I would assume it’s in your best interests in any situation.
then that’s called busting your chops, which they can also do without knowing your name.
Call it what you want, it’s still a violation of my liberties as a law-abiding citizen wanted of no crime to compell me to identify myself. Would I act the same way in the same situation today? Maybe not, but not because it’s ok with me. More simply I understand that they can and will do as they please to get what they want.
I still might explain that I’m uncomfortable identifying myself, but in the end I feel I would provide the info requested-a lesson of youth learned.
Sam
(From this older GQ thread I didn’t want to resurrect.)
So, Bricker: would, for example, a person be required to spell his name after verbally giving it? In this particular scenario, a person is stopped (assuming he’s walking) for suspicious activity; when asked for identification, he admits he has none on him, but willingly gives his first and last names. The names, however, are non-conventional and could be spelled any number of ways. For this case, let’s use, “Cephus Nziramasanga”.
Should the officer question how to spell the name, would Cephus be required to give the proper spelling? (After all, he did say it aloud.) Also, if the officer couldn’t understand the name as given or the spelling if spoken aloud (the suspect may have a thick accent or speech impediment), would the suspect be within his legal rights to refuse to write it down for the officer?
I’m just wondering if this particular Supreme Court ruling addresses scenarios such as these.
I think I understand where you’re coming from. Sometimes it’s hard to tell if people are freaking out because “the man” has done something bad, or just done something at all.
I work for a constitutional law attorney. After a 5 minute conversation about Hibbel, he actually feels that the ruling will give citizens and police officers a clearer idea of what an officer of the law may ask you for in terms of identification. Whereas before, they could demand and force you to provide all of your information, Hibbel now says they may ask for your name only. Then beyond that you get into what would require further information/probable cause/reasonable suspicion for detention, arrest or further investigation.
Just another take on the decision I guess. I still think it will allow those who would break the law anyways a little greater power, but I suppose time will tell.
Sam
The ruling does not go into this level of detail, but there are basic principles of statutory construction which may be helpful in answering the question.
If the law requires that you give your name, then that’s what you must do. Criminal statutes especially are strictly construed in favor of the accused. I cannot imagine a successful prosecution of Mr. Nziramasanga if he gives his name but refuses to spell it. He has, after all, complied with the law.
Similarly, a suspect would not be required to write anything down. I would note, however, that feigning an accent or speech impediment may be a crime in those circumstances, as well as vitiating the defense that the accused did indeed provide his name.
- Rick
In Brunswick, Georgia, several G-8 protestors are being held for disturbing the peace during the recent summit. The police are holding them in jail because they have refused to give their real names.
Is there some mechanism before this ruling that would have allowed these people to be released without giving up their names?
In the situation you’re describing the officer had “probable cause” which is a higher standard. People have long been required to identify themselves in that situation.
The decision of the OP lowers the standard for self-identification to “suspicious behavior”. In the particular instance of the case, the defendant was apparently being questioned because he was in the vicinity of where a crime had occurred with no other evidence to indicate he had committed the crime.
No, they don’t. The ruling was rather specific about the ability to ask for I.D… In short, the cops can’t without probable cause. If a cop asks you your name, and you say “John Jacob Jingleheimerschmitz”, the cop can’t ask for your ID to confirm that your name is my name too. (No comment on whether giving an obvious alias would constitute probable cause).
Demanding ID would fall under the search and seizure clause of the fourth ammendment. Simply asking your name does not. At least that’s what the Court seems to be thinking.
Usually, I get up in arms when the courts infringe on civil liberties. This case has only made me say “eh”. I have been trying to figure out an argument against the ruling, but can’t seem to think of any way it would be unconstitutional. I want to hate it, but it doesn’t seem to violate either the fourth or fifth ammendment.
Perfectly reasonable. I asked Sheriff Bennet about this when he came into Bennie’s Red Barn (I bartend there on weekends). Not having a name means they are a bond risk. Because they can’t post a bond without a name (who the hell is going to underwrite “anonymous protestor”?), there’s no reason to be confident they will show up for their court date. Therefore, they can’t be released on their own recognisance for the same reason judges don’t release defendants deemed a flight risk.
Interesting. Thank you very much.
Previously, they didn’t even have that ability, but they demanded, finagled, lied and forced citizens to reveal this information. Now they’ve been given more ability to procure this information. So now that they have more latitude, do you really think violations of personal liberties will decrease?
And it’s not probable cause, it lowers the burden of proof to “reasonable suspicion”, which is a damn sight less than probable cause. It’s the difference between an officer actually seeing someone smoking something AND smelling weed in the vicinity and a police officer just smelling weed and approaching random citizens to ask them for their information(for instance).
Sam
Twenty+ years ago I moved in with my sister and BIL to attend a “Magnet” high school and I was told by my sister that if I stepped out of the house to always! carry I.D. or I was subject to being detained by the police on “suspicion” (this was in the Montrose area in Houston, Texas). I laugh at people who “demand that their rights are respected” on the side of the road as it just seems to keep them longer and get them looked at more closely, the guy that took this to the SCOTUS was (at least he looked to me like) a belligerent drunk.
I don’t see that anything has changed, if I am the LEO asking and you won’t prove to me who you are you have my FULL and COMPLETE attention.
Unclviny
I think you’re misunderstanding this ruling. From the Boston Globe:
The “reasonable suspicion” thing is nothing new, and still only applies to verbal requests. Demanding an ID still falls under “probable cause”. I’m trying to find an online cite for that, but so far no such luck. I’ll try again later.
No, I don’t think I am.
From the original link:
Suspicious behavior falls under reasonable suspicion or less. Loitering could probably be considered “suspicious” behavior. So now it doesn’t even take an investigation of a crime, or criminal activity in the vicinity to give them the right to ask for your name.
Sam
NO!!!
Will you, for the love of all that’s holy, please stop?
You continue to misstate the law, aided, I admit, by the slothful reporting of the various news stories.
“Reasonable, articulable suspicion,” which is required under this ruling, has been the standard since 1968 to permit a brief, investigative stop. The curent ruling does not change that.
The following lines will describe “reasonable, articulable suspicion.” I have repeated them many times on this board.
Reasonable, articulable suspicion is a standard less than probable cause, but above that of a mere unparticularized hunch. An officer must be able to point to specific, articulable facts that, taken together, suggest to a reasonable person a particular suspicion of criminal conduct. Each situation is different, and the totality of the circumstances must be examined.
Untrue. If you had read the links I provided above, or done a search on “Terry stops” or “reasonable articulable suspicion” you would know this. “Reasonable, articulable suspicion” requires suspicion of a crime. Mere loitering about, without more, does not rise to the level of “reasonable, articulable suspicion.” Loitering in an area known for drug traffic, late at night, and exhibiting nervous behavior when seeing the police probably DOES rise to “reasonable, articulable suspicion.” But of course, it has SINCE 1968!
I apologize for getting hot under the collar here, but it’s very frustrating to see this sort of misrepresentation of fact on the Straight Dope Message Boards.
- Rick
In lieu of having the decision on my desk, I can only go on what reporters report-above and beyond Terry stops. Thanks for ironing it out.
Psst… Check again… That’s OK though, your thread is better than mine. 
Ah, I found the cite I was looking for. Funny thing is, it was the same story from the Boston Globe I linked to previously. Here’s the relevant quote:
So, Gawd, asking your name has been added to the list of things the police can do under the “reasonable suspicion” rubric first adopted in 1968. But asking for your ID still constitutes a search and probable cause is required.
Perhaps we were talking past each other, but all I was ever trying to say was that the police need probable cause to demand identification papers. This ruling hasn’t changed that. It sounds a lot scarier than it actually is.
It doesn’t seem unconstitutional to me, but I’m no lawyer. I’d like to hear arguments from other posters as to how this violates either the fourth or fifth ammendment.
I believe we were talking past each other.
I haven’t said it was unconstitutional, and I wasn’t talking about ID. Just the compulsory requirement to identify yourself upon request from an officer of the law in the absence of any sort of information that would lead an officer to believe wrongdoing had been committed.