Feeling free? - Supreme Court: If a cop asks your name, you have to tell
 

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4839009.html

Associated Press
June 21, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that 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.

The decision, reached by a divided court, was a defeat for privacy rights advocates who argued that the government could use this power to force people who have done nothing wrong to submit to fingerprinting or divulge more personal information.

[...]

sounds like CuBa:helpme

That's certainly a step in the wrong direction... :-/

We stepped in the wrong direction long ago. That step just turned out to be off a cliff and we are quickly falling.

Big brother is coming.....and man is he pissed:helpme

Damn.. even more eroding of our rights. :feels-hot

If you don't want to tell a cop your name, you're probably up to no good, right?

No, what this does is allows police under a suspicion of anything, (your fly is open, you must be a pervert) to ask for your name and go on a fishing expedition for something to possibily charge you with, or go to jail for not identifying yourself.

Not too much further from now, you'll get used to hearing the police asking for your identity papers, and carting you off to jail for months on end until they can decide you are who you are.

That is if you don't end up at Camp Gitmo in the interim. :mad:

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution.

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.

On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.

[...]

While you're there, watch the video. :feels-hot

If Bush wins, I am seriously considering moving outside the USA. Things are getting worse. I refuse to submit to a radical theocratic police state.

Does anyone remember reading the Handmaiden's Tale?

The burns me up just as bad as the patriot act. FBI can go into any business and look at records without a warrent and then the business is not allowed to tell about it or they could get 5yrs...what a bunch of shit.

Those are republicans for yah :321GFY

thats what i would think

Whats it gonna be next?

If you complain that the cops threw you in jail, you must be up to no good, right?

This supreme court has several screws loose.

Read the opinion of the court... It was a good ruling...

All the guy did to "satisfy" the requirments under the Nevada law was to TELL the officer his name. It did not require him to produce "ID" to the officer. However I feel the officer would not have taken his word and continued demanding ID from the video but it did not go down that road.

Always been the case in australia.
Solution: Don't get caught.

what's wrong with telling your name to a cop?

"Land of the free" indeed.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

The "conservative" judges are the ones who ruled for this.

If you vote for Bush, you are supporting this type of judicial activism bullshit.

Here is a wonderful quote about today's awful decision.

"Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert their right to 'remain silent' without being jailed."

So you can now be jailed even though you are protected by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. If you aren't troubled by the direction of this anti-Constitutional Supreme Court, then you are a fool. We are living in a pseudo-Christian police state.

Talk has become cheap. Our beliefs and values are hypocritical. Bush doesn't believe in freedom. He believes in control and power in the name of God.

True