Do You Have to Tell Police Your Name?

[JPope]

Here is an interesting case that is before the US Supreme Court now.







Supreme Court to Decide Mandatory ID Case



Associated Press/AP Online





WASHINGTON - 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.



Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, 59, was prosecuted, based on his silence, and finds himself at the center of a major privacy rights battle.



Supreme Court Website

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/



Hiibels website where he has transscript of events and videos:

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/



Case is stated as being several Constitutional admendments against governments rights to check because of recent terrorist events.

 

[Jeff Clark]

You don't HAVE to do anything but die and pay taxes. Whether or not it's a good idea to withhold your name from the police, that's a different story.

 

[BigCarl64]

I sure hope Larry wins this case. LEO's like this make me sick.

 

[Texas Diesel]

Sure hope he wins. Thanks for posting!!

 

[lgibson]

What did the LEO's do that you thought was wrong? It sounds like they recieved a call and responded to it. It would be different if they just approched a person standing around and asked for Id.



I just want to know if you really think it is wrong for an officer to ask you for Id when you get stopped?

 

[NVR FNSH]

The deputy was well within his rights/duties (at least here in CA) since he was responding to a call for service about people fighting. If the deputy would have been driving along and just happened to stop and request ID then the guy would not have been required to produce it since it would have been a consenual contact, not an investigation.



Brian

 

[NVR FNSH]

Originally posted by BigCarl64

... LEO's like this make me sick.

Please tell us what you mean by "LEO's like this" - the guy was doing his job. Granted, I'm investigating an investigation isn't exactly the most astute answer but it certainly isn't grounds for dismissal.



I'm curious to know what part of "I'm investigating a complaint about you fighting out here" Mr. Dudley didn't understand.



Brian

 

[mikel]

You know, I was brought up to do what the police asked/told me to do. I think if a person was asked for identification for any or even no reason then they should provide it. Period.



Part of being out in public is being subject to coming in contact with authority figures who might ask things of us like ID.



As to this case in particular, maybe the officers over-reacted, maybe they didn't, but is seems pretty cut and dry to me that they asked repeatedly for ID which he refused to provide, so he got arrested for not cooperating with an officer.



What's the question?



Why is there an issue here?



As far as the girl, once again it goes right back to non-cooperation. If she had done what the officers wanted, which in this case appeared to be stay in the truck, chances are things would have turned out different.



We expect our law enforcement agencies to "keep us safe" and then tell them that they can't pull this person over because something about them "just didn't seem right" or they can't ask for ID "for no reason"...



We (collectively) need to make up our minds. Either we are going to take care of ourselves or we are going to have the police do it. It can't be both ways.



Just my . 02



I'm going to have to invest in a flamesuit after this I'd bet.



Mike

 

[RustyJC]

I'm with Mike 100% on this one. One of the few things I've learned in 56+ years on this planet is that it generally goes better to avoid confrontations whenever possible - in my marriage (35 years this September) or otherwise.



If a law enforcement officer tells me to pull over, I'm going to assume that he has a reason. If he asks me for my identification and insurance card, he's welcome to it. Why in the world would I want to intentionally initiate a confrontational situation with a law enforcement officer? I'm sorry, guys, but that just isn't the way I was raised.



I mean, honestly, some of this stuff sounds like the Ohio Militia or the Republic of Texas people who don't display license plates and then shoot the Highway Patrolman who stops them and walks up to their car window. What's the deal????



Mike, got a spare fire suit?



Rusty

 

[JPope]

Note that I said it was an interesting case !!!

Lawyer once told me to never argue with the cop!!!!, do what he asks!!!, cause it can only go downhill!!!!, to your detrement!!!!



AND TO NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!!!!

Which is sort of what this case is about!!



He said there is a time and place for the arguing, in the court by the lawyer, and in this case he was right!!!!! Cop cited the wrong statute, prosecuetor did not check, cop lied on the stand (he had my vehicle mixed up with another one, mine was RED the one he wanted was BLUE!!!!, but he sort of lost the other one???) And my attorney POINTED IT out to them (he was the type of guy who nailed your shoes to the floor , and then watched you try to walk!!!, no flash just subtle!!!)



Judge got PO'd with it all !!!!!

Of course my lawyer said to avoid that town for a while, cause they would be laying for me, but as it was documented now in the court, it would be no problem (for the lawyer, though he reminded me to SAY NOTHING if I was ever stopped there again!!!

And the most amazing thing, the lawyer NEVER charged me a dime for his time, said he enjoyed tweaking fools, cause he knew from the begining that the wrong statute had been cited on the ticket!!!!

Of course he was doing things for me in other matters (insurance settlements!!), so you know he did not miss any money!!!!!!! but a good salesman!!!

 

[dan brooks]

The link to that website was posted on a Jeep BBS I'm on, and it started a pretty heated "discussion. "



After reading the "story" posted on the site, I immediately started questioning the officer's behavior, but after watching the video I believe the officer acted appropriately... and used more restraint than many would have. Nothing like putting a little spin on things... .



As far as being required to show ID to the police, here are a couple cases that apply:



Gainor v. Douglas County, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (N. D. Ga. 1998), aff'd 189 F. 3d 486 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 529 U. S. 1072 (2000) -Plaintiff brought a federal lawsuit against Douglas County claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for failure to identify himself when he was stopped for questioning. Physical force, including discharging pepper spray, was used to effectuate the arrest. After considerable fact and expert discovery, the district court awarded summary judgment to the county and its law enforcement officers, finding the arrest was justified and the force was not excessive; alternatively, the court found the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The entry of judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined certiorari review.





A small section of State v. Young (the entire decision is much too long to post - I'll add a link at the end). ... 9] Young asserts he "had a privacy interest in being free to move about in a public place without being accosted by the police. " Supplemental Br. of Pet'r at 6. As noted above, however, the police are permitted to engage persons in conversation and ask for identification even in the absence of an articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. The amicus brief the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and American Civil Liberties Union jointly filed goes too far in asserting, "This Court, under Article I § 7, cannot allow police this unfettered discretion to direct their power towards a person who is doing nothing more than exercising his right to walk down the street unhindered by government authority. " Amicus Br. at 12. Article 1, section 7 does not forbid social contacts between police and citizens: "[A] police officer's conduct in engaging a defendant in conversation in a public place and asking for identification does not, alone, raise the encounter to an investigative detention. " State v. Armenta, 134 Wn. 2d 1, 11, 948 P. 2d 1280 (1997).



http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supre...135wn2d0498.htm



It will be interesting to see how the latest case turns out... .

 

[klenger]

Mike, your comments are right on.

 

[Boomer II]

I give my name when I hand him my CHL and DL.

 

[Bill Lins]

Mike, I agree with you also.

 

[Hammer]

I give the locals here my name when stopped for something...



It goes like this...

Why hello officer how are you. Why yes, you need my name,NO Problem... Its Rob Thomas... ... ... hehehehe..... Andy

 

[Proram]

I give the locals here my name when stopped for something...

It goes like this...

Why hello officer how are you. Why yes, you need my name,NO Problem... Its Rob Thomas... ... ... hehehehe..... Andy

Hee Hee, And i'm his Buddy Doug Smith, oh wait i can't be him i'm too tall.



Pro

 

[NVR FNSH]

You don't have to show ID or even talk to a cop if he/she walks up to you and just starts talking to you - it's a consenual contact and you have ABSOLUTELY no obligation to respond or stay there. If the cop has resonable suspicion - ie a report of fighting - and you match the description then you are required to provide ID/answer questions. A cop can cuff you - restrained detention - if needed while trying to figure out what has happened.



This guy in Nevada baffles me.



Brian

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

You don't have to show ID or even talk to a cop if he/she walks up to you and just starts talking to you... .

Brian,



Why would I not want to cooperate? Common sense tells me that things are not going to go well in the short term if I don't.



Rusty

 

[loncray]

I have to go with the majority on this one - you have to assume the officer has a REASON to ask for your identity (and this cop did), and I think you need a pretty strong reason to not give it to him. I think the officer could've done a better job explaining the 'why' to this fellow, but as somebody posted above, there's no way not cooperating with the officer can go well.

 

[fest3er]

Originally posted by loncray

I have to go with the majority on this one - you have to assume the officer has a REASON to ask for your identity (and this cop did), and I think you need a pretty strong reason to not give it to him. I think the officer could've done a better job explaining the 'why' to this fellow, but as somebody posted above, there's no way not cooperating with the officer can go well.

Ah, in the USA, we are not required to carry identification if we are on foot. Period. As such, we are not obligated to provide any identification to anyone if we are moving about lawfully and minding our own business.



If police officers *think* you may be a suspect, they may ask you for ID. If you choose to be polite, you may respond with the information. But you need not say *anything* at any time to anyone in law enforcement.



Granted, police have the power to make your life miserable, and there are those who will abuse that power just to make you miserable, but you have the right to keep your mouth shut.



Giving up the right to remain silent is just one more step on the road to a totalitarian government.



N