"Court: No Right to Keep Names From Police


Mon Jun 21,11:21 AM ET


By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer


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 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.


Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.


The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.


Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote.


Justices agreed in a unique ruling that addresses just what's in a name.


The ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities.


Justices had been asked to rule that forcing someone to give police their name violated a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.


Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that it violated neither.


"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests," Kennedy wrote.


The ruling left the door open for what Kennedy said would be an unusual case in which revealing a name would be incriminating. But he said generally, disclosing an identity is "so insignificant in the scheme of things."


Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said America is different 36 years after the Terry decision. "In a modern era, when the police get your identification, they are getting an extraordinary look at your private life."


He said the ruling for Nevada "opens the door to what could become a routine fishing expedition among government databases," after police stop innocent people.


The police encounter with Hiibel happened after someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name.


Over and over again Hiibel refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."


In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) said that Hiibel "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute." Also disagreeing with the decision were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).


Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.


The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554."

And if you don't tell them they get to "interrogate" you.

Welcome to Bush's America where in the name of fighting terrorism you will have no privacy and no rights, where you're either a supporter of Bush or a terrorist - got it?

Iraq and Terrorism
I find it disgustingly ironic that the Bushies are using these terrible civilian decapitations as justification for invading Iraq. That is, Bush (and cronies) used the "War on Terror" as a false premise to invade Iraq and now Terrorism is worse, and because it's worse we had reason to invade - huh? The Bushies were never for logic (makes their brains hurt), instead playing off emotions and Faith.

But, they say, Hussein had links to al Qaeda. Well, sure, Bush has links to al Qaeda too. Quit with the semantics. Hussein never had a working relationship with al Qaeda, no grand schemes in the making, and certainly never a threat to the U.S.. Having a link doesn't mean jack, like I know someone who knows the kid of Ozzy Osbourne doesn't mean I have a working relationship with Ozzy. But the Bushies don't want people to think that deep. The Bushies want to call the definitions and it's not working. You can easily track how the Bushies started out by claiming a link between Hussein and al Qaeda, then changing it to a link between Hussein and al Qaeda-like groups, and finally a link between Hussein and terrorist groups.

Sorry folks, the justifications that the Bushies gave for invading Iraq didn't play but it didn't matter the Bushies were going in no matter what. It disgusts most Americans; it disgusts most Iraqis. Terrorism is increasing and as awful as these beheadings are, expect more because when it comes to fighting Terrorism Bush has proven himself incapable and incompetent. Don't believe me? Ask Osama who's smiling somewhere.