thus no lawful conviction can be had for failing to identify yourself to the police if they have no justification for stopping you in the first place. Still it is damn illogical to say that if arrested you have full fifth amendment protections and cannot be compelled to provide any information, yet if you are not arrested but detained in a Terry stop you can be compelled to provide information. However this desire of these five justices to continue to curtail individual liberties is one of the compelling reasons to oust this current maladminsitration in November since the next President will choose some of their successors.

[TX-RAT]

9. Failure to identify has always been an arrest able offense

[leQ]

13. i think that's only when in connection with an investigation

or an offense that necessitated the stop - the theory being they would need to know who to charge.

but when there is no other reason than to check your identification, at least here in iowa, there is nothing on the books that requires you to be in possession of some sort of identification. however, iowa legislators are in the process of trying to change that, thanks to terrorist phobia.

so the 'papers please' scenario isn't here yet.

[TX-RAT]

14. You would still need probable cause.

You are correct.

[bowens43]

38. If you believe that then I have some

ocean front property in Kansas you may interested in. Probable cause is no longer the standard. It hasn't been for some time. It's now 'reasonable suspicion'.

[TX-RAT]

41. Same rules apply.

Must have a infraction of the law.

[stickdog]

35. It depends on the state. It's already come to many.

[TX-RAT]

36. You have to have an infraction first

[bowens43]

37. No it hasn't.

[TX-RAT]

42. Prove otherwise

[orthogonal]

12. Sad news ... American Liberty, dead at 227

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - American liberty was found dead at the Supreme Court this morning. I'm sure everyone in the DU community will miss it - even if you believe you don't need civil liberties because you're not a criminal, there's no denying its importance to the Founding Fathers. Truly an American icon.

[Mnemosyne]

17. UnRIP! Liberty.

[tom_paine]

22. Actually, it's true age at Death was 224 1/2 years

American Liberty or the Old Republic of America
Born July 4th, 1776
Died Dec. 12th, 2000

[PepSky]

32. Please

Born 1776? I don't recall hearing about any brothers at the convention. They sure had LOTS of liberty between 1776 and 2000 I'm sure. I'm sure native americans, LBGT people, and religious minorities were just ecstatic about all that liberty too.

This nation has never been as free as some (white) people make it out to be. I'd say we had pretty good progress from the 1960's to 2000. Before that though if you were a minority you were royally screwed. Now just a little screwed.

[tom_paine]

61. I am well aware of the faults and flaws of American Liberty.

I am also aware of the various people who were victimized.

My point is, that imperfect as it ever was, the creation of the Founding Fathers created the framework by which the enfranchisement at the Height of the Old Republic and the Civil Liberties extended to more people than ever had been before, etc.

An idealized view of perfection certainly isn't warranted here.

But neither is a totally cynical view, either.

[Sandpiper]

15. The felonious five never pass up a chance

To weaken the Fourth Amendment.

That pesky Fourth Amendment is always getting in the way of efficient police work.

[benfranklin1776]

23. You've got that right.

For an excellent summary of the importance of the fourth amendment in the maintenance of a free society, and just how the fourth amendment has been eviscerated, particularly by the Rehnquist felonious five, I strongly recommend this book by former Senate Watergate Committee counsel, Samuel Dash. http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0813534097-0 "The Intruders: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures from King John to John Ashcroft." It is a book easy to understand for everyone, no special legal training required, but quite powerful in its message.

[Romulus]

16. next step - DNA registration

you read it here first. . . .

[RickyRicardo]

18. Despicable

[Kelvin Mace]

19. This bodes ill for us..

we can now expect the Supreme Court to rule (5-4) in favor of indefinite detention of anyone accused of "terrorism".

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[PepSky]

33. Bad if they do

it will legitimize it. I suspect the regime is just waiting for SCOTUS approval before they go all out with such powers.

[Democat]

20. Democrats should point out that it was the right wing (Bush) justices

The right wing judges sold out the American people.

Don't ever let Republicans say they are for less government when they plan to appoint more justices like these five.

Democrats need to make sure the American people understand that Bush will appoint fanatic activist judges if he is elected in November.

[TX-RAT]

27. This was always law

[bowens43]

39. No , it hasn't always been the law.

[TX-RAT]

43. once again please explain

[KamaAina]

24. When stopped by the police,

especially for something like an obvious "driving while black",

when asked for you name, everybody tell them: "I AM SPARTACUS!"

[LosinIt]

25. Ver Are Your Papers??

You must show us your papers!

[TX-RAT]

28. only with probable cause.

[tkmorris]

30. It SHOULD be....but it isn't

Imagine for example a "sobriety checkpoint" or whatever they call such things in your neck of the woods. There is no probable cause at all, just a desire by the police to check everyone. What do you think would happen if you refused to offer identification at one?

The legal status of these little public patdowns has been tested in the courts and found to be acceptable. Apparently since they "serve the public's interests", this trumps your right to privacy. Well, that's rather a broad brush isn't it? Wouldn't a similar checkpoint for terrorists be just as acceptable? Or for just about any reason the state can dream up?

[TX-RAT]

31. Actually we used to have sobriety check points.

Our dept choose to discontinue.

[gatlingforme]

40. Court ruled you can have "safety checks" now which is just

the same as sobriety ck pts. it's all semantics. also, PC is very nebulous. anything can be labeled PC.

[TX-RAT]

44. Safety checks are performed by DPS

[gatlingforme]

47. yes, that would be state police - local PD can join in the cks too

[TX-RAT]

49. Not in TX

[gatlingforme]

59. Here in Illinois it is. It must be published to do the cks though.

[steely]

79. PA Township cops perform "Seat belt" checks.

Smile and wave to the nice police man.

Cameras are coming to Phila street corners - obstensibly for red-light runners. (well, gee - I guess we can afford it)

Potential examples of PC (probable cause)?
Ever been pulled over because your car "...answered the description of a suspicious vehicle in the area"? Lucky you.

Ever hear of anyone being pulled over because their tail light was out? (Oh look - it's working again - better get that checked.)

Talk to one of your black friends and ask them how many times they were pulled over. And for what reason.

Ask one of your cop friends what approach they would take to pull someone over. My point is that PC can be made up on the spot.

[Sunny_Sunshine]

86. Does this say you must show ID?

Or just that you must tell your name. And since my name is whatever I choose it to be as long as I am not trying to defraud, can't I give any name?

For example, when my sweetie and I go out, he always drives (I hate driving), I don't carry ID because I'm not driving. So we get stopped for whatever reason, he has to show his driver's license but if asked my name, can I just say "I'm Mrs. John Smith" even though I don't use that in my everyday life? (His name is actually Smith and he told me he would divorce me if I took his name - Sunshine is a much nicer name). And is this different if I'm in Missouri without one of these laws or if we venture into Kansas that has this law? Do I need to make sure I have my "papers" anytime I go to Kansas? That will keep me out of there.

This ruling is not very clear.

[napi21]

34. I guess I'm being stupid again, but why wouldn't I want to give my name?

I understand how accusations can be distorted, and it's typically a bad thing to talk to the police without a lawyer, but I'm having a hard time understanding why there's a problem giving your name amd ID. Why do you have a problem with this?

[Geo55]

50. why wouldn't I want to give my name?"

Part of the argument stems from the fact that in the "information highway" age , merely giving your name allows the reciever to find out much more information than just what your name is.

[TX-RAT]

52. Exactly

Warrants and past offenses only.

[Toucano]

57. It's obvious from the article.

"The encounter happened after someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck parked along a road. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel repeatedly 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."

Why should I help the police? Especially if they're threatening me with arrest.

If you've got evidence I broke the law, arrest me. Otherwise, leave me the hell alone. You don't have any more right to know my name than any other citizen on the street just because you've got a badge.

[TX-RAT]

60. someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter

When investigating a domestic disturbance you have to check all involved.

[Somawas]

62. So what?

Still nobody's business. And if you don't want to talk to the cops, including telling them your name, why should you be compellable to do so. Rotten decision.

[TX-RAT]

64. Rotten it may be

But they will hold you until you can identify.

[Toucano]

65. Is there evidence of a disturbance?

If there's evidence that a crime has been committed, make an arrest. Are her clothes torn or soiled? Is there physical evidence of a scuffle? Is either party under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

It's not against the law to argue with your daughter. All the cop had was a call saying someone thought an argument was taking place. Have you any notion of how many calls to the police are completely (yet honestly) erroneous? The two people could have been rehersing for a play for all the caller knew. The job of the officer is to investigate to make sure a crime isn't being committed. No crime, move on.

How is the identity of either party relevent to the investigation? If his name is Tom Jones does that make him more or less guilty of a crime than if his name is Bob Smith? Only the database knows!!!

The most disturbing thing about this ruling is Justice Kennedy's statement: "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

So the court doesn't protect the constitutional rights of people who find themselves in "unusual circumstances"?

Here's the deal TX-RAT. I'm going to violate your constitutional rights, but I assure you it's going to be in unusual circumstances. Are you okay with that? Sleep tight.

[napi21]

66. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with all of you.

I still don't see a problem with giving your name. If I remember right,, even captured soldiers are told all the HAVE to give is NAME, rank and serial #.

If you're worried about them being able to check for outstanding warrents, you already have a problem. If you have nothing to hide,, for goodness sake, say your name and be done with it.

[Rose Siding]

67. Part of the concern is the door it opens

A single SCOTUS decision becomes powerful precedent and can be used as justicfication for myriad "similar" situations.

I think some of the fear (aside from the basic sense of finding for the state over the individual) is that fingerprinting and DNA samples on request (which are just other forms of ID, after all), without due cause just got legalized.

[Toucano]

68. Hope you don't find yourself in any "unusual circumstances"

by which the majority opinion says your rights will be violated.

Captured soldiers? Tell me your joking! Our civilian population is now expected to function like captured soldiers in a war zone? Nice. Do I get a cute uniform to sashay around in too?

It isn't just outstanding warrents. It's previous convictions too. Say our guy had a 20 year old conviction for pot possession. Johnny T. Law reads this in his computer and decides, for no other reason than what he found in the records, to search the truck. He uncovers a pipe and a small bag of weed. Our guy goes to jail for possession.

You don't see that as a self-incrimination simply by revealing his identity? Remember the cop had no other reason to suspect the guy might have pot except the record of that previous conviction.

There is no compelling reason for the officer to know the suspect's name other than to exceed the scope of his duty: investigating a domestic disturbance.

For goodness sake, if you've got nothing to hide, just put your vital information in a barcode, tattoo it on your forehead and be done with it.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. Completely different

A captured soldier is a PRISONER. The "name, rank and serial number" part was intended to provide identification so that the whereabouts, or at least the life or death status, of the prisoner could be made known to people on his side. If you were captured in battle, wouldn't you want your unit, people near and dear to you, etc., to know that you were all right?

That is a far cry from being arbitrarily stopped in one's own country in peacetime and being asked for identification.

[notadmblnd]

89. I'll bet you're one of those people who give

cashiers at various department stores your phone number or zip code too.

[napi21]

93. You're right...I do give my real phone # and zip code.

I also shop on line using my credit card. I don't mean to make lite of this ID question, but I really don't see a problem. You're right about checking past records, and a pot conviction years ago could prompt a search of your car. If you don't have anything in the car, all you've lost is a few minutes time. If you have a pipe or small bag, then you're wrong, and you do have something to hide. Keep the stuff hidden at home for goodness sake.

[notadmblnd]

101. Am I to understand that you have no problem being treated like

a criminal even though you have done nothing wrong? I'm infuriated when I'm stopped at the door by the likes of Kmart and Home Depot security to check my receipt, especially if they've just seen me pay the cashier. Costco and Sams club also engage in this practice. I'm going to buy their products and consent to a search too? I don't think so. Yes it inconveniences me and I resent the store implying that I've stolen or that their customers are thieves. If they have so much crime that they have to search all their customers, then it's probably not a safe place for me either and I immediately return my purchase and leave.

[TX-RAT]

85. Where to start

(If there's evidence that a crime has been committed)
Who knows, thats why the officer is investigating.

(Have you any notion of how many calls to the police are completely (yet honestly) erroneous)
The officer doesn't know whether it's erroneous or not.

(How is the identity of either party relevent to the investigation)
It helps to know who your investigating.

Final answer-- I like yours
The job of the officer is to investigate to make sure a crime isn't being committed. May i add, failure to identify to law enforcement is a crime.

[FeebMaster]

87. What are you investigating.

I'm investigating an investigation. :eyes:

[Toucano]

91. No it isn't. n/t

[slydemfox]

73. If you were a muslim...

Asked myself the same thing as to why I wouldn't. But then, I'm not a Muslim. There isn't much to keep the police from racial profiling and pulling someone over that looks of middle-eastern origin, for some small thing.

Give me your name--then I can be sure that I inform Mr. Ashcroft of where your name and where you are currently located in the U.S. and that were were driving too fast away from a local power plant. Oh and make sure we've got you under surveillance locally now that we know your name.

[RapidCreek]

77. Let's say you are at a protest and a cop stops you and asks you

to provide your papers...or identify yourself....Let's say he writes your name down and hands it to the FBI. Let's say the FBI uses your presence at a protest as grounds to bug your phone.

My families phones were bugged during the McCarthy witch hunts...They were bugged for five years....until such shit was made illegal.

Welcome back to the McCarthy era.

RC

[napi21]

94. If the FBI wants to bug my phone, they have WAY too much

time to waste! Talk about listening to boring comversation!!

I don't like the idea of any law enforcement agency watching me because it makes me feel weird. My son is in the military, and when I hear some dumb announcement from the Shrub about the military, I want to ask my son "Is this really true?" but I don't ask in an email because he reads it sometimes at work and I don't want to get him in trouble. As far as individual people go, there are 300 million of us. IF the FBI wants to waste their time trying to watch EVERYBODY who protests, or disagrees with the SHRUB, well, they're going to be working a LOT of LONG hours!

[WyLoochka]

104. I wish you could get this napi

You are already curtailing your natural behavior and communication with your son because, if you did what comes naturally and asked your son a simple question, he might get in trouble!!!!!

If I were in your position I'd be pissed - not making excuses for their interference in your private conversations with your son.

I really wish you could see how far down the slippery slope you have already slid.

I'm just relieved that you are apparently not convincing others here to slide down with you.

[Toucano]

46. Another 5/4 vote. Suprise, suprise! n/t

[aden_nak]

90. The Supreme Court is Broken.

The Supreme Court no longer functions as it is supposed to, that's the ugly truth. It is nothing more than a long-term, unelected policymaking body, whose political makeup is reflected not by the current thoughts of the people, but by whichever leaders happened to be in power when a new Justice was to be appointed.

So, essentially, the Supreme Court's makeup IS decided by the same gutter politics as the rest of the government. The only problem now is that those terrible decisions last a whole hell of a lot longer than 4 years.

Expect 5/4 votes for a long time coming.

[Geo55]

70. For anyone interested in a synopsis...

here's a link
http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html

I watched the video months ago....taken with a cop cam.

[Charlie Brown]

72. Even the FREEPERS

are admitting this is a very bad decesion by the SC. When people on both sides of the fence are critical of Scalia, Thomas, etc., you know something's not right.

[Tellurian]

78. Yes, it seems that way but the reepers have the assurance of carrying

special id cards exempting them from discrimination.
No, it's not in the article. I read it somewhere else last year.

[bvar22]

74. StormTroopers for corpo-fascist America:

This ruling combined with TIA (Total Information Awareness) is another frightening step.

If you think you have nothing to hide, THINK AGAIN!
TIA Will allow those in control (Corporate Fascists) to access information that is far beyond your criminal record. This data bank will contain your financial records, party affiliations, church affiliations, travel records, credit card purchases (new bar codes identify specific products), charity donations, eating habits, health records.....and much more. Those in power DENY this, but this is the ultimate goal.

Still think you don't have anything to hide? You are squeaky clean...church going-protestant-republican party donater and republican voter without even a parking ticket or late payment ?????

What about your brother-in-law???The ner-do-well liberal?
You will be cross-indexed with him.....
And your niece who obtained an illegal abortion....
or your child who receives a bad conduct report at church camp...
All goes into your TIA file.

A bogus report to TIA from an angry neighbor accusing you of liberal values???
That goes in your file, and you won't know it.

Your business happens to take you by a gathering of protesters and a Privatized Corpo Cop demands your identity....another note added to YOUR file.


TIA is NOT about finding terrorists! TIA is how the Ruling Class will determine if you are their kind of people.

Wonder why you didn't get that contract from the state?
Wonder why you were turned down for that business loan?
Wonder why your kid didn't get into collage?
Wonder why you were turned down for a passport?
Wonder why you weren't allowed to get on that plane?
Wonder why you didn't get that promotion?
Wonder why you were taken down to the station and held without charges?
Wonder why the lawyer wouldn't take your case?

Identity Documentation on Demand is just a piece of this whole picture. It is an assertion of governmental control. It is an intimidation. (It has happened to me and it IS INTIMIDATING!) It is another addition to your file.



Those with nothing to hide laugh. They say nothing like this can happen in America.

[Somawas]

75. We should all

be raising a glass tonight to Larry Dudley Hiibel. An unlikely freedom fighter perhaps, but a freedom fighter nonetheless.

Nice thing about 5-4 decisions. Sometimes some bad ones get reversed.

[TX-RAT]

96. freedom fighter?

He was just one of those that thought they knew the law, and found out they were wrong.

[Tellurian]

76. The SCOTUS is passing the Pats ActII piece by piece...

without a vote!

[notadmblnd]

103. So now all we need to know is

Who's setting all these cases up for them?

[Tellurian]

105. The Justice Dept.... John Asscroft! nt

[Swamp Rat]

82. Identifizierung JETZT!

Kommen Sie her! Ihre Kennzeichnung JETZT!

Setzen Sie Ihre Hände oben JETZT!

HALT DEN MUND!

Steigen Sie in den Zug JETZT ein!

Heil Bush-Führer! Amerika über alles!

[FeebMaster]

88. Here's Dudley Hiibel's website.

I don't think anyone posted it in this thread.

http://www.papersplease.org

It has a video of the whole encounter with the cop, which I'm fairly sure the supreme court never watched, since they still apparently thought Hiibel was driving thirteen pages or more into the transcript of the oral arguments.

[shadu]

97. must you carry and present physical forms of ID?

[Frangible]

98. All the justices supporting this were conservative.

All of the moderates/liberals opposed this. Yet another case of conservatives fucking over our civil rights.

[mare]

99. I actually don't really get the problem

We have a law like that, well, I think since forever. If a police officer asks you for your name and ID because he has a resonable suspicion against you, you have to show him your ID. If you left your ID at home, they can decide to come home with you and check the ID there.

I just really don't see the problem with the whole thing. Just because a police officer asks you for your name and you have to tell him, doesn't make a country a police state. Your rights stay intact even if you tell them your name.