Papers, please.

[hot_pastrami]

...and you'd think the US would consider 1940's Nazi Germany to be a poor example:

Police can now demand your name and ID, even if you have done nothing wrong. Refuse, and you'll be arrested. Ah, freedom... I love the whooshing sound it makes as it disappears.

The site that started it all.

[Pi]

That has nothing to do with Nazi-Deutschland. In most countries of Europe, you have to have your ID with all the time and the police can ask you to show it in case of suspition of any kind. That's the way they arrest most of the criminals. I don't see any problem with that...

[elSicomoro]

If the cops want to know who you are badly enough, they can cuff you and pull your ID out of your wallet or purse...assuming you have one to begin with. And just because I have an ID that says I am Bob Jones doesn't necessarily mean that I actually AM Bob Jones. I strongly disagree with SCOTUS on their ruling in this case.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Pi
I don't see any problem with that...

The point is that the police, at least in America, are in place to protect and serve the public... not to harrass and intimidate. Police already have some over-reaching powers, and rather than curbing that trend, this ruling contributes to it.

Laws like this also start flirting with some other unpleasant ideas.... for instance, if I am lawfully required to show ID to a police officer upon request, whether I am suspected of a crime or not, then it's basically a crime to be in a public place without official governement-issued ID. But I guess that's not too big a deal... maybe, for our convenience, the government can set up an ID system where we are always carrying our ID.... maybe an injectable RFID tag, or a bar code tattooed on the back of the neck? Think of how safe and protected you'll feel when the government always knows where you are.

If you ask me, this ruling is a bad thing, and goes against the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

[jaguar]

Many euro countries have had these laws for decades without any real problems with abuse, while they worry me a tad governments seem to have them under control. I have a swiss ID card, I almost never carry it and have never had a problem. Of course the swiss government is tightly controlled by the people though a system of direct democracy.

[Beestie]

I'm not sure I see a huge problem with the ruling.

In the specific instance of this case, an officer was investigating a situation that, on its face, looked extremely irregular. The cop went to investigate and the guy refuses to cooperate when he clearly should have. Had he not acted like a complete prick, the whole thing probably would have evaporated right then and there.

I guess my point is a cop whose intention it is to hassle someone didn't need this ruling. They already have enough interpretive bullshit to justify a shakedown (e.g., "reasonable suspicion", "his taillight was out", "he flipped me off", "he was taking pictures of a bridge", "he checked Mein Kampf out of the library and returned it a day late", etc.).

If a cop wants to screw with you, he doesn't need this ruling - he's already got a full bag of tricks.

The other thing is that this is unrelated to the Patriot Acts and the Constitutionally affronting garbage that Congress is shoveling out these days. I think there is an obvious temptation to lump this in with all that as another 'oops' down the slippery slope but, to me, this is more related to a Miranda rights case than anything which would have happened 9/11 or no 9/11.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by jaguar
Many euro countries have had these laws for decades without any real problems with abuse, while they worry me a tad governments seem to have them under control.

When it comes to things like this in the U.S., my worry stems largely from the trend. If this ruling came down ten years ago, it probably wouldn't even show up on the radar... but today, with all kinds of measures being taken in the name of "anti-terrorism" (see: Patriot Act, MATRIX), Americans are giving up their freedom and privacy by the fistfuls, and it shows no signs of slowing.

Although this ruling isn't related to anti-terrorism, it's timing causes it to be inevitably viewed through that lens. The motivation is not in question, just the ruling itself.

[jinx]

[i] I think there is an obvious temptation to lump this in with all that as another 'oops' down the slippery slope but, to me, this is more related to a Miranda rights case than anything which would have happened 9/11 or no 9/11. [/b]

That's sorta what I was thinking. So you have the right to remain silent after you are arrested, but not before? So you can be arrested for remaining silent, but then at that point, you have the right to (remain silent), so are you still arrested since you are within your rights? I'm so confused....

[OnyxCougar]

The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses, but Justice John Paul Stevens said requiring people to divulge their name still goes too far.

You don't have to show ID. You have to tell them your name.

Originally posted by Beestie
I'm not sure I see a huge problem with the ruling.


I guess my point is a cop whose intention it is to hassle someone didn't need this ruling. They already have enough interpretive bullshit to justify a shakedown (e.g., "reasonable suspicion", "his taillight was out", "he flipped me off", "he was taking pictures of a bridge", "he checked Mein Kampf out of the library and returned it a day late", etc.).

If a cop wants to screw with you, he doesn't need this ruling - he's already got a full bag of tricks.

Yes, indeed. Here's a true story. Me and my trusty sidekick were driving down an empty stretch of highway in western Colorado. I was at the wheel and obeying the speed limit (for once!). There was nothing wrong with my car. It had valid front and back plates, tailights and signals worked, etc. Suddenly out of nowhere, officer descends upon us and pulls us over. I scrabble around for all the correct documents - license, proof of insurance, title while feeling completely confused about the reason for this encounter with the highway patrol.

The cop stares with true longing in his eyes at my friend, Mike. Mike has long hair and a beard and looks the complete part of a hippy musician. I'm sure the cop was hoping that we had been driving along toking on some of Mexico's finest weed, but, alas for him, we had only been smoking American Spirit cigarettes, a pack of which lay in full evidence on the dash.

The cop went back to his car and ran my papers thru his computer and I came up clean, much to his disappointment. He came back up to the car, stared with longing at Mike again (I know the cop was dying for an excuse to get him out of the car and search him for countraband, but Mike gave him no excuse - just smiled nicely at him. The cop then told me that he had pulled me over because I had a small "dream catcher" with dangling feathers attached to my rear view mirror. He claimed that this item constituted a hazard because it blocked my vision (it did no such thing, its small and in no way impacted my ability to see what was in front or behind me). The cop ordered me to remove it. For a moment I considered challenging him on the basis of freedom of religion (I am part Cherokee and that medicine wheel has great significance to me - like what someone else might think about a cross or a St. Christopher medal). However, I decided that the better part of valor was silence, so I removed the dream catcher and when we had gotten about 10 miles down the road, Mike tied it back on again.

I suppose under the new law, the cop could now have asked Mike for his name and run him on the computer, as well. Neither one of us had anything to hide, but the whole police state aspect of it is disturbing to say the least.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They stop people around here for shit hanging on the mirror all the time. It's a legal catch all.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Beestie
In the specific instance of this case, an officer was investigating a situation that, on its face, looked extremely irregular. The cop went to investigate and the guy refuses to cooperate when he clearly should have. Had he not acted like a complete prick, the whole thing probably would have evaporated right then and there.

i was under the impression that the cop didn't ask what was going on - he simply walked up and asked for ID. the guy asked why and the cop said he was investigating. the guy asked investigating what? and the brilliant cop's return was i'm investigating an investigation. this should have all ended after the guy asked why the cop wanted his ID. the proper response from the cop should have been "i'm checking out a report of domestic abuse" and it would have been over.
this is just an instance of a stupid cop and a redneck going toe to toe. and now the supreme court has really screwed up by telling us that the cops can demand your ID for NO apparent reason. i don't think this really bodes well for the future.

[LSMFT]

Well, "Come and git me coppers!" This sure puts me in a predicament. I haven't had any legal ID for years, I've never even had a driver's license. Since my marriage some years back, I've no reason to even carry a wallet. If some cop wants to bust my chops, and they always do, I'd better get a library card, or one of those "sandwich club" cards my deli offers.

[smoothmoniker]

you don't have to carry ID, you just have to give them a name.

-sm

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
you don't have to carry ID, you just have to give them a name.

-sm

It better be the correct name because if they find out your real one, you will be charged with impersonation in order to decieve a police officer.