Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
And suppose you weren't speeding, and the cop's radar gun was actually tracking the white corvette that zoomed past you in the passing lane? You still have to produce your ID.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Frankly Mike with a traffic stop you know what you did wrong alreadyor the cop will tell you "You were speeding"
Then it is totally irrelevant to this case, where the cop was investigating a telephone tip.My argument applies to specific cases where the cop is searching arbitrarily.
Oh puh-lease. Asking for ID is such a trivial things, no one is going to take your overblown claims seriously.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Then there is the problem of my constitutional rights being violated... It is a no-win for me.And even then you're better off being the reasonable one, not demanding a warrant or what not.
I was refering to the car search.... I will conceed the ID issue.Stormbringer wrote:Oh puh-lease. Asking for ID is such a trivial things, no one is going to take your overblown claims seriously.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Then there is the problem of my constitutional rights being violated... It is a no-win for me.And even then you're better off being the reasonable one, not demanding a warrant or what not.
I don't think anyone is actually claiming that its unreasonable for the poliece to ask f or an ID; rather the main issue of contention is whether they have the right to arrest you solely on the account of refusing to provide an ID.Stormbringer wrote: Oh puh-lease. Asking for ID is such a trivial things, no one is going to take your overblown claims seriously.
Depends on the circumstances, but in general I'd say yes.BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I don't think anyone is actually claiming that its unreasonable for the poliece to ask f or an ID; rather the main issue of contention is whether they have the right to arrest you solely on the account of refusing to provide an ID.Stormbringer wrote: Oh puh-lease. Asking for ID is such a trivial things, no one is going to take your overblown claims seriously.
The dissenting opinion replied:Majority opinion wrote:Judicial notice is taken that in the year 2000, fifty-one officers were murdered in the line of duty.[19] These homicides occurred as follows: thirteen during traffic stops/pursuits, twelve during arrest situations, ten during ambushes, eight during responses to disturbance calls, six during investigations of suspicious persons, and two during prisoner transport.[20] Of the suspects who committed these killings, twenty had been previously arrested for crimes of violence, nine had previously assaulted a police officer, and twelve were on probation or parole.[21] Moreover, 15,915 officers were assaulted that year.[22] If the officers referenced in these statistics had known the identity and history of their attackers prior to being assaulted or killed, perhaps some of these incidents could have been prevented.
and
Most importantly, we are at war against enemies who operate with concealed identities and the dangers we face as a nation are unparalleled. Terrorism is "changing the way we live and the way we act and the way we think."[24] During the recent past, this country suffered the tragic deaths of more than 3,000 unsuspecting men, women, and children at the hands of terrorists; seventeen innocent people in six different states were randomly gunned down by snipers; and our citizens have suffered illness and death from exposure to mail contaminated with Anthrax. We have also seen high school students transport guns to school and randomly gun down their fellow classmates and teachers. It cannot be stressed enough: "This is a different kind of war that requires a different type of approach and a different type of mentality."[25] To deny officers the ability to request identification from suspicious persons creates a situation where an officer could approach a wanted terrorist or sniper but be unable to identify him or her if the person's behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause necessary for an arrest.
I included most of the dissenting opinion because it addresses many of the argument made earlier.Dissenting wrote:Despite the above authority, the majority erroneously affirms Hiibel's conviction by reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police and public safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself. I am not persuaded. And I am uneasy about the reasons given by the majority in justifying its holding.
The majority concludes that the governmental interest in police safety outweighs an individual's interest in his right to keep private his identity. The majority relies upon FBI statistics about police fatalities and assaults to support its argument. However, it does not provide any evidence that an officer, by knowing a person's identity, is better protected from potential violence. In Terry, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of officer safety by carving out an exception to the Fourth Amendment to allow a police officer to make certain that the person being detained "is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him"[20] when the officer reasonably believes "he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual."[21] The purpose of such a search is to ensure the detainee is not armed with a weapon that could be immediately used against a police officer, not to ensure against a detainee's propensity for violence based upon a prior record of criminal behavior.
It is well known that within the context of a Terry stop an officer's authority to search is limited to a pat-down to detect weapons. The officer may investigate a hard object because it might be a gun. An officer may not investigate a soft object he detects, even though it might be drugs. Similarly, an officer may not detect a wallet and remove it for search. With today's majority decision, the officer can now, figuratively, reach in, grab the wallet and pull out the detainee's identification. So much for our right to be left alone or as the majority says—to wander freely and anonymously if we choose.
The majority avoids the fact that knowing a suspect's identity does not alleviate any threat of immediate danger by arguing that a reasonable person cannot expect to withhold his identity from police officers, as we reveal our names to different people everyday. What the majority fails to recognize, however, is that when we give our names to new acquaintances, business associates and shop owners, we do so voluntarily, out of friendship or to complete a transaction. With the heightened security at airports, for example, passengers are required to provide picture identification. But non-passengers are free to wander that portion of the airport that is unsecured without showing an ID. Purchasing an airline ticket is a business transaction, and the airlines may condition the sale on knowing who is the purchaser. In contrast, being forced to identify oneself to a police officer or else face arrest is government coercion—precisely the type of governmental intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have one's name on a credit card or checkbook in order to effect a purchase. A dedicated libertarian, for example, might deliberately eschew financial institutions, credit cards and checkbooks, engaging solely in cash transactions, in order to jealously protect his individual rights, especially his right to be anonymous, to be left alone, to wander freely.
Finally, the majority also makes an emotional appeal based upon fear and speculation by arguing that the police would be powerless to protect innocent children from sex offenders, to enforce restraining orders, and to enforce curfews for minors. What the majority fails to recognize is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law.
The majority further appeals to the public's fear during this time of war "against an enemy who operates with a concealed identity." Now is precisely the time when our duty to vigilantly guard the rights enumerated in the Constitution becomes most important. To ease our guard now, in the wake of fear of unknown perpetrators who may still seek to harm the United States and its people, would sound the call of retreat and begin the erosion of civil liberties. The court must not be blinded by fear.
The ACLU brief goes on to cite many precedents that support its position under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I realize that all this precedent citing is a fallacy in of itself but what else can we expect in a situation like this.ACLU wrote:In enacting and enforcing Section 171.123(3), the State of Nevada has circumvented the Fourth Amendment’s
probable cause requirement by authorizing its law enforcement officers to arrest an individual seized on the basis of reasonable suspicion, and with respect to whom probable cause is lacking, based solely upon the individual’s exercise of his constitutionally protected right to remain silent under such circumstances. By criminalizing the mere refusal to identify oneself, the State impermissibly infringes not only the individual’s Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination, as addressed by other respected amicus, see Brief of Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, but also, as discussed below, his right under the Fourth Amendment to remain “secure in his person” by refusing to answer questions posed to him by the police until such time as the police have probable cause to effect his arrest. Moreover, where probable cause is otherwise absent, the Fourth Amendment precludes the State from legislating a regime in which silence alone is sufficient to transform mere reasonable suspicion into the
probable cause necessary to arrest an individual. Because that is both the purpose and effect of Section 171.123(3), the statute is unconstitutional, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nevada must be reversed.
Wow, humans will act like humans. What is your proposed suggestion? We further cripple their ability to deal with legitimate crime so no innocent man has to go through the horrible, terrible trauma of handing over his ID. Yea, we all know how producing a peice of plastic designed for this purpose can leave lasting scars.Alyrium Denryle wrote:I am not assuming by any means that it is common, the vast majority of police officers would never dream of doing something like that(I come from a family full of police oficers on my moms side... so I most definently do not hate cops). All it takes is one asshole who has had a bad day though.SirNitram wrote:Alyrium, how many cops are picking up people on total arbitrary choices? You are assuming this is common, but you have yet to show this.
The Fourth Amendment. In this case, the judge is citing Terry v Ohio (1968) which states (again appealing to its own authority):Darth Wong wrote:Privacy in public places is not a guaranteed right, nor should it be. The judge who wrote about a man's "right to keep private his identity" would do well to explain where the fuck that right comes from.
The Fourth Amendment provides that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated * * *.' This inestimable right of *9 personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs.
Not very conclusive either way.The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.
Wouldn't that be "ageist"?EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Durandal.
If a cop goes into a bar, where you have to be over 21 to BE there legaly, in the first place, an the cop thinks you look under 21, he is well within his rights to ask for ID. They routinely ask everyone for ID to cover their asses against a lawsuit, charging racism, or some other form of discrimination.
Because none of the white men with grey in their beards were asked for ID, the cops must be racist.
Agreed, but (splitting hairs here) the officer was asking for his ID, not his driver's license, registration, and insurance card.EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Once AGAIN.
YOU DO NOT OWN ANY PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT ISSUES YOU!
A drivers license is a PERMIT to opeate a motor vehicle ON PUBLIC ROADS.
This supports the police's ability to fingerprint, take mugshots, and record a detained person voice and/or image in efforts to determine identity.Individuals have a categorically different and lesser expectation of privacy in their fingerprints, visual images, or voice prints -- even when their production is compelled -- because they are personal attributes that are routinely exposed to the public at large in daily life. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 51 ('67) (finding a lesser expectation of privacy in personal effects that 'a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office').
The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what 'a person knowingly exposes to the public'. Like a man's facial characteristics, or handwriting, his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear. No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world.
(I hope I'm not raising the dead.)Alyrium Denryle wrote: It is a combination of several things . Not only principle, but also a simple question... "Why the fuck does he want to know" If some cop pulled you over, checked your ID, looked at your name, then let you go, you would probably be pretty miffed wouldnt you?
