What's in a Name?

Not a search, apparently. Brian Doherty has been covering the Hiibel case, which challenged the right of law officers to demand identification from citizens without probable cause. Privacy advocates argued that as more and more of our lives are indexed and cross-referenced in ever larger and more expansive databases, your name and ID is a key to such a large cache of information that requiring it to be supplied should count as a "search" within the scope of the Fourth Amendment. Today, in a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed. The full opinion is here in PDF form.

Comments

[garym]

Damn. Now the cops are really going to run wild.

[bruce]

Yes, but it's all to "protect the children." Who needs rights when children are in danger?

[joe]

There are certain "duh" moments that should cause you to question your beliefs if you come up short.

A cop coming across a crime scene gets to take down the names of the people involved. Duh.

[dead_elvis]

Can someone please clarify for me if this ruling applies to merely stating one's name, or also to producing identification? What if you don't have an ID?

[Skeptikos]

In 1982 (back during my enjoyably misspent youth) I once got a cop in a sub-urban town north of Chicago to relent from his demand for ID (I was on foot, walking from a friends to a convienent store) by asking him if he was a soviet supporter. At first he was hostile, but then we had a few chuckles as he admited that his behaviour was probably more in line with the KGB than an american peace officer.

Welcome comrades, to your brave new nation, the fatherland! (oh, wait, that's homeland, sorry wrong political party)

[Skeptikos]

Dead Elvis,

It seems one only need to state ones name, which although I make fun of the ruling, I can see the SC's point (I still don't like it, but than I'm a crumudgeon)

"This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast
to the ?credible and reliable? identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver?s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs."

[Agammamon]

As a poster on another board asked
"is it ok if you tattoo your name on your buttocks and show that to the cop?"

[Skeptikos]

joe,

You-"A cop coming across a crime scene gets to take down the names of the people involved. Duh."

A crime suggests probable cause is satisfied, per the 4th amendment, randomly seeking the info is another, and completely seperate issue. Duh.

Don't count your chickens before you meet the hen, amigo.

[Phil]

A cop coming across a crime scene gets to take down the names of the people involved. Duh.

Of course, since the law at question before the court was one which requires people to identify themselves to police officers, that makes everyplace in which someone refuses to identify him- or herself to police a "crime scene." Brilliant legal work there, joe. Keep your day job.

[Skeptikos]

And one more comment (heh)

Even though the SC's decided this way, even they
see his point, although they disagree with it-

"While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature?s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him."

[joe]

In the case at hand, the cop was called to a reported domestic violence situation (a man hitting a woman in a truck), and when he came upon the scene, found a man standing outside a truck and a women sitting inside it. The cop quickly determined that the man was drunk.

So, yeah, probably cause is satisfied. But yes, randomly seeking id from people minding their own business is another issue.

[garym]

Oh, right, joe. I forgot that We're At War, so the whole country is now a Crime Scene.

And I just forgot now that it's pointless to reason with someone who goes "duh."

[joe]

Nice dodge, garym. I'm pretty sure the location of a reported violent crime was considered a crime scene in summer 2001, too.

[Czar]

Correct me if I'm wrong... You're only required to give your name, not show ID, right?

If that's the case, it's just another instance where lying to the cops is A.O.K.

[Vigilance Matters]

This is one of the few instances where the old cliche actually holds true: If you've got nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?

To refuse to identify yourself to a police officer conducting an official investigation is tantamount to obstructing said investigation, and could never be legal in a civil society.

[JD]

Vigilance - Well, in what we used to call a "free country", the idea is that the state has to justify its actions to the people, not vice versa. As for "obstructing an investigation" - this was a case of suspected domestic violence, and a cop showed up on the scene. You tell me how knowing or not knowing the guy's name helps the cop determine whether or not domestic violence actually occurred. (Not to mention which, if you look at the actual incident in question, the cop showed very little interest in investigating the supposed domestic.) You know, I'm almost thinking you're a troll.

[rst]

To refuse to identify yourself to a police officer conducting an official investigation is tantamount to obstructing said investigation, and could never be legal in a civil society.

You're giving tacet justification to police going on fishing trips. The problem isn't what they're going after, it's what they're not going after until they've discovered (and run) your name, regardless of whether you have anything to do with whatever "investigation" that has given them cause to stop you in the first place.

The burden must always be heaviest upon the state.

That having been said, what exactly does stop me from telling some cop that my name is John Q. Smith (it isn't)? If I, whatever my name is, am not guilty and have nothing to fear, then there is no obstruction, regardless of what some porcine agent of our law enforcement industry knows or believes. Why is it all of the sudden encumbent upon any citizen to prove that they are *not* the target of a nascent investigation, rather than upon the cop to prove that the citizen is in fact that target?

[BM]

Though some of you are dismissive, this is significant. At issue in this case is a "Terry stop." That is, a stop made by a law enforcement officer on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. A lower standard than probable cause. Your rights are eroding: fundamental to the reasoning in Terry was the notion that the stop was only minimally intrusive. It allowed the police to conduct a brief inquiry - to freeze time - to decide if they could develop probable cause to believe a crime had been, or was about to be, committed. As the dissenters point out however, the person stopped was free to refuse to answer any questions or cooperate in any way. So the nature of the intrusion was always limited. Not anymore.

[serafina]

Video of the traffic stop is available online at: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/video.html

[SteveInClearwater]

Yes, this SC ruling means one must identify themselves, but it does not compel demonstration of an ID, or other 'proof'.

Additionally, I would suggest that if you don't wish to cooperate, then only give your name, but no other information, including SSN, Date of Birth, or address.

[tpl]

This was truly a horrifying ruling, and one that guarantees abuse by law enforcement. If anyone is stupid enough to think that they will interpret the term "conducting an investigation" as such and not to turn it into "whenever we want, for any reason", you're fooling yourself.

So much for the Fourth Amendment. Like most of the others, it's now formally destroyed....

[Lisa Simpson]

"Communisms" is indeed silly.

[joe]

garym,

Unless I'm seriously misreading the situation, the SCOTUS only approved the taking of names in cases of reasonable suspicion, which is not present in the case of random checks like the MBTA.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

joe:

You strike me as a bit left of center, yet you are arguing for the police state. The cops are the ones who get to decide what is reasonable and what is not. Imagine some hick sheriff in Texas. Long hair=suspicious

[John Hensley]

OH NO THE POLICE HAVE POLICE POWER NOW WE ARE LIVING UNDER COMMUNISMS

Maybe the decision was wrong. But people are going to post silly remarks like the above either way.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"If the cops did something "wrong" with that information, he could have sought relief in some manner."

Relief in the form of a boot to the throat in a prison cell.

[garym]

Inevitably we have the old "If you haven't done anything wrong, why do you need privacy?" argument. So let's nail it. (Here I'm responding mostly to david. John Hensley is just inventing his own ridiculous straw men to knock down, and is welcome to argue with himself all he wants.)

Once the government collects information, it can't be uncollected. You don't necessarily know what the government does with the information. Getting relief after demonstration of wrongdoing is costly.

Legally requiring a person to disclose his identity is itself intimidating. It can be used to make people feel watched and unwanted. It can be applied in selective ways. If there's a policy of requiring self-identification for "profiling" purposes, that can be challenged -- if it's proven. If one cop uses it to intimidate members of a particular group, or individuals he dislikes, it can be very difficult to prove he's doing it purposefully.

david's point can be turned around. The overwhelming majority of people are going to cooperate with the police when they see a legitimate reason for asking them questions. The number who won't respond under such circumstances is small. But the right to refuse when the questioning is unreasonable is -- or rather was -- an important defense against the abuse of power. The MBTA's random ID checks are a prime example of such abuse. The Supreme Court has just removed that defense.

[david]

I'm amazed at the "freeper"-like mentality of so many comments here.

Hiibel should have given his name. Period. There was absolutely no reason NOT to do so.

If the cops did something "wrong" with that information, he could have sought relief in some manner.

If the cops did NOTHING "wrong" with that information (his name), then what's the problem?

Cops have a job to do -- the job that we, the people, entrust to them and rely on them to accomplish. I understand that abuses do occur - rarely. They are the exception. On balance, the police do an incredible job. Refusing to answer a simple question - "What is your name?" - is just silly, pointless, and as I'm sure Hiibel will attest, probably much more hassle than it's worth in time & resources.

[TWC]

A. Some comments indicate to me that some people didn't read the story about the original arrest.

B. It is my understanding that in Ca at least you must provide ID to any law officer upon demand.

C. As a practical matter, I don't think the cops will run any wilder than they already do.

D. Anyone with sense knows that it generally doesn't work to give a cop a ration of crap.

E. The Supers are wrong, then and now.

F. And yes, the cops have a job to do. Too bad they don't or can't do it. If you doubt it, check the average police response times in YOUR town. In my neck of the woods it ranges from 30 to 60 minutes. Emergency? Dial .357.

Way back in the bad old '60's I was sitting in the back seat of a 1961 Thunderbird (black, lowered, with Bellflowers) when the Garbage Grave Ca police decided that my buddies and I didn't have a right to bullshit with each other in a parked car.

I'm sure that the officers were disappointed that there were no drugs and no booze and although we were all under age it wasn't curfew yet.

I refused to provide the officer with a drivers license on the basis that I wasn't driving. He finally escorted me around the corner of the building and then threatend to blow my fucking head off if I didn't produce my license. At that point my cocky teen age bravery and respect for the constitution evaporated whilst me and the cop came to an understanding right quick. He got a look at my license.

I'm certain his actions were based upon that 1968 case cited in the article (Terry stops).