Jump to content

WHATS YOUR NAME?!


SIPPINJUICE

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Originally posted by SIPPINJUICE

The supreme court passed a ruling saying that you gotta say your first and last name to a cop now. And if you dont you can be arrested.

 

I don't gotta do nothing!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aww man, I'm screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monday, June 21, 2004 6:36 p.m. ET

 

By James Vicini

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People stopped by the police must give their names, a divided U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday, ruling that it did not violate their constitutional right to privacy or to remain silent.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a Nevada law that requires detained individuals to identify themselves when asked to do so by the police, based on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Twenty other states have similar laws.

 

The ruling was a victory for the U.S. Justice Department and state officials who said forced identification represented a "minimal" intrusion on privacy rights, helped solve crimes and contributed to police and public safety.

 

The case involved Larry Hiibel, who was convicted of resisting an officer after refusing 11 times to give his name when Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove questioned him on May 21, 2000, as he stood beside his parked truck in Humboldt County.

 

Based on a report from a witness, Hiibel was suspected of hitting his daughter, who was inside the truck. Hiibel also was suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech and the smell of alcohol.

 

Hiibel told Dove he would cooperate, but refused to give his name because he said he did not believe he had done anything wrong. He was arrested, found guilty of the misdemeanor offense of resisting an officer and fined $250.

 

Hiibel appealed his conviction and argued that his constitutional rights protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures and against self-incrimination had been violated.

 

But the Nevada Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruled the law passed constitutional muster and said forced identification was a minimal intrusion outweighed by the government's interest in police safety.

 

LIBERAL JUSTICES DISSENT

 

The Supreme Court, in a ruling by Justice Anthony Kennedy, upheld that decision and said the officer's conduct did not violate Hiibel's constitutional rights.

 

Kennedy said state stop-and-identify laws often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior during the course of investigatory stops.

 

States with similar laws are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin, he said.

 

Kennedy said the Nevada law only required that a suspect disclose his or her name. It does not require the suspect to produce a driver's license or any other document.

 

Nevada State Public Defender Steven McGuire, one of the lawyers who represented Hiibel, expressed disappointment at the ruling.

 

"A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone, but lost. We believe the court's holding erodes the belief in the right to privacy cherished by so many Americans," he said.

 

The court's liberal members, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, dissented.

 

Stevens said that a person's identity could be incriminating. "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 said.

 

Stevens said such information "can be tremendously useful in a criminal prosecution."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fortunate enough not to live in the USA...

 

Although our PM is in the sack with Bush and busily attempting to remove our rights... At least we don't have crazy shit like the Patriot Act on our list of laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its about privacy. do yuo want your name in a police file for being in the area of a crime? dont you think you have the right to remain anonymous?...and holycraprun, this is america and even criminals deserve to be protected by the law. Especialy petty criminals. Diddnt you ever hear of Rodney King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SIPPINJUICE

its about privacy. do yuo want your name in a police file for being in the area of a crime? dont you think you have the right to remain anonymous?...and holycraprun, this is america and even criminals deserve to be protected by the law. Especialy petty criminals. Diddnt you ever hear of Rodney King.

 

"Criminals" deserve due process, not "protection" if protection means lying about your name. With freedom comes responsibility, otherwise you have no laws. You're talking about a fucking name. You have to give your name. So the fuck what? They still have to prove the case. It's still all part of the game. How about this? -- don't get caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SIPPINJUICE

Monday, June 21, 2004 6:36 p.m. ET

 

By James Vicini

 

States with similar laws are bama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

 

anybody heard or encounter anything like this?

 

sounds fuct up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by porque

...you have to give them your name...but it doesn't have to be YOUR name...

 

you have to give them a name..yeah i can dig it.

my boy and i were gettign kicked out of this yard once for tresspassing and the cop asked us for our names. of course i gave him a fake name

but my boy told him his name was erick sermon. i had to bite a damn hole in my lip to keep from busting out laughing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by X3

"Criminals" deserve due process, not "protection" if protection means lying about your name. With freedom comes responsibility, otherwise you have no laws. You're talking about a fucking name. You have to give your name. So the fuck what? They still have to prove the case. It's still all part of the game. How about this? -- don't get caught.

:D He's right about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as far as i know you've always been required to give them personal information such as name etc...... whether during a routine stop or before going to booking etc..

 

if you dont give your name when they ask for it.. what are they going to think..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by X3

"Criminals" deserve due process, not "protection" if protection means lying about your name. With freedom comes responsibility, otherwise you have no laws. You're talking about a fucking name. You have to give your name. So the fuck what? They still have to prove the case. It's still all part of the game. How about this? -- don't get caught.

 

Indeed. If I get caught, then that's my own damn fault. I'll take responsibility for my actions. It's all part of being part of a society. Granted, punishments for graffiti is extremely harsh and, for the most part, stupid. But hey, we know it's against the law going into the game in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...