Supreme Court Decision Re: Identification

[aynfan]

This decision opens the door to all kinds of abuse by rogue police officers. Is there an up side to this decision that I am missing?

[oaktree]

As I understand it, the court has said that a person has to identify himself when asked to do by a police officer, but a police officer still does not have unrestricted freedom to stop anyone and ask them who they are.

In what ways do you think this will be abused?

[RationalBiker]

It may help to have the specific case to reference:

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL.

The way I understand this case the Supreme Court is basically saying, if Nevada has a Terry stop situation, or a stop based on reasonable suspicion, then the subject of the stop is required to identify themself according to a Nevada law, which the SC has deemed to have withstood constitutional scrutiny.

This was not some random instance of the police walking up to a guy and asking his name for no particular reason. The officer was investigating a specific complaint involving a subject whom reasonably could have been involved in the incident.

It should be noted that this particular ruling applies specifically to this case, under these contexts, and under the specific Nevada law that was used to prosecute. Not all states have statutes like the one in Nevada, though all generally have some form of an "obstructing justice" statute. Although it does happen sometimes that law enforcement agencies and courts take their queue from Supreme Court decisions, that's NOT how it's supposed to work. The SC decides specific remedies for specific cases, not sweeping judgements to be applied in any seemingly similar circumstance, or as it is frequently referred to, "legislating from the bench".

It has been argued before that the Miranda ruling should only have applied to that specific case, as opposed to become a standard operating procedure in all in-custody interrogations. In Miranda, it was argued that the suspect did not know he had a constitutional right against self-incrimination. In theory, any case that raises that question should be weighed on it's own merits. For instance, does an experienced criminal attorney actually NEED to be advised of his Miranda rights? I think a strong case of "No" can be made there. Likewise, generally it may be best to advise the average citizen, erring on the side of caution to protect the integrity of the case. However, the standard is, advise everyone regardless of whether it can be demonstrated that they already know their Miranda rights. And thus, cases can be lost simply because the police didn't utter those words as opposed to the defendant actually being ignorant of his/her rights.

That being said, it decidely DOES NOT open any doors for police officers to engage in otherwise unlawful stops. Terry stop conditions must still be articulated, and the state statute in whatever given state which requires identification would still have to withstand constitutional review.

VES

[aynfan]

I don't know. I am still not convinced that mischief can not result. What if there is no reason for the policeman to stop you. It reminds me of those old Nazi movies where the SS is always checking someones papers.