It's started, Amerikkka the police state

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040622/topstories/79458.shtml">Story here

and more here

A sample -

Supreme Court rules you can be arrested for withholding your name



JOAN BISKUPIC GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- A police officer can force a person to identify himself, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case involving a Nevada rancher who was fined $250 for refusing to give his name to an officer who was investigating a possible assault.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices said that as long as an officer reasonably suspects wrongdoing is under way, the state law under which the rancher was charged does not violate either the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The ruling essentially validates more than a dozen "stop-and-identify" statutes nationwide.

"Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. "In the ordinary course, a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment."

The four dissenting justices, all from the liberal wing of the court, said the ruling broke with court precedent that had permitted people detained in brief police stops not to give their names.


Welcome to the police state.;(

EDIT: One more thought. This ruling now allows for taking the 5th to be a crime worthy of arrest, and imply guilt when it is supposed to expressly prevent that.

[truthspeaker]

1. Let's not overreact. This has always been assumed.

I've always been told you have to give a police officer your name if he asks, but not an ID or any other information. Some cops will claim you have to carry photo ID on you when in public, which is bullshit.

2. when there was a draft you had to carry your draft card

and show it when asked.
that's one of the reasons burning draft cards was such a big deal.

[sam sarrha]

8. I was nearly beaten to death because i told the cop i had checked with the

Draft Board and they said that "in your possession meant in your possession.. which meant available to you.. they told me not to carry it, to keep it in my home, they were the only people that needed to request it and they were tired of replacing them when people lost their wallets." That pissed off a psychopathic cop.. one worthy of the title "PIG". that was 1968 and i was FFFF.

and now what happens if you happen to lose or forget your wallet..?? will they beat you up or put you in jail to be ass raped...? Did you know that the USA was charged in the UN for using 'homosexual rape' as torture in its prisons.??

[MadHound]

11. Sorry friend, but you were told wrong

Remember your Miranda rights, specifically you have the right to remain silent. This includes your name. Until yesterday, you did not have to give the police your name, nor ID.

This is just another large chunk of our civil liberties being flushed down the toilet. Next step is making it the law that you HAVE to carry ID.

[TX-RAT]

15. Failure to identify is and always was a crime.

But remember the officer has to have probable cause.

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Not exactly the case in Texas.

Here is the law.
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/3802.htm

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
~ ~ (1) lawfully arrested the person;
~ ~ (2) lawfully detained the person; or
~ ~ (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
~ (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
~ (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

According to section (a) its a crime to refuse to give your info if you are being arrested.

However if you havent been arrested and are only being detained then you would fall under section (b).

Section (b) doesnt say that you have to give your info, only that its a crime to give false info.

[TX-RAT]

28. Read Terry vs Ohio

[Jack_DeLeon]

33. Terry Searches

are when the police check you for weapons.

It has nothing to do with the Texas failure to ID law.

If you are under arrest its a crime to not identify yourself.

If you arent under arrest you dont have to identify yourself, even if you have been "Terry searched."

[TX-RAT]

36. Once again you are wrong

I can lawfully detain for reasonable suspicion.

[Jack_DeLeon]

37. Under Texas Law...

I am not required to identify myself if I am detained, only if I am arrested.

[TX-RAT]

38. I will detain until you identify.

Or i will charge you with failure to Identify.

[Jack_DeLeon]

41. Okay so detain me...

under Texas law (I posted up there by the way maybe you should reread it a bit closer), you are not required to identify yourself if you are detained. It only says "its a crime to give false information if you are detained."

If you arrested me for failure to identify, well then I suppose I have to identify myself because I'm under arrest.

Although thats debatable because if I'm not required to identify myself and then I'm arrested for not identifying myself isnt that an "unlawful" arrest.

Eitherway the chances of the case getting dismissed or a jury acquiting would be pretty high since the law is written in plain english and it does not state that failing to identify yourself is a crime if you are merely detained.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

23. well then it's a

Good thing the police would never, ever, cite "probable cause" to justify themselves violating the 4th and or 5th ammendment rights of someone.

[TX-RAT]

29. No violations committed

Please read Terry vs Ohio

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

40. I have

Terry vs Ohio establishes what exactly can be considered "probable cause" and a "police stop". It was also based on the fact that the officer in Terry vs Ohio's suspicions (probable cause) were correct.

This decision allows a "stop" and "probable cause" to be turned into a crime. Now with federal blessing. If one refuses to give police his or her name and has commited no crime, the refusal to give one's name is now a crime that there is no legal defense for. In addition it now opens the tricky loophole where taking the 5th now becomes an admission of guilt which is exactly what it is not supposed to be.

If the police's probable cause(let's say they suspect I have a gun) turns out to be wrong, they can still arrest me if I refuse to give my name to them. I can be arrested for commiting no crime other then not wanting to give my name to a cop who decided I needed to be frisked.

[MadHound]

25. Perhaps where you live friend

But not here in Missouri. In fact it was considered constitutional until a few years ago to lie and disseminate in order to protect your identity from the police, is you so wished.

[TX-RAT]

18. you have the right to remain silent

After being charged. You still must identify, or you will be charged with that. Then you will hear your Miranda rights.

[MadHound]

26. Perhaps friend,

But then there is always the case that many of us have found themselves in, arrested before we identified ourselves. This is a common scenario at rallies and protest marches. So now we are left with the prospect of our missing Miranda rights.

[TX-RAT]

31. Miranda has nothing to do with it

Try lawfully detained for reasonable suspicion.

[MadHound]

39. Try arrested for trespass, or disturbing the peace

Once you're arrested, Miranda has everything to do with it.

[Skittles]

3. um, it started the day those bastards stole the election

it's all downhill from there.

[G_j]

6. it started before that

pre-emptive arrests at the Republican convention, World Bank protests etc.
Also the War on (some) Drugs has had many of the aspects of a police state and thats been going on for a while.

I think the * admin. has just ratcheted it up big time and brought it out of the closet.

[Skittles]

9. I'll give you that

it HAS been a long time coming

[G_j]

13. what is scary

is that under Bush they don't even bother with pretenses anymore, it is out in the open and few seem to care, thanks to the cynical exploitation of 9-11. The RW supreme court gave us an illegal president and supports the erosion of civil rights. And the RW complains about the courts? :shrug:

[Skittles]

45. I guess what bothers me more

is the lack of absolute outrage on the part of the American people. They just don't seem to know or care what is going on. Yes I know everyone is busy but dear GOD can't they see what is happening?

[SEpatriot]

4. A complete trampling of the 5th amendment.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a policeman friend of mine who said, "You know what, if they came to arrest me I wouldn't even tell them my name - I'd say you're so smart you figure it out!" This guy was a good cop, not some sort of cowboy.

Now the Extreme Supremes say that "Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations" Don't think that the "law and order" folks won't be quoting that for years to come as they seek to further erode the 4th and 5th.

Impeach Scalia.

[TX-RAT]

17. The officer failed to tell you

He would be held until either he identified himself or until they identified him. In which case he would be charged with failure to identify to a LEO.

[GOPisEvil]

5. So, by exercising my right to remain silent, I'm committing a crime?

Fucking amazing...

[Nadienne]

7. I guess they're going to have to take that part

out of the miranda rights...

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

10. no

Miranda rights only apply once you've been placed under arrest.

Under this ruling, once you've been arrested for remaining silent you have the right to remain silent. You have no right to remain silent unless you're granted that right by being placed under arrest.

[qwertyMike]

19. You get around it by . . .

. . .telling the judge you had laryngitis when they questioned you. After they arrested you, you were simply exercizing your FUCKIN' RIGHTS!

Works for me.
Mess with their heads.
:)

[Treaghon]

12. Does it say anything about if you have to give them an honest answer?

Cause, I'd just make something up.

[Selwynn]

14. Think that's a tiny bit of an overreaction. 21 states have had the law...

...for years now. I don't agree with the ruling, but I also don't believe it is the end of the civilized world.

16. I tend to agree -- Europe seems pretty civilized

and I think they probably require you to give your name on request in most countries there.

[Treaghon]

21. Well, the few times I got asked...

... they pretty much had to take my word for it.

I was a passenger in a car driven by a friend who got pulled 'cause he got lost in the boonies. I didn't have any ID on me, so I just used my middle name as my last.

I had nothing to hide, but how far is just blurting out a fake name gonna get them much less my real name?

[G_j]

44. just hope

that your 'fake' name doesn't have an outstanding warrant.
But even with a real name, something can come up. I was pulled over once and they came up with someone with my name and birth date who was wanted in three states! They thought they had a "big fish" and the cop didn't want to believe it when my SS number came up as a different one. That was a major pain, needless to say I was a bit delayed that day.

BTW, welcome to DU Treaghon!

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

24. especially

1930's Germany. It was very civilized.

27. Intentionally missing the point serves no purpose

Why am I responding then?:wtf:

edit--
As long as we're talking history, remember (as I posted above) that this is not new. You had to carry a draft card during Vietnam. That pretty much guaranteed they could find out your name.

The impetus of a police state ebbs and flows.
It certainly didn't just now begin with Bush, even in america.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

32. i don't know

You brought Europe into it. I live in the U.S.A.

34. Sorry to get snippy

:toast:

[shrike]

30. Indiana has a failure to identify law

You don't tell them your name, they haul you in

[MoonRiver]

20. I understand the principle of a slippery slope,

but I can't imagine not giving a policeman my name, if asked. :shrug: I guess it would depend on the circumstances though. The only times policemen have asked my name were traffic fines or accidents.

[Jack_DeLeon]

35. What states have failure to ID laws? post the laws too if you can.

Well Texas has a failure to ID law, althought its limited in that you only have to ID yourself if you are under arrest.

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
~ ~ (1) lawfully arrested the person;
~ ~ (2) lawfully detained the person; or
~ ~ (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
~ (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
~ (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

[GOPisEvil]

42. Ahh..."lawfully arrested" being the key phrase in this law.

Now, with the court's ruling, mere failure to identify yourself regardless of your arrest status can be a crime.

[Jack_DeLeon]

43. if the change the law it could be.

The way I understand it the current law is still the current law unless it is changed.

So even with the court ruling, Texas law enforcement still arent supposed to go out and demand people identify themselves if they are just detained and then arrest them for failure to ID if they dont comply.

That doesnt mean it cant happen because some cops probably dont know the law too well right now, and maybe a few others will think the Supreme Court ruling will now give them that power, but it shouldnt unless the legislature and whatever actually change the law.

BTW what is an "unlawful arrest."

Is that if a police officer doesnt undestand or misinterprets the law and arrests you because of that? Or is it something different?