Supreme Court decision: refusal to produce ID

[Hazard]

It's just another step towards having no kind of privacy from the government. It sucks that most of you are saying it's cool for the police to just arrest you if you refuse to give them your name. If your just walking down the street not doing anything what gives them the right to know your name?

I don't think the point is for the police just to walk around asking for names. The point is if you get pulled over for doing 65 in a 25 mph school zone and you refuse to give them your ID, they can bust you for it. If you're walking down the street smoking crack, they can arrest you for refusing to produce ID.

[muert0]

If your walking down the street smoking crack they can arrest you for smoking crack. And if your doing 65 in a 25 school zone your going to jail too. And that was the point the guy was walking down the street. They asked for his name and ID he said no. He went to jail and the courts upheld the ruling. I'm talking about them just having another reason to harrass people or right another ticket for something that doesn't matter.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

The guy must have been doing something that made him look suspicious. Why would police officers be looking for a way to harass people?

[Hostile]

You guys are look too much into this, mainly because Arta said it and it doesn't even affect him. But otherly because for most situations there were already loopholes in not showing identification when asked in the first place so it really doesn't matter.

[iago]

Ugh @ people who complain about lack of privacy.  Police do what they can, and there is still tons of crime.  It's not their fault, they don't have enough power, people don't care enough, and lots of other reasons.  All they're trying to do is get a little more power, so maybe they can actually do more.  Who knows?  Look at how easy it is to break the law.  For example, who here has no idea where he can get drugs from?  I doubt anybody can't get drugs.  Yet this is against the law, and the police are powerless to stop it.

I think I'm just rambling, but eh..

[Hostile]

Theres multiple factors... Us citizens want police to protect us from rapists, murders, robbers, random annoying people, pat robertson. But since most incidents are happen quite isolated or in neighborhoods where its expected... majority of the time police officers are just being payed to pull us over for nitpicky(aka minor) traffic violations on our way to work everyday with consequences that can highly interupt your life (penaltys for being late/even higher insurance rates/fine).

So why should we give them more money exactly? More power? Its quite rediculous already and its not because of restrictions like not being able to ask someone who they are, which yes they should be able to do but where are they to fix the more important problems. Being a police officer could be a much more hectic job but hell, if they even leave their city/suburb they have to turn around or call in permission just to give someone a ticket. If you ask me they need to work on all of the bullshit political issues first.

PS: Hazard you're highly wandering off the point to come up with such stupid examples before the most obvious ones. An officer sees a suspicious individual walking in an adjacent neighborhood to where several robberies have taken place in the preceding weeks. The person has a similar figure and facial layout to a vague description a witness gave to the police. The officer approaches to ask what they are doing in the neighborhood and for some identification, since most likely if the person lives near by they would presumably have a reason to be where they are. Let's say that the person doesn't and is most definitely the suspect they were looking for, the officer asks for some ID so he can at least get something on them if they are conveniently in the neighborhood next time a robbery takes place. Now, the officer will also be able to look up if they have a police record or are wanted somewhere. Well with out this new capability of the police officer, if the guy refuses and has no other obvious means to be detained further, the officer must let them continue to where he was going and be none the wiser of who this person was or what he was up to. So the potential suspect is now free to go down several blocks, grab as much as he can fit into his pockets and take off, still being able to go somewhere else again.

[Thing]

Badges?  We don't need no stinking badges!

[Hazard]

If your walking down the street smoking crack they can arrest you for smoking crack. And if your doing 65 in a 25 school zone your going to jail too. And that was the point the guy was walking down the street. They asked for his name and ID he said no. He went to jail and the courts upheld the ruling. I'm talking about them just having another reason to harrass people or right another ticket for something that doesn't matter.

But it does matter. Why would you refuse to produce ID? If you have nothing to hide, why would you try and hide it? Lets say an officer sees a man in a store that bears a striking resemblance to a wanted poster he has seen. If he asks the man for ID and refuses to produce it, shouldn't he be allowed to ascertain the mans identity? If a cop stops me on the street and asks for my ID I would surrender it gladly, knowing full well its for my protection as well as the protection of others around me. muert0, I think that you've watched Conspiracy Theory a few too many times and are starting to be the Mel Gibson of that movie. The police aren't the Gestapo no matter what you might believe in that twisted head... You seem to be harboring some kind of image of the police as out to get people and out to 'harass' you. Have you had trouble with the law? Do you have something to hide?

[Hazard]

But since most incidents are happen quite isolated or in neighborhoods where its expected...

Is it any less of a problem because they are isolated incidents or expected incidents? No.

the majority of the time police officers are just being payed to pull us over for nitpicky(aka minor) traffic violations on our way to work everyday with consequences that can highly interupt your life (penaltys for being late/even higher insurance rates/fine).

I don't know about you, but I've gotten away with little things in the full sight of a police officer. Besides, doing 60 in a 45 isn't a minor traffic violation nor are running red lights and stop signs.

So why should we give them more money exactly? More power?

If your home was robbed and your family killed in the process, wouldn't you like the police to have the time and money to thoroughly investigate and bring the offenders to justice?

Its quite rediculous already and its not because of restrictions like not being able to ask someone who they are, which yes they should be able to do but where are they to fix the more important problems.

Finding out who somebody is is a major problem. More than anything else, its probable cause which is wonderful. If you pull over a car for having their taillight out and the driver refuses to produce ID, thats probable cause to search the car. Again, what do they have to hide right? Suppose the turn up stolen weapons or drugs?

Uh, Hostile, I'm arguing for the right of the police officer to demand identification, so where are you going with that story?

By the way, if a police officer sees a man who is a suspect in such a case, and the identification shows that he is the suspect, he can take him in for questioning anyway, and doesn't have to just "get a lead" and let him go.

[Arta]

I'll fill in the story for those that can't be bothered to read it:

Police received a report of a couple having a fight. A deputy sheriff was en route to handle the call when he saw a pickup at the side of the road. It matched the desceiption of the vehicle involved in the fight. It also had skidmarks leading up to it which led the officer to believe it had stopped in a hurry. The officer pulled over, walked up, and asked the man for some ID. The man asked why, and the officer said he was conducting an investigation. The man refused to provide ID on the basis that he had done nothing wrong - he said he was just having a cigarette. After repeated requests, the officer said he would be forced to arrest the man if he continued to be uncooperative. The man taunted him by putting his hands in front of him and saying 'just take me to jail'. The officer then arrested the man for failing to cooperate.

The man was subsequently convicted of failing to cooperate. He appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, his argument being that there were no circumstances which could have made the officer suspicious (that's debatable at best, imho) and that refusal to identify onesself wasn't in fact probably cause. Note that it wasn't failure to produce written ID, just failure to identify -- I think the written ID point came up later.

The SCOTUS upheld the decision of the Nevada supreme court on the basis that his 4th  & 5th amendment rights weren't violated. They said that producing ID wasn't enough to qualify as incriminating evidence, and thus the 5th didn't apply. They also said that a request to identify onesself is so routine and necessary in the course of an officer's duty that it can't possibly constitute unreasonable search by itsself. (Simplified, but that's the point.)  Hence, the 4th didn't apply either. There is a lot of precident that supports the SC's ruling, but also some that goes against. Read the opinion of the court and the dissenting opinions if you want to know more about that.

I think that being required to identify yourself when asked is not a bad thing. I don't think that being asked your name is an invasion of your privacy. Someone said that there's no reason not to give your name if you have nothing to hide, and while I know that argument could be used to justify some pretty horrible things, that it does apply in this case. An officer needs to have reasonable suspicion before being allowed to approach someone at all, and I think that that is sufficient protection against government invasion of privacy.

[j0k3r]

I agree that being able to produce ID for a police officer should be manditory, I don't see what the problem is. As with the case of the guy by the road, they found out who he was anyways, and did waste the officers time significantly.

Once again relating it to a movie, there was a futuristic one made with chris rock and (forgot his name) where the cops at any time could walk up to your apparently, tell you to place your hands on the wall of your house and scan through your wall with an x-ray. The cops had full license to search in order to provide safety for everyone.

[Meh]

It wouldnt bother me. I carry an ID always cos i look younger than my age and i need it for lottery and occasionally movies.

How old you have to be for the lottery there? I've never been checked at a movie. My friend and I went and bought tickets for the Tupac movie (I didn't want to go, but he did) and they didn't card us even though we were underage. The cops at the entrance to that theater did though.

Cops aren't allowed to randomly go up to somebody without probable cause.

Have to be 16.

[Hostile]

Yeah, I know Hazard. I just thought your examples sucked.  

[Naem]

I think I vaguely remember that this guy had a website with a video of him being "harassed" and was so sure he would win his case. I think Grok linked to it but I can't be sure.