# SCOTUS says you can be arrested for not giving your name **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 22, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647 "2004-06-22T15:57:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/1 "2004-06-22T15:57:01Z")
After searching, I’m kind of surprised there isn’t already a thread about [this](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001961825_police22.html). So, guess I’ll start one. Could have started this in GD, since I’m hoping people will debate the correctness of the Court’s decision, but I’m putting it in the Pit so that people can express themselves freely. If I understand this correctly, the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 vote) decided that this can happen: you’re sitting on a park bench reading a paper, breaking no law, or peacefully picketing with a sign, again breaking no law – and a cop comes up and demands your name. You decline to give it. The officer arrests you and takes you to jail for not giving him your name. So, if you haven’t done anything, and are breaking no law, you **don’t** have the right to remain silent. Of course, once you’ve been arrested, **then** you have the right to remain silent. I’m truly baffled by this. Sorry – I’m truly fucking baffled by this shit. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/2 "2004-06-22T16:02:23Z")
To be clear: > [@](#): > > makes it a crime to refuse to tell the police one’s name when stopped for suspicious behavior So the court ruled on that specific “suspicious behavior” aspect. So, sitting on the park bench doesn’t really qualify. But I certainly see it as pretty ripe for abuse. “suspicious behavior” needs to be defined and quantified. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/3 "2004-06-22T16:17:03Z")
You know, I’ve seen people flipping out over this for days, so I have to ask, ummm, what’s the big deal? ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/4 "2004-06-22T16:39:16Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > You know, I’ve seen people flipping out over this for days, so I have to ask, ummm, what’s the big deal? Sure 'cuz only the people that are doing anything wrong have something to hide. The rest of us should just do what Big Brother says because, in the end, he knows best. ---
**Author:** ![drm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@drm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drm)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/5 "2004-06-22T16:44:14Z")
If I were an american, this is what would worry me, > [@](#): > > _article_ > a ruling that strengthens the ability of law-enforcement officers to detain citizens even where they lack enough evidence for a full arrest. Also, as NurseCarmen says, suspicious behaviour needs be defined. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/6 "2004-06-22T16:46:40Z")
IANAL, but I heard an interesting theory on Neal Boortz this morning. If the police officer asks your name, he is searching…for information. Could such a request be considered an illegal or warrantless search? And what exactly constitutes “suspicious behaviour?” ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/7 "2004-06-22T16:49:25Z")
Worldy, having been accosted by a specific local policeman(more than once), in my old neighborhood, it’s a big deal. Once when just standing outside my home talking to a friend some police who were writing someone a ticket decided to harass us. I refused to give my information because it wasn’t any of his fucking business. THat earned me an armbar and got his hands rammed deep into my pockets while he interrogated me, and physically took my wallet. Decisions like this, that make harassment while in front of your home after dark “suspicious behavior”, and give cause to the police using questionable tactics to get the information they seek are just plain fucking wrong and must be stood up against. Outrage ought to be the call of the day for this because while I’m sure there will be certain criminal acts foiled, but many more innocent citizens like myself will be harassed and have their liberties violated by overzealous local police forces. [/soapbox off] Sam ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/8 "2004-06-22T16:54:52Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > After searching, I’m kind of surprised there isn’t already a thread about [this](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001961825_police22.html). Pssst…check in [Great Debates](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262820). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/9 "2004-06-22T16:56:46Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > You know, I’ve seen people flipping out over this for days, so I have to ask, ummm, what’s the big deal? The big deal is that the information can be abused by local power thugs with agendas. Consider, for example, the case of Sheriff Gerald “This Ain’t Mayberry and I Ain’t Andy” Hege in North Carolina. As soon as he got in office, he began making changes designed to run the county his way. He painted his jail cells bright pink, just to drive the people awaiting trial crazy. “Probbly ain’t two people in here innocent,” declared he. Then, he outfitted his deputies in — I’m not kidding here — black boots and black uniforms, and put them in black cars. He pimped out a black Trans-Am seized by asset forfeiture, emblazoned it with gold flames and used it for his personal batmobile. Hating Democrats, he got wind of a fund raising dinner being held by a prominent artist in the county, Bob Timberlake. After waiting for the guests to begin leaving the beautiful and serene log cabin property, he swooped in with his swat team to set up blockades about a hundred yards on each side of Timberlake’s driveway. Everyone coming out was told they were suspected of drunk driving and were asked to consent to breathalyzer tests. Those who refused were pulled aside and questioned. By the end of the evening, four of the people were arrested and taken to the pink jail. Hege denied singling out Timberlake for his politics, but everyone knew better. During his reign, his abuses of power were legendary, and he made many enemies, some of whom made it their life’s mission to watch him until he fucked up and was indicted by a grand jury. In his third term, he was forced to resign. Had he had the power to ask your name for no good reason or some trumped up reason, he would have. He then would have run your name through his database to find out your political affiliation. And he would have made your life a living hell if you were an active registered Democrat. When it gets to the point that the law of the land protects and shields government from those whom it governs, the law has become a license for abuse. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/10 "2004-06-22T17:11:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Had he had the power to ask your name for no good reason or some trumped up reason, he would have. He then would have run your name through his database to find out your political affiliation. And he would have made your life a living hell if you were an active registered Democrat. When it gets to the point that the law of the land protects and shields government from those whom it governs, the law has become a license for abuse. While I appreciate the anecdote, couldn’t he have searched your pockets, taken out your wallet and looked at your license? I simply don’t see how this ruling will make an _already_ asshole cop any more dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/11 "2004-06-22T17:17:35Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > Worldy, having been accosted by a specific local policeman(more than once), in my old neighborhood, it’s a big deal. Once when just standing outside my home talking to a friend some police who were writing someone a ticket decided to harass us. I refused to give my information because it wasn’t any of his fucking business. THat earned me an armbar and got his hands rammed deep into my pockets while he interrogated me, and physically took my wallet. > [/soapbox off] > > Sam Wasn’t this done before the law? Since he already had your wallet he could easily get your name, and do whatever nefarious things they’re supposed to do once they get it. Believe me, I’m against the erosion of our civil liberties, and I know if you give them an inch they’ll take a foot, but I seem to be misunderstanding how this _particular_ ruling effects me. I’m certainly open ears though. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/12 "2004-06-22T17:20:28Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > While I appreciate the anecdote, couldn’t he have searched your pockets, taken out your wallet and looked at your license? > > I simply don’t see how this ruling will make an _already_ asshole cop any more dangerous. Because, as I mentioned, it makes fishing around in your pockets for no good fucking reason LEGAL, and gives those same asshole cops the power to do it. The same cops who formerly were BREAKING THE LAW, no longer really are. It gives citizens LESS power to demand that their liberties be taken seriously and respected. It gives citizens even LESS legal recourse in a time of violated liberties. So looking at this with a less cynical and cirrhotic eye, do you see where a decision like this is monumental? THat now we will be commanded and compelled to identify ourselves to any police officer who wants it? Until this week it has been a fundamental right NOT to identify yourself to a police agency without just cause, or arrest. Now we don’t even have the right to anonymity with regards to law enforcement and I view that as just another reduction in my liberties and I don’t like it. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/13 "2004-06-22T17:22:49Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > While I appreciate the anecdote, couldn’t he have searched your pockets, taken out your wallet and looked at your license? > > I simply don’t see how this ruling will make an _already_ asshole cop any more dangerous. People aren’t always driving cars. There’s no reason he couldn’t come up to you as you’re sunbathing on the lake shore, or gardening by the road, or lying in a hospital bed. Information always makes dangerous people more dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/14 "2004-06-22T17:31:25Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > If I understand this correctly, the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 vote) decided that this can happen: you’re sitting on a park bench reading a paper, breaking no law, or peacefully picketing with a sign, again breaking no law – and a cop comes up and demands your name. You decline to give it. The officer arrests you and takes you to jail for not giving him your name. No, you don’t understand this correctly. A search would have yielded not only the current thread in GD, but also [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=240848), which was active when the Court heard the case. I direct your attention to the excellent post by **DSYoungESQ** , which correctly identifies the legal standard of suspicion required. (Hint: your scenario? Not there, not close.) I further direct your attention to the discourse I had with Doug over the applicability of the Fifth Amendment to the case, which provides some help, I think, in a further breadth of understanding of the issues. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/15 "2004-06-22T17:32:34Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Wasn’t this done before the law? Since he already had your wallet he could easily get your name, and do whatever nefarious things they’re supposed to do once they get it. > > Believe me, I’m against the erosion of our civil liberties, and I know if you give them an inch they’ll take a foot, but I seem to be misunderstanding how this _particular_ ruling effects me. > > I’m certainly open ears though. I think what you’re missing from my anecdote is that with the new ruling, it will make situations like the above more commonplace-refuse to give identifying information to a police agent will get you harrassed, restrained, arrested and charged. If you aren’t doing anything but minding your own business or having a conversation with another citizen, aren’t wanted by a police agency in connection to a possible crime, aren’t in a high crime area, and generally don’t want to be bothered, then why should any of your identifying info be released to them? Yes he got my information by restraining me and taking my wallet. The difference between then-without the SCOTUS ruling, and now-with the SCOTUS ruling, is that now the police have the legal teeth necessary to commit these acts upon the citizenry, courtesy of the highest court in the land. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/16 "2004-06-22T17:34:45Z")
_Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow:_ > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Baldwin > After searching, I’m kind of surprised there isn’t already a thread about this. > > Pssst…check in Great Debates. Pssst… check the time signatures on the OP’s; my thread began an hour before the one in GD. But thanks for your interest. I’d love to hear your take on the Supreme Court decision. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/17 "2004-06-22T17:40:39Z")
I appreciate you guys taking the time to educate me, so let me tell you from my POV why I’m having trouble understanding the magnitude of this. In NYC, if you get caught doing something (drinking in public, smoking a joint, etc), the first thing they ask is you name and ID. If you don’t have ID, they can haul you down to the police station until your identity is verified. If you do have ID, you give it to them and they now know your name. So it seems to me that establishing identity is the first order of business in the cop / person interaction. I can’t imagine being in a situation in which I’d refuse to tell a cop my name. I assume if he’s crooked he can make my life equally as miserable either way, so that’s why I don’t understand, although I’m really trying. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/18 "2004-06-22T17:42:55Z")
In my youth, I was stopped many times by many officers of the law of various juristictions. I always gave my name and I was always polite. 95% of the time, I was sent on my merry way after a few minutes. 99% of the time, I had been doing something I could, nay, _should_ have been arrested for. Not that this means anything. But you count me in with the ones who say “So what?” Nothing has really changed. Cops have always done this. Most of the time, they are good natures folks just doing their jobs. If you don’t give a ration of shit, they won’t give you one. For those cops who are assholes to begin with, what the fuck are you gonna do? Once again, refusing to give your name has always carried with it the possibility of being hauled downtown in cuffs. Nothing has changed. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/19 "2004-06-22T17:53:52Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > I appreciate you guys taking the time to educate me, so let me tell you from my POV why I’m having trouble understanding the magnitude of this. > > In NYC, if you get caught doing something (drinking in public, smoking a joint, etc), the first thing they ask is you name and ID. If you don’t have ID, they can haul you down to the police station until your identity is verified. If you do have ID, you give it to them and they now know your name. So it seems to me that establishing identity is the first order of business in the cop / person interaction. I can’t imagine being in a situation in which I’d refuse to tell a cop my name. I assume if he’s crooked he can make my life equally as miserable either way, so that’s why I don’t understand, although I’m really trying. In the situations above, you’re committing crimes. In those situations, since you’re likely to end up being ticketed or arrested, it’s in your best interest to self-identify. In a situation like mine, where nothing illegal even appears to be in progress, and there’s no ongoing crime that the police are investigating, why identify or be compelled legally to do so? Sam ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647/20 "2004-06-22T18:06:47Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > In a situation like mine, where nothing illegal even appears to be in progress, and there’s no ongoing crime that the police are investigating, why identify or be compelled legally to do so? It’s still in your best interest to do so. Are you better off for withholding your name? How do you know how it \*appeared \* to the officer? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-says-you-can-be-arrested-for-not-giving-your-name/251647.md?page=2)