Supreme Court to Decide Mandatory ID Case

Forums: Legal, Fourth Amendment, Search And Seizure
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040322/D81FLSU00.html

Quote:

Do you have to tell the police your name? Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the answer could be the difference between arrest and freedom.

The justices heard arguments Monday in a first-of-its kind case that asks whether people can be punished for refusing to identify themselves.

The court took up the appeal of a Nevada cattle rancher who was arrested after he told a deputy that he had done nothing wrong and didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural highway four years ago.

What do you think of this? Do you think that the police have the right to insist that you identify yourself?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,871 • Replies: 20

No top replies

They aired a report on this on NPR yesterday--the man was having an argument with his daughter, and he asked her to pull over, and then he got out to "cool off." A passing motorist decided it looked like a dangerous situation, and so called the police. He was charged with domestic violence (dropped) and interferring with a police investigation--for the latter charge, he was faced with a $250.00 fine. He decided to fight it, on principle, and lost. So he appealed, it went to the state Surpremes, and he lost. So he's takin' it all the way. I salute him.

0 Replies

The Nevada Supreme Court opinion.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Quote:

So he's takin' it all the way. I salute him.

Why? What is the problem with telling a cop your name?

I don't really like the cops but I can't see how having to tell one your name is a bad thing. What the hell would the alternative be anyway?

0 Replies

The problem in this situation was that the cop had no good reason to have intervened in the first place. Perhaps you think it a good idea that the cops should show up and interrogate any and all citizens anytime someone driving down the road sees a situation they don't care for, and calls the police?

It helps if you know something about the situation before expressing your opinion, Adrian, as opposed to just taking a snotty attitude because you enjoy, in your own words, stirring the fecal matter.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The problem in this situation was that the cop had no good reason to have intervened in the first place.

Whose place is it to determine that? Are we really going to leave it up to every person the cops might wish to detain to determine whether or not the cops have cause? Why pull over at all if you think the cops have no reason to pull you over?

I find that line of thinking problematic in the extreme.

What if an Amber Alert had just been issued and the cop was stopping any cars leaving the last known location of the missing child? I can think of many reasons a cop might have for stopping a vehicle, and many reasons why we might not wish him to be compelled to let the person know why he'd been stopped.

0 Replies

tattoo you

0 Replies

Shirley once again weighs in absent any knowledge of the case. The gentleman had pulled over himself. A county mountie arrived, because a passing motorist called in to say that she "didn't like the look of things." When the deputy arrived, the gentleman in question was leaning agains the side of the vehicle, and his daughter was behind the wheel. On the strength of the motorists call, and likely heavily influenced by the uncooperative nature of the gentleman, the officer charged him with domestic abuse and interferring with an officer. The first charge was dropped on the advice of the prosecutor's office as lacking any merit. That leaves a charge of interferring with an officer, in a case in which the prosecutor's office saw no merit for the original complaint.

Typical response from Shirley.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The problem in this situation was that the cop had no good reason to have intervened in the first place. Perhaps you think it a good idea that the cops should show up and interrogate any and all citizens anytime someone driving down the road sees a situation they don't care for, and calls the police?

According to the link Joefromchicago provided above the cop had plenty of good reason. Someone called in and reported that he had assulted his daughter - not just that they had pulled over but that they had seen him physically strike her. That seems like a pretty valid reason for a police officer to stop and inquire as to goings on and would seem to preclude the "unreasonable search and seizure" portion of the 4th Amendment.

It seems to me that a ruling stating that a person has an absolute right to not identify themselves under the 4th Amendment undermines the entire concept of law enforcement. That very same 4th Amendment requires that warrant issued must specifically state the "who, what and where" of any search. How would law enforcement ever be accomplished if people aren't required to ID themselves at some point???

0 Replies

In the NPR interview, the gentleman in question denied that he had assaulted his daughter, and that she told the officer as much at the time he arrived. He further denied that the passing motorist had made that claim, and stated that she had provided a deposition to the effect that she had made no such claim. The burden of the interview was that the police "cooked" the narrative of the incident when it became apparent he would appeal the charge.

Prior to 1948, there were no laws on the books which required anyone to have identification papers within the United States. Having been in court on exactly such a matter, i know that in 1980, in the state of Illinois, to have identification in one's possession can be satisfied by being able to produce identification if required to do so by the court, and that one is not obliged to have physical possession of identification at such time as an officer requests it. The PD in that case told me that this is a standard type of legislation--she may have been wrong, but the case against me was dismissed.

0 Replies

Good link, joe.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In the NPR interview, the gentleman in question denied that he had assaulted his daughter, and that she told the officer as much at the time he arrived. He further denied that the passing motorist had made that claim, and stated that she had provided a deposition to the effect that she had made no such claim. The burden of the interview was that the police "cooked" the narrative of the incident when it became apparent he would appeal the charge.

That's all possible I suppose. I haven't seen the witness's deposition to verify one way or the other. (Hiibel could be blowing smoke too.) I'm only going by what the Nev. Supreme Court ruling contained. It'll be interesting to see if he argues against the basic facts as listed in the Nev. SC that led to their decision in his USSC appeal.

Quote:

Prior to 1948, there were no laws on the books which required anyone to have identification papers within the United States. Having been in court on exactly such a matter, i know that in 1980, in the state of Illinois, to have identification in one's possession can be satisfied by being able to produce identification if required to do so by the court, and that one is not obliged to have physical possession of identification at such time as an officer requests it. The PD in that case told me that this is a standard type of legislation--she may have been wrong, but the case against me was dismissed.

How does anyone know if you showed up in court? If they don't know your name they have no way of knowing if you've showed up and presented an ID to the court or not (unless they detain you until the court appearance...). But that's apples and oranges here. He wasn't asked to produce an ID. He was simply asked what his name was.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Typical response from Shirley.

My intention was to respond in the general, not in the specific. In this case, it sounds like the officer had reason--a tip from a passing motorist--to stop and check things out. My question to you is whether you believe that the choice of whether a cop has justification for stopping, questioning, or conversing with a citizen should be left solely to the citizen? It appears that in this specific case, the cop had no real reason for concern, but how was he to ascertain that if he can't so much as ask someone's name?

A couple of years ago, my daughter fell and cut her head badly enough that stitches were required. In the emergency room, I noted that we were asked several times to describe the circumstances surrounding the injury, and I recognized what I believed to be the staff's efforts to follow through on their legal obligation to watch for and report incidents of child abuse. I answered their questions patiently and without animosity. Now, I could have allowed myself to become indignant that anyone would suggest I could hurt my child. But I didn't, because I understood that their questions weren't just about me and my child, they were about trying to safeguard children who actually are being abused by their parents. By simply answering their questions and not taking it personally I was allowing them to get on with their job, but more than that, I was helping them do that job. Why would I want to hassle people who are trying to protect children?

Well, I'd like to ask the guy in this case the same question: why would he want to hassle someone who is out there trying to keep him and his child safe? The cop didn't ask him to submit to a cavity search, he asked him his name.

Now it may well turn out that a cop has no absolute legal right to demand my name, but if one asks me, I'm going to give it to him so he can determine that I'm not a threat to anyone and can get back to trying to find and apprehend those people who are. Being a cop is a tough enough job without dickheads trying to make it harder just because they've had a lousy day or don't think the cop is being "nice" enough when he's trying to figure out what's going on in an unknown situation.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Having been in court on exactly such a matter, i know that in 1980, in the state of Illinois, to have identification in one's possession can be satisfied by being able to produce identification if required to do so by the court, and that one is not obliged to have physical possession of identification at such time as an officer requests it.

But the guy didn't just refuse to show ID, he refused to even simply tell the officer his name. Isn't that different? How does the court mandate that you appear and show ID, if they have no idea who you are?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I think you're glossing over the difference between failing to produce a form of legal identification and refusing to simply identify yourself by giving your name.

0 Replies

sorry i feel that Larry deserves a charge. if you got a problem telling a cop your full name, try just the first name.

Quote:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

is name in there anywhere? i think he will louse at the top too.

i do have to give him credit, he is sticking with what he believes to be true.

0 Replies

I don't see this guy as sticking to any principle. I see him as a hot head wasting a cop's--and now the court's--time because he was pissed off. Screw him. I want the cops to be able to ask the name of a guy stopped on the road with a child. (But then, I have children.) And I want anyone who refuses to give his name detained until things can be sorted out.

0 Replies

i put it badly before, he gets credit for not just whining, and doing something.

as so far as wasting cops, and courts time, it is his right to do so.

0 Replies

Imagine how much safer our cities would be if everyone decided to capriciously waste cops' time like this joker... No, wait... they'd be LESS SAFE, wouldn't they! Shocked

That's my point. I'm unaware of a "right" to waste the time of the police and the courts, but let's assume some such exists... is it without limit or consequence?

0 Replies

i put it badly before, he gets credit for not just whining, and doing something.

as so far as wasting cops, and courts time, it is his right to do so.

0 Replies

Supreme Court to Decide Mandatory ID Case

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know