If a cop asks for your name...

[Whoracle]

Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

Really? Where here in USA that's not the case. It must suck to live in Communist America, Communist Russia sure sucked for me.

[LostAngeles]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

I carry my IDs and such on me at all times in the event of an emergency, such as a car accident, earthquake, or stray bullet where those finding/treating me would need some identification. That's common sense, not "Communism".

Were you looking for, say, "Tolitarian"?

[Chad Noles]

From the source: On the Net:

The ruling: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040621hiibel.pdf

Perhaps this will answer many of your questions.

[shuize]

I may be repeating what has already been posted above, but I think it's an important point:

If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking....

[crimresearch]

"If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking...."


It never hurts to have in the report that the officer had PC, *and* got consent to search.
Redundant, but you never know when something will be excluded later in the process, so cops may ask when they are going to go ahead and search anyway.

And asking for consent to search in the *absence* of probable cause also serves another very important investigative function which may allow the officer to develop PC on the spot.

[Art Vandelay]

What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions? This is not an extension of a Terry stop; the Terry stop deals with what the cop can do, this deals with what the suspect must do. During a Terry stop, a cop can search for weapons. But can he demand that you tell him where you've hidden your weapon, and prosecute you if you refuse?

Also, if I give consent to a search, and the cop tears up my carpet, is the evidence admissable? Isn't tearing up a carpet vandalism? And isn't evidence collected by the police during a crime inadmissable? Seems to me that giving permission for a search and giving permission for vandalism are two completely different things.

[shuize]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
"If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking...."


It never hurts to have in the report that the officer had PC, *and* got consent to search.
Redundant, but you never know when something will be excluded later in the process, so cops may ask when they are going to go ahead and search anyway.

And asking for consent to search in the *absence* of probable cause also serves another very important investigative function which may allow the officer to develop PC on the spot.

I understand your point about how police officers "develop" probable cause (like when the police ask a potential subject if they can pat him down/search his car and he takes off running -- Yippie! Automatic P.C.). But in cases where probable cause is borderline, couldn't the fact that an officer asks for consent also work against him?

Defense attorney at suppression/probable cause hearing: "Well, Your Honor, if probable cause were so obvious in this case, why'd the police even ask the suspect for consent to search? And why, as in this case, after asking and being refused consent, did they go ahead and search him anyway? Did they ever have any intention of honoring his refusal or, more likely, were they just trying to gain consent where no probable cause ever existed?"

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols

They did tell me I had the right to refuse, by the way. I also knew that whether I was going to get a speeding ticket was a judgement call they were going to make before they let me go.

Wow, that is textbook abouse of police powers. Implying you might not get a speeding ticket if you consent to a search. Highly illegal.

Remember also the eternal cry of the fascist: If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
Wow, that is textbook abouse of police powers. Implying you might not get a speeding ticket if you consent to a search. Highly illegal.

They implied no such thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
Remember also the eternal cry of the fascist: If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed.

I always wondered what the fascists eternally cried...


edit: Do you think there is a difference between your formulation

If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed

and mine

Since I have nothing to hide, I do not worry about being surveyed

at least inasmuch as it speaks to how much of a fascist I am?

[Chad Noles]

originally posted by Art Vandelay:

Quote:

What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions?

From the ruling:

Quote:

"The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background,but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exist"

These people have to be suspects first,as Hiibel was.Further,....

From the ruling"

Quote:

"Any person so detained,shall identify himself,but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer"

[Kevin_Lowe]

In response to the "Why would you refuse a search?" question:

The lawyer types I've talked to put it this way. There are no conceivable circumstances in which permitting a search can benefit you. Police will imply otherwise, but the reality is that absolutely nothing good for you will ever come out of a search.

Whereas lots of bad things can happen. They can find something actionable, they can plant something actionable, or they can waste your time and damage your property and you have very little real recourse.

Thus the advice always seems to be to deny any and all requests to search your stuff.

I have a vague idea that we have fewer rights to refuse a search here in Australia, but I don't have the foggiest what the rules actually are. It's never been an issue for me, so I've never bothered to bone up on it.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
In response to the "Why would you refuse a search?" question:

The lawyer types I've talked to put it this way. There are no conceivable circumstances in which permitting a search can benefit you. Police will imply otherwise, but the reality is that absolutely nothing good for you will ever come out of a search.

I've already laid out the ways in which permitting a search benefitted me. In one case I avoided what most likely would have been a trip down to the police station to answer a few questions. In another case I probably avoided a speeding ticket and possibly (depending on whether the police had a dog on call or not) avoided waiting for some lengthy time in the back of a squad car for the dog to arrive. Let me go on:


And then once the dog arrives, I would have had unfriendly police searching my car. If the dog had twitched funny, they would have had probable cause to go into my car, and my earlier recalcitrance may have resulted in their having no incentive not to make a mess. This was a trip home for Christmas, and my trunk was filled with (already wrapped) presents. Would the dog have gone for the presents? There was food in some of them. It would have been less than fun to re-wrap the presents.

Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.

MattJ

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I guess I just come at it from another angle. When the Oklahoma Highway patrol pulled me (long haired youngster with Georgia plates) over going west at the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, (and I mean at the border) the first thing I thought was "they don't want me for speeding, they're searching for drug dealers". This was pretty much confirmed when the second car showed up almost immediately after I gave consent to search.

In my view, I figure they have a hard job and they take a lot of crap from people every day, so I'm going to be as cooperative as possible. They want to search my car, I figure I'll consent but only after I calmly tell them that they're wasting their time.

They did tell me I had the right to refuse, by the way. I also knew that whether I was going to get a speeding ticket was a judgement call they were going to make before they let me go.

MattJ

How nice of them to profile and harrass you. Last I looked, driving on the interstate wh out of state plates and long hair does not equal probable cause for squat. The war on drugs has destroyed our personal rights. Its like the Cpnstitution flies out the window as soon as you hop in your car.

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.

MattJ

Why not. Your whole example is based on the cops violating the law and your fear of reprisals. Why not take the next step and just plant somthing. Or maybe theyll just rough you up a bit and send you on your way.

I dont beleive they have the right to call a dog into a simple traffic stop wh/o having some kind of probable cause.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Why not. Your whole example is based on the cops violating the law and your fear of reprisals. Why not take the next step and just plant somthing. Or maybe theyll just rough you up a bit and send you on your way.

I don't see how they violated the law. Explain it to me.

I'm sure cops in your universe rough up cooperative polite citizens all the time. One presumes that police who have no problems planting something would similarly have no problems testifiying that I gave consent to be searched. It hasn't been my experience that cops are like this, but if they were I doubt my refusal to allow them to search would make much of a difference one way or another.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont beleive they have the right to call a dog into a simple traffic stop wh/o having some kind of probable cause.

You think they need probable cause to get a dog? If they have probable cause, they don't need a dog.

MattJ

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I don't see how they violated the law. Explain it to me.

MattJ

From your example I assumed you were pulled over for doing nothing wrong. Which the police are not allowed to do. I couldnt tell if you were speeding or if you implied that they'd just claimed speeding as pretext to the pullover.

As for the dog part. If your pulled over for speeding the most they can do is give you a speeding ticket. THey cant hold you all day to arrange a dog, lie detector test, or hit you up for a donation to the Police fund.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
From your example I assumed you were pulled over for doing nothing wrong. Which the police are not allowed to do. I couldnt tell if you were speeding or if you implied that they'd just claimed speeding as pretext to the pullover.

Here

Quote:

In another case I cooperated because the cops had me on a speeding violation and I figured if I consented to the search I wouldn't get a ticket.

When I said they had me on a speeding violation, I meant that they pulled me over for speeding, and that I was speeding.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
As for the dog part. If your pulled over for speeding the most they can do is give you a speeding ticket. THey cant hold you all day to arrange a dog, lie detector test, or hit you up for a donation to the Police fund.

I believe you're incorrect. The advice offered here would appear to back me up.

MattJ

[crimresearch]

"While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the “minimal” additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa’s argument that a “search incident to citation” is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive...
...The judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
Knowles v Iowa
http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/knowles.html

I guess the US Supreme Court justices haven't gotten the benefit of the extensive legal education to be gained from television shows and internet forums.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

Ain't it the truth. Now what was it we were supposed to hate so much about communism? They were awful, I guess, because they were a communist police state. We are ok because we are a capitolist police state.

[mjv]

“Since I have nothing to hide, I do not worry about being surveyed”

You better be real sure you “have nothing to hide”

Did you loan your car to a friend, sibling, or child in the last few weeks or months? Any chance that you would know whether they or a passenger had a small quantity of an illegal substance in a pocket that fell out and is now hidden under the car seat?

Did you drive Grandma home or to the doctor’s office recently? Can you be sure that an unlabeled “pill box” containing her valium or muscle relaxants did not fall out of her purse and is now under your car seat?

In either of these scenarios, your car can be seized under the federal forfeiture laws. Doesn’t matter if the drugs are yours or not, or whether you knew about them, or even whether you get charged with anything, your car is theirs unless YOU can PROVE (by preponderance of the evidence) that the VEHICLE was not involved in illegal activity.

An unlikely scenario? Possibly, but I would never consent to a generic request to search, just on the outside possibility that there is something in my car I don’t know about.

Take for example Willie Jones, a black man in the landscaping business in Tennessee, who probably thought he had nothing to hide. I want to say this was late 80's early nineties, but anyway, he was flying to some sort of a horticultural brokerage sale or some sort of wholesale event and because he needed to bargain for the stock he needed, he took several thousand dollars in cash. When he paid for his airline ticket, the airline clerk tipped off police to the fact that he had several thousand dollars in his wallet (as I recall the police offered a “cut” of any seized money for informing them). Assuming this was drug money, the police searched Jones's luggage for drugs. They found none. When a police dog sniffed traces of drugs on the cash he was carrying, which is not unheard of for large bills in urban areas, the police confiscated the money under the forfeiture laws. He was never charged with or convicted of illegal activity. It took him two years to convince a court to order the police to give him the money back. Source: A Google search of a Cato Institute article on the Hyde Act to reform forfeiture laws; also my viewing of a dateline or 60 minutes piece several years ago.

[Bottle or the Gun]

In general I don't want to consent to a search, but I might consent in the reality. I go onto a military base almost daily, so I have no problem with the car being searched. Most bases also have a program that you can have a dog search the car at your request. This is really helpful if you bought a used car and want to make sure it is 'clean' of the bad habits of the previous owner. I don't know if civilian police do it, or if they do, if they arrest you if something is found. I just bought a used car that was probably owned by a 22 year old that couldn't keep up the payments. I'd like to get the car checked. (Yes, they can't pay the bills but always have cash for weed and beer.)

I also do not have to consent to a breathalyzer test, but if I say no I lose my car, license and may get arrested for Wreckless or Unsafe Operation of a Vehicle.

[Tmy]

Yeah but you expect that going on the base. Its different if you're out in public. Who wants to live in a military state. Ya know there is the constitution and all. What theyre doing now is the sort ofthing that really pissed off our founding fathers.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah but you expect that going on the base. Its different if you're out in public. Who wants to live in a military state. Ya know there is the constitution and all. What theyre doing now is the sort ofthing that really pissed off our founding fathers.

I expect it in public also. I worked in both a police agency, and Human Resources for several years and I have to tell you, I'm surprised I make it home alive. I can't even count the number of drunk, coked, weeded or impaired people that would either be pulled over or would come through the office looking for a job. One of our contracts was in the Dept of Transportation. Applicants KNEW they would be tested and still go through the process of applying, which for us was not inexpensive. Then they would get tested and the results would be crack, meth, MJ, etc etc. They would always say "It wasn't my fault, I was at a party". Yeah, well, time to grow up you freakin' moron and join society and stay away from places that are bad for you and keep out of stupid and compromising activities. Good luck shaking fries at the McDonalds.

Having been in the service, there is nothing unconstitutional about the searches or the system. People think there is, but it isn't. It's all free-will and lawful orders.

I think people who have REALLY been exposed to a Military or Police State might see the US differently than a regular civilian, who thinks we are a Police State because you get pulled over for doing 90 in a 35 mph zone, cops won't let you drink Everclear while driving or that red-light cameras are unconstitutional.

Our founding fathers were not saints. They owned slaves and oppressed women and people that did not own land in the new society. But they also designed the constitution so that it is an evolving document. I don't know iof this was foresight or not. Later, America made slavery unconstitutional and allowed women to vote, something that our founders would have been upset about if anyone wrote that into the document back in 1776.

[Art Vandelay]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chad Noles
From the ruling:

Quote:

"The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background,but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exist"

Either allowing cops what is, essentially, their own supoena power, is justified, or it is not (wow, that sentence had a lot of commas). Normally the slippery slope is considered a fallacy, but in this case I think it is justified. If this is allowed, what is to stop them fro asking for anything else?

[crimresearch]

" If this is allowed, what is to stop them fro asking for anything else?"


The Constitution, for starters. And the specific wording of this ruling.


There is nothing in this decision that gives police any more powers than they have right now, with the single addition of getting a truthful name.

Subpoena power is pretty much for witnesses, not suspects.
And I think the law on being forced to be a witness against yourself is pretty well established at this point in time.
And self identification isn't self incrimination.

Don't you think if this decision had overturned Miranda, et al. as your slippery slope fear would require, that there would have been some commentary on that among the legal community by now?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I've already laid out the ways in which permitting a search benefitted me. In one case I avoided what most likely would have been a trip down to the police station to answer a few questions. In another case I probably avoided a speeding ticket and possibly (depending on whether the police had a dog on call or not) avoided waiting for some lengthy time in the back of a squad car for the dog to arrive.

I'm uncomfortable with those kinds of salami tactics actually.

If you were caught speeding without extenuating circumstances you should be fined, and that should be the end of it. It shouldn't be used as a threat to facilitate further fishing expeditions.

Quote:

Let me go on:

And then once the dog arrives, I would have had unfriendly police searching my car. If the dog had twitched funny, they would have had probable cause to go into my car, and my earlier recalcitrance may have resulted in their having no incentive not to make a mess. This was a trip home for Christmas, and my trunk was filled with (already wrapped) presents. Would the dog have gone for the presents? There was food in some of them. It would have been less than fun to re-wrap the presents.

Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.

I'm not saying you did the wrong thing.

I'm saying that in a free society you shouldn't have to bend over like that for fear that a police officer will trash your christmas presents.

There's not much point to denying police the right to search everyone they pull over for speeding, if they can just hint to each person that they'll waive the fine if they consent to a search. Anyone who would rather pay the fine than be searched is obviously up to no good and will get their car and/or person searched on that basis.

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun




I think people who have REALLY been exposed to a Military or Police State might see the US differently than a regular civilian, who thinks we are a Police State because you get pulled over for doing 90 in a 35 mph zone, cops won't let you drink Everclear while driving or that red-light cameras are unconstitutional.
.

The examples you give are all causes to be pulled over and arrested. Im talking about people being harassed simply because they have out of state plates, dark skin, or a certain type of car. OR when a person is considered suspicious just because they dare to invoke their constitional right.

Should we accept that just because things could be worse? We talk big when it comes to "America" and "fighting for freedom", but little by little we become less free.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy


How nice of them to profile and harrass you. Last I looked, driving on the interstate wh out of state plates and long hair does not equal probable cause for squat. The war on drugs has destroyed our personal rights. Its like the Cpnstitution flies out the window as soon as you hop in your car.

Careful, your sounding kinda libertarian there and you know what wackos we are.

[Tmy]

Search n seizure issues have been around since day one.

hey, while the bill of rights was written before cars, they did have horse n buggies. Did the constables have the right to buggy searches???

[Ed]

Dunno...

This past winter I had to leave my car at the bottom of the hill leading to my house. A neighbor called the cops and a cop came to my house. He asked for ID since, as he explained, bad guys have stolen cars and gone to the owner's house to loot it. It seems to me that that is what I am paying the cops to do.

Another point is that Police department's are a business. I am not sure how well it would go down with the Chief if his staff was expending resources on BS harressment. There is a downside for a cop to expend resourses unnecessarily.

[Tmy]

Theres another downside to the police skirting the seach laws. If they DO actually catch someone, they can arrest and toss them in jail at that time. BUT when it hits court, the evidence is tossed out and the criminal walks. What did they accomplish?

[crimresearch]

"But in cases where probable cause is borderline, couldn't the fact that an officer asks for consent also work against him?
Defense attorney at suppression/probable cause hearing: "Well, Your Honor, if probable cause were so obvious in this case, why'd the police even ask the suspect for consent to search? And why, as in this case, after asking and being refused consent, did they go ahead and search him anyway? Did they ever have any intention of honoring his refusal or, more likely, were they just trying to gain consent where no probable cause ever existed?"..."


Sorry for the delay in replying.

A defense attorney probably could try that approach, but I doubt if they would meet with much success.
There is another USSC decision (Ohio?) that allows for the police to pursue dual investigative tactics (one as a pretext for the other), and see which one pans out, as long as both are legit. That would seem to rule out redundancy as grounds for excluding fruits of a search.
And there is no requirement that probable cause information be especially obvious or strong in any way, just that it pass the reasonableness test.

Also note that *merely* refusing a search isn't sufficient for PC, but engaging the officer in argument can be used to build PC...
"The suspect appeared evasive", OR "The subject talked too much",
"The subject appeared agitated", OR "Tthe subject appeared lethargic..."

These observations allow the officer to add in their own beliefs:
"In my experience a driver who 'any-of-the-aboves' is likely to be hiding something..."
BUT
What won't fly in a legitimate court is "I asked for consent without any probable cause, and they said 'No thank you', so I went ahead and searched anyway".

[Art Vandelay]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
" If this is allowed, what is to stop them fro asking for anything else?"

The Constitution, for starters. And the specific wording of this ruling.

I didn't see any language detailing the Constitutional uniqueness of this request, nor any reason why similar reasoning can't be extended to other situations.

Quote:

There is nothing in this decision that gives police any more powers than they have right now, with the single addition of getting a truthful name.

So as long as each infringement is conducted separately, that's okay?

Quote:

Subpoena power is pretty much for witnesses, not suspects.
And I think the law on being forced to be a witness against yourself is pretty well established at this point in time.
And self identification isn't self incrimination.

The suspect is being asked to be a witness. Self identification can be self incrimination, and even if it isn't, so what? It's not juiist that aspect that bothers me; it's the whole idea of the police being able to demand you do something.

Quote:

Don't you think if this decision had overturned Miranda, et al. as your slippery slope fear would require, that there would have been some commentary on that among the legal community by now?

Argumentum ad populum.

BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay


BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?

Yes.

[crimresearch]

"The suspect is being asked to be a witness. Self identification can be self incrimination, and even if it isn't, so what? It's not juiist that aspect that bothers me; it's the whole idea of the police being able to demand you do something"


It may bother you, but it is still the current reality that people sometimes have to do things they don't want to, like complying with police orders, going to jail, giving fingerprints, appearing in line ups, posing for booking photos, paying fines, and identifying themselves. Refusing to accede to those demands may have consequences that are also bothersome.

This ruling merely confirms that obvious reality, by refuting the artificially constructed right to arbitrarily ignore the parts of the justice system that one doesn't like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Don't you think if this decision had overturned Miranda, et al. as >your slippery slope fear would require, that there would have >been some commentary on that among the legal community by >now?

"Argumentum ad populum"

No, you appear to be making an extraordinary assertion, namely that this ruling forces people to answer every question, even self incriminating ones, truthfully.

You further posited that the words:
" The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background,but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exist "...

...meant that the police *could* force people to provide details about their backgrounds:
[" What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions? This is not an extension of a Terry stop; the Terry stop deals with what the cop can do, this deals with what the suspect must do. During a Terry stop, a cop can search for weapons. But can he demand that you tell him where you've hidden your weapon, and prosecute you if you refuse?"]

In the face of such extraordinary assertions, you were asked for evidence that anyone with expertise in the area saw this situation the same way.
Failing to provide that evidence doesn't support the assertions, it weakens them.
----------------------------------------------------------------

"BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?"

I don't know, did the rest of us give you the authority to conduct a criminal investigation of that particular cop, and is he properly the focus of said investigation?

Or did you mean just any cop, for no particular reason whatsoever? In that case, why should you have a right that none of the rest of, cops included, have?

[LostAngeles]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
[BI believe this part was Art's"BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?"

I don't know, did the rest of us give you the authority to conduct a criminal investigation of that particular cop, and is he properly the focus of said investigation?

Or did you mean just any cop, for no particular reason whatsoever? In that case, why should you have a right that none of the rest of, cops included, have? [/b]

You can't walk up to any cop and demand his name. You can ask, but not demand. Most cops I've dealt with can be rather friendly if you approach them in the same manner.

If an officer has stopped you and asks for your name, you can ask for his name back and if you wish, his badge number and he is obligated to give it to you. He is not obligated, but might, give you crap about that.

[Tony]

What if you're just a guy riding in a car with a friend and you don't have I.D.? Can you get in trouble for that? Are you required, by law, to carry I.D.?

[Art Vandelay]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
It may bother you, but it is still the current reality that people sometimes have to do things they don't want to, like complying with police orders, going to jail, giving fingerprints, appearing in line ups, posing for booking photos, paying fines, and identifying themselves. Refusing to accede to those demands may have consequences that are also bothersome.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:

This ruling merely confirms that obvious reality, by refuting the artificially constructed right to arbitrarily ignore the parts of the justice system that one doesn't like.

It is not the right that is artificial, but the law. Rights precede laws. And I never said that that I have the "right to arbitrarily ignore the parts of the justice system that [I don't] like".

Quote:

No, you appear to be making an extraordinary assertion, namely that this ruling forces people to answer every question, even self incriminating ones, truthfully.

I never made that assertion. I simply pointed out that similar logic could be used to justify other situations.

Quote:

...meant that the police *could* force people to provide details about their backgrounds:

Well, as it stands, they can ask for their first name and their last name. So doesn't this ruling mean that the police can force people to provide details about their backgrounds?

Quote:

I don't know, did the rest of us give you the authority to conduct a criminal investigation of that particular cop, and is he properly the focus of said investigation?

Are you implying that you have the right to give my rights away?

Quote:

In that case, why should you have a right that none of the rest of, cops included, have?

That's ridiculous. I think it's really, really obvious that when I asked whether "I" can do this, what I meant was "Can a general member of the public do this?" The suggestion that I'm trying to assert a unique right is completely baseless.

LostAngeles

Quote:

You can ask, but not demand

I didn't ask whether I can demand, I asked whether he is obligated to answer.

Quote:

If an officer has stopped you and asks for your name, you can ask for his name back and if you wish, his badge number and he is obligated to give it to you. He is not obligated, but might, give you crap about that.

Huh?

[LostAngeles]

Quote:

If an officer has stopped you and asks for your name, you can ask for his name back and if you wish, his badge number and he is obligated to give it to you. He is not obligated, but might, give you crap about that.

I missed a "to" and parsed it all wrong.

Normally when people ask for a name and badge number it's to file a complaint which could cause the officer to get testy. Nevertheless, he is obligated to respond.