SCOTUS - must identify yourself to police

Mike Kruger said:

The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to a
U.S. police officer while a cyclist has come up a
surprising number of times on this newsgroup over the
years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do not have a
constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish
people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity."

apnews.excite.comD83BGOU80.htmlOpen ↗

The police still have to have a reasonable suspicion that a
crime will be, is being, or has been committed, though.

-Luigi

Quoted message said:

"Mike Kruger" [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to a
U.S. police officer while a cyclist has come up a
surprising number of times on this newsgroup over the
years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do not have a
constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish
people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity."

apnews.excite.comD83BGOU80.htmlOpen ↗

Don't worry, Mike. The reporter's conclusion, "The 5-4
decision frees the government to arrest and punish people
who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.", isn't
part of the opinion and I have to wonder if the reporter
even *read* the opinion before jumping to that conclusion.
The opinion framed the issue narrowly, applying it only in
those instances where the police already have already
briefly detained a person upon a reasonable and articulable
suspicion that they are committing, have committed, or are
about to commit a criminal act. The USSC affirmed the
constitutionality of that type of detention back in 1968 and
those detentions had been happening well before that
decision was handed down. IOW, no cop is going to be
wandering the streets randomly arresting people for refusing
to furnish their identifiers. Not even us weird cycling
types. <g>

Regards, Bob Hunt

Quoted message said:

Luigi de Guzman [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The police still have to have a reasonable suspicion that a
crime will be, is being, or has been committed, though.

Exactly. This may come as a surprise to some but if you
aren't committing a crime, the victim of a crime, or a
witness to a crime the police really don't *care* who you
are anyway. <g> I read several articles about this decision
and found the objections raised by various "electronic
privacy advocates" especially amusing. They apparently think
we cops have nothing better to do than run Experian,
WestLaw, TransUnion, etcetera checks on random citizens.

Regards, Bob Hunt

Regards, Bob Hunt

Mike Kruger said:

The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to a
U.S. police officer while a cyclist has come up a
surprising number of times on this newsgroup over the
years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do not have a
constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish
people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity."

apnews.excite.comD83BGOU80.htmlOpen ↗

And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
nothing to hide?

Hunrobe said:

This may come as a surprise to some but if you aren't
committing a crime, the victim of a crime, or a witness
to a crime the police really don't *care* who you are
anyway. <g>

It's comforting that you know the hearts and minds of
every police officer in the country. I'll sleep much
better now. <gg>
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

Luigi de Guzman [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The police still have to have a reasonable suspicion that
a crime will be, is being, or has been committed, though.

Sheyah, right. I was stopped and questioned for 'going
around a corner on the bike trail too fast', and the cops
did not witness this (nor did I do
it), and they had no way to positive ID me as the one to
question. Several bikers passed and they didn't
question them.

Quoted message said:

Exactly. This may come as a surprise to some but if you
aren't committing a crime, the victim of a crime, or a
witness to a crime the police really don't *care* who you
are anyway. <g>

Uh-huh. That's why they did a Terry frisk on a defenseless
ancient biker who was co-operating.

Quoted message said:

I read several articles about this decision and found the
objections raised by various "electronic privacy advocates"
especially amusing. They apparently think we cops have
nothing better to do than run Experian, WestLaw,
TransUnion, etcetera checks on random citizens.

It's a lot less dangerous than busting a crack house. Not
saying you're one of 'em, but they're out there.

Quoted message said:

Regards, Bob Hunt

-Badger

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

"Mike Kruger" [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to a
U.S. police officer while a cyclist has come up a
surprising number of times on this newsgroup over the
years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do not have a
constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish
people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity."

apnews.excite.comD83BGOU80.htmlOpen ↗

Don't worry, Mike. The reporter's conclusion, "The 5-4
decision frees the government to arrest and punish people
who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.", isn't
part of the opinion and I have to wonder if the reporter
even *read* the opinion before jumping to that conclusion.
The opinion framed the issue narrowly, applying it only in
those instances where the police already have already
briefly detained a person upon a reasonable and articulable
suspicion that they are committing, have committed, or are
about to commit a criminal act. The USSC affirmed the
constitutionality of that type of detention back in 1968
and those detentions had been happening well before that
decision was handed down. IOW, no cop is going to be
wandering the streets randomly arresting people for
refusing to furnish their identifiers. Not even us weird
cycling types. <g>

Oh, right. The cops will use the popular misconception of
the ruling, not the actual ruling. WHat are you gonna do,
pack a lawyer in your panniers?

If I had one biking with me that day I was stopped, well, I
wouldn't have been stopped, wouldn't have been asked any
questions, wouldn't have been frisked, wouldn't have had my
name taken. I was riding slowly through a park. One cop said
'we stopped you to ask you questions - until just now I
didn't know it was legal to ride a bike in this park. So
what does that mean? They stopped on the premise that it -was-
illegal to ride the bike there, even though at the time of
the stop they KNEW it was not illegal. Dumb [censored]. I had a
horn on the bike and they asked me if I had a horn. A horn
is NOT legally required - why ask that question? What if I
had said 'I don't like horns and I'm NOT going to get a
horn!'. What if I had refused to answer their vague
questions?

-B

Quoted message said:

Regards, Bob Hunt

brian-s-jones-at-comcast.net said:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-

potato.com said:

The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to a
U.S. police officer while a cyclist has come up a
surprising number of times on this newsgroup over the
years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do not have a
constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish
people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity."

apnews.excite.comD83BGOU80.htmlOpen ↗

And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
nothing to hide?

Say they suspected someone who looked like me of something.
Say I was found at the time to be innocent of any wrong
doing. They take my name. Next time something happens like
this, they show up at my door. Dumbass. Why not go down to
the station and register yourself and give a set of prints?

You get in the system, wrongly or rightly and your potential
of being sucked in and screwed go up exponentially.

-B

<brian-s-jones-at-comcast.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-

potato.com said:

The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to
a U.S. police officer while a cyclist has come up a
surprising number of times on this newsgroup over the
years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do not
have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police
their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and
punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their
identity."

apnews.excite.comD83BGOU80.htmlOpen ↗

And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
nothing to hide?

We all have things to hide. They're called "none of your
business".

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Badger_South said:

Oh, right. The cops will use the popular misconception of
the ruling, not the actual ruling. WHat are you gonna do,
pack a lawyer in your panniers?

It may be, in your local jurisdiction, that in the event of
a routine stop/questioning you'd have the right to insist on
going to the police station and answering their questions
there, with legal representation present. Something to look
into, anyway.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:50:03 -0400, Badger_South <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 22 Jun 2004 04:44:09 GMT, [email hidden]
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Oh, right. The cops will use the popular misconception of
the ruling, not the actual ruling. WHat are you gonna do,
pack a lawyer in your panniers?

Next-best-thing: a mobile phone with my lawyer friend on
speed-dial.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

-=Luigi

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:13:03 -0700, [email hidden] (Tom Keats)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Badger_South said:

Oh, right. The cops will use the popular misconception of
the ruling, not the actual ruling. WHat are you gonna do,
pack a lawyer in your panniers?

It may be, in your local jurisdiction, that in the event of
a routine stop/questioning you'd have the right to insist
on going to the police station and answering their
questions there, with legal representation present.
Something to look into, anyway.

Good point. the protection offered by statute may sometimes
exceed the constitutional protection.

-Luigi

Quoted message said:

cheers, Tom

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Badger_South said:

Oh, right. The cops will use the popular misconception of
the ruling, not the actual ruling. WHat are you gonna do,
pack a lawyer in your panniers?

It may be, in your local jurisdiction, that in the event of
a routine stop/questioning you'd have the right to insist
on going to the police station and answering their
questions there, with legal representation present.
Something to look into, anyway.

cheers, Tom

This is what the guy did who brought the test case - invite
the cop to arrest him and take him downtown. The cop kept
saying 'no, don't want to do that'. Well was that b/c
there's too much paperwork, or risk of suit for false
arrest? (I'd really like to know, actually)

For most peeps, who are acting and behaving peacefully,
that's too much of a risk unless they've been in the system
before - you do NOT want to get in the system, even as a
test or to get a reason to sue. Thus the average guy can get
screwed a lot more easily b/c of this ruling, IMO. The cops
can even use it for 'sport'.

The only defense is for everyone to become a lawyer, heh.

-B

<brian-s-jones-at-comcast.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-

potato.com said:

The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to a
U.S. police

officer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

while a cyclist has come up a surprising number of times
on this

newsgroup

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

over the years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do
not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police
their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and
punish people who

won't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cooperate by revealing their identity."

apnews.excite.comD83BGOU80.htmlOpen ↗

And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
nothing to hide?

Because he/she might consider it no one else's damn
business. LEO or no LEO.

That you don't consider it an infringement is your right.
But I have to ask how far you would go with that theme?

If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight is
ok then how about:

-compelling DNA samples?

-full body cavity searches?

After all, if you have nothing to hide....

--
'He said: I dont know man, she's kinda funny, ya know I
said: I know. Everybody funny. Now you funny too.' -john
lee hooker

Quoted message said:

And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
nothing to hide?

Why wouldnt I let police in my home without a warrant? I
have nothing to hide. I just shouldnt have to. Might have to
sit the election out. I wont vote for Kerry. Might not vote
for bush though. I want my supreme court just a little more
liberal than this.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki" <[email hidden]> wrote:

< If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
is ok then how <about:

The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers, only
that the individual respond verbally to the officers
questions.

In article <[email hidden]>,

William Holiday said:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

< If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
is ok then how <about:

The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers,
only that the individual respond verbally to the officers
questions.

What's your name? Where do you live? Where are you going?
Where are you coming from? Are you carrying any drugs or
weapons? Do you mind if I search you? (They ask that last
one when they've practically already started digging in
your pockets.)

And when they've finished doing all that and you've shown
yourself to be innocent, they say, "Gee, you sure look like
the guy I busted at the [insert pub/club/beer
parlour/roadhouse name here] and took to jail last night."
Sometimes they cover themselves by asking at the start,
"How'd you get out of jail so fast?" when you're just coming
home from work, and lugging some bags of groceries from the
Safeway, one of which contains quickly melting ice cream.

And if any of your neighbour-friends comes out to stand up
for you, the cops will /order/ you to persuade him to back
off, or else there'll be a bushel o' trouble for both o' ya.
That's their way of taking control of the sitch. Cops are
such control freaks.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

William Holiday said:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

< If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
is ok then how <about:

The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers,
only that the individual respond verbally to the officers
questions.

What's your name? Where do you live? Where are you going?
Where are you coming from? Are you carrying any drugs or
weapons? Do you mind if I search you? (They ask that last
one when they've practically already started digging in
your pockets.)

And when they've finished doing all that and you've shown
yourself to be innocent, they say, "Gee, you sure look
like the guy I busted at the [insert pub/club/beer
parlour/roadhouse name here] and took to jail last night."
Sometimes they cover themselves by asking at the start,
"How'd you get out of jail so fast?" when you're just
coming home from work, and lugging some bags of groceries
from the Safeway, one of which contains quickly melting
ice cream.

And if any of your neighbour-friends comes out to stand up
for you, the cops will /order/ you to persuade him to back
off, or else there'll be a bushel o' trouble for both o'
ya. That's their way of taking control of the sitch. Cops
are such control freaks.

cheers, Tom

Citizen Keats, You are far too polite.... Welcome to Canada,
the "non-police state". And we are so polite too. Best
regards, Bernie

"William Holiday" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

< If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
is ok then how <about:

The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers,
only that the

individual

Quoted message said:

respond verbally to the officers questions.

Then what is the point?

Do the judges think John Q Law, upon asking a
suspicious character his name will get the response:
'Ladin, Ossama b'?

--
'The only way Ricky is going to get any smarter is if he
dies and comes back as turnip.' -sarah