| Newsgroups |
gmane.org.ballistichelmet.heads |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Hi-
This is an interesting Supreme Court decision holding that you do not
have the right to with hold your name from a police officer. It doesn't
really specify whether the officer has to stop you for breaking the law.
For anyone interested in the case, the cite is at the bottem of the artical.
-jessie
eeping name private can be crime, court rules
Divided vote seen as defeat for privacy advocates
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
He said the ruling for Nevada "opens the door to what could become a
routine fishing expedition among government databases," after police
stop innocent people.
The police encounter with Hiibel happened after someone called police to
report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in the 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 H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Stephen Breyer.
The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of
Nevada, 03-5554
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/