ID required?

[jigo]

Re your statements under "Searches--Know Your Rights" that you must give your name, address, and date of birth when stopped by a cop. AFAIK, this is true only in states that have laws to that effect. It's true that the Supreme Court recently upheld a Nevada law requiring a person to identify himself to police, but it did not mention those other factors. As I recall, most states DO NOT have laws requiring such identification.

Also AFAIK the Terry decision said that a cop could conduct a pat down search if he had some reason to believe the subject was carrying a concealed weapon or that the cop was in danger--but it was not a blanket license to conduct pat-down searches. Also, the stop has to be justified in the first place, i.e., definite, specific reason to believe the subject has been or is engaged in criminal activity. In the Terry case, the cop had been observing the suspects for about 20 minutes I believe.

[WaTcHeR]

Thank you for bringing this up to the attention of the readers. After doing some more research, yes you are correct that some states don't allow a police officer to ask for name, address, etc. In most states, you are not required to identify yourself or show the police your ID (unless you are in a vehicle).

Other states that don't require a citizen to give out such information to a cop, well lets just say that the cops have ways around that. If you refuse to give out such information, the cops in those states have been known to arrest that person for such things as "interfering with a police investigation, public intoxication or disorderly conduct."

Cops need some reasonable suspicion that someone on the street has engaged, is engaged or is about to engage in some criminal activity before there is a "stop and frisk." Most times cops do what there best at and that's LYING, to get their way!

There are many police officers that use's "pat downs" as a way to intimidate and harass citizens, since it is a power the courts have allowed them to use with little justification. Often a police officer will find something during their pat down which is clearly not a weapon which they would like to see, but this is beyond their Court-approved authority. So another words a police officer may only "pat down" a persons outer clothing, they can't go digging through a persons pockets. Police are not allowed to frisk for anything except weapons. If during a weapons pat, an officer discovers something 'suspicious' and the police officer ask you to remove your items from your pockets, there is no law that says you have to! Tell the officer that you wish not to empty your pockets, because that my friend is invasion of privacy!

At least 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

[WaTcHeR]

Mon, 21 Jun 2004 - WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who
refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.

The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect
of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held
that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity.

The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police
the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law
enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of
detective work.

Privacy advocates say the decision gives police too much power. Once
officers have a name, they can use computer databases to learn all kinds of
personal information about the person.

The loser in Monday's decision was Nevada cattle rancher Larry "Dudley"
Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor after he told a
deputy that he didn't have to give out his name or show an ID.

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."

In fighting the arrest, Hiibel became an unlikely constitutional privacy
rights crusader. He wore a cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie to the court
this year when justices heard arguments in his appeal.

"A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone, but
lost," said his attorney, Harriet Cummings.

The court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not
violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The
court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.

"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a
universal characteristic. 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.

"A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the
person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range
of law enforcement databases," he wrote in a dissent. Justices David H.
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news -
web sites) also disagreed with the ruling.

Crime-fighting and justice groups had argued that a ruling the other way
would have protected terrorists and encouraged people to refuse to cooperate
with police.

"The constant danger of renewed terrorist activity places enormous pressure
on law enforcement to identify suspected terrorists before they strike,"
said Charles Hobson, an attorney with the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation.

But Tim Lynch, an attorney with the libertarian-oriented think tank Cato
Institute, said the court "ruled that the government can turn a person's
silence into a criminal offense."

"Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert
their right to remain silent without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," said
Lynch, who expects the ruling will lead more cities and states, and possibly
Congress, to consider laws like the one in Nevada.


Justices had been told that at least 20 states have similar laws to the
Nevada statute: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont,
and Wisconsin.

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.

Marc Rotenberg, head 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."

The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada,
03-5554.

[WaTcHeR]

As mentioned in another post on this board, the state of Ohio is becoming a "police state," they soon may be arresting people for no reason, other then not identifying themselves to a cop.

[KC]

jigo said:

Re your statements under "Searches--Know Your Rights& As I recall, most states DO NOT have laws requiring such identification.

In the state I live in, we must carry an I.D. at all times and produce it upon request from any law enforcement officer. If you don't have an I.D. you could be arrested.

At one time a police officer arrested a 12 year old, just because he had no I.D. on him. They soon changed the law to anyone over 16, must carry an I.D. at all times.

watcher said:

So another words a police officer may only "pat down" a persons outer clothing, they can't go digging through a persons pockets.

If you ever watch the t.v. show "cops," you might see a change in how they film police officers searching suspects. I have seen a few shows, where the officer hasn't arrested the suspect yet and is "patting" him down and going through his pockets and pulling stuff out.

My understanding is, that alot of those people who got busted while being filmed by the t.v. show "cops," alot of there lawyers used the t.v. episodes and showed the courts as evidence, that the police were illegally searching people. My understanding is alot of cases got dismissed because of crooked dirty cops, who just happened to be filmed, doing illegal searches. Now that's hilarious!