imported post
McX wrote:
SNIP I feel that the Cop has a right to know who he's dealing with...
The US Supreme Court agreed:
Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court.
However, even the statist SupremeCourt limited that. The opinion basically says that the LEO must first have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime. Meaning only during a legal detention/Terry Stop.
And there must be a state statute, or perhaps local ordinance, requiring the suspect to identify himself (stop-and-identify statute). And, based on that opinion and two others (Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson), the identification requirement cannot include demand for an ID document. Which leaves only verbal identification. Again, only when there is alsoRAS and a state statute requiring the person to identify himself.
This is a 5th Amendment issue.
Hiibel is a 5th Amendment case.
I strongly disagree with
Hiibel. Identification should notbe compulsory during a Terry Stop. That last lines of
Hiibel foresee the possibility of a time that a person could be tied to a crime (self-incrimination) by being forced to give his name.Guess what. It happened. To a member right here on OCDO. The police and prosecutor, having obtained his ID from his wallet during a Terry Stop, are now going back after the fact and getting creative with the law to prosecute him for violating a school zone. Something they did not think of at the time of the stop. Something they are able to do
only because they identified him during the stop.
Another reason I disagree with
Hiibel is because formerly your 5th Amendment right to silence was perfect. Now, you have to worry whether you are in a jurisdiction that has a stop-and-identify statute, and whether the cop really has RAS. And since you can't possibly know with total certainty that he does not have RAS, you have to assume he does and give your name, or risk being charged for violating a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance.
And, if you were brought up to think you have a perfect right to silence, now changed, and stand on what you think is your perfect right to silence, you can now be charged and convicted for obstruction if the other elements are present. Something like this has already happened to one young fella in regard to the 4th Amendment. He had been taught in school that police can only enter your home with a warrant. No warrant, no entry. Cops showed up. Noisy party. 911 caller told the cops it sounded like somebody was being beaten. Cops wanted in, without telling him why. He refused, blocking the door with his body. They threw him into the yard and charged him with obstruction.
We've passed the point where the average citizen can know his rights without hours of study.
Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
Kolender: http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html
Brown: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html