SCOTUS - must identify yourself to police

Mike Kruger

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."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html

--
---
Mike Kruger Blog:
http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/

Luigi De Guzman

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>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."
>
>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html

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

-Luigi

Hunrobe

>"Mike Kruger" MikeKr@mouse-potato.com

wrote in part:

>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."
>
>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html
>

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

Hunrobe

>Luigi de Guzman luigi12081@cox.net

wrote:

>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

brian-s-jones-a

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>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."
>
>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html

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

Terry Morse

Hunrobe wrote:

> 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 http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Badger_south

On 22 Jun 2004 06:13:30 GMT, hunrobe@aol.com (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Luigi de Guzman luigi12081@cox.net
>
>wrote:
>
>>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.

>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.

>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.

>Regards, Bob Hunt

-Badger

Badger_south

On 22 Jun 2004 04:44:09 GMT, hunrobe@aol.com (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>"Mike Kruger" MikeKr@mouse-potato.com
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>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."
>>
>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html
>>
>
>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 shites. 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

>Regards, Bob Hunt

Badger_south

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:00:21 -0700, brian-s-jones-at-comcast.net wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
>potato.com> wrote:
>
>>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."
>>
>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html
>
>
>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

Drs

<brian-s-jones-at-comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cqegd0l9ujc10p9ajvigspddkek0g0s1ss@4ax.com
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
> potato.com> wrote:
>
>> 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."
>>
>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html
>
> 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?

Tom Keats

In article <fghgd052u3uhfjre9pd0fqpamfg9kuk8sl@4ax.com>,
Badger_South <Badger@South.net> writes:

> 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

Luigi De Guzman

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:50:03 -0400, Badger_South <Badger@South.net>
wrote:

>On 22 Jun 2004 04:44:09 GMT, hunrobe@aol.com
>(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

Luigi De Guzman

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:13:03 -0700, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

> In article <fghgd052u3uhfjre9pd0fqpamfg9kuk8sl@4ax.com>,
> Badger_South <Badger@South.net> writes:
>
>> 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

>
>cheers, Tom

Badger_south

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:13:03 -0700, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <fghgd052u3uhfjre9pd0fqpamfg9kuk8sl@4ax.com>,
> Badger_South <Badger@South.net> writes:
>
>> 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