A sad day for freedon in America...

[buffteen]

The Supreme Court today in a 5-4 decision ruled that when police officer asks for your name, you will HAVE to answer if the state in which you are in requires an answer. So much for "you have the right to remain silent." The most troubling part of this is that it gives states the green light to pass laws requiring EVERYONE to carry a state ID at all times. Not so far-fetched of a possibility now, as police may decide to ask random people to produce an ID claiming you to be suspicious (if you are an illegal, terrorist, underage past curfew, known drug offender). "BIG BROTHER IS NOW WATCHING YOU CLOSER THAN EVER."

[Soldier of Misfortune]

so much for blind, deaf, mute scoflaws

[buffteen]

Also this term, the high court upheld state laws that allowed police officers to set up road block/checkpoints where they CAN stop everyone and ask questions.... "so you were at the border today..what did you get?" or the infamous "have you had any drinks tonight?" or IF you are too big they are well within their right to ask "do you have any steroids in the car" Beeing too big CAN be a probable cause to search your car.

[butterface]

Whats the big deal? Why would you not give a police officer your name unless you were hiding something? He is after all risking his ass protecting you. Dont you want him to feel safe around you? How would you feel having to randomly pull someone over at night and he refuse to give you his name so you cant run his name and find out if he is wanted for some kind of crime? Would you want the criminals off the streets anyways? And how many times has a cop pulled you over and you refused to give your name? That would be pretty dumb to do. Cause law or no law they will **** your ass up if you refuse your name.

[Money Boss Hustla]

Whats the big deal? Why would you not give a police officer your name unless you were hiding something?

I echo this sentiment. What's the big deal?

[buffteen]

I echo this sentiment. What's the big deal?

You have to think this through.... The next logical step would be for states to require everyone to carry their ID cards at all times. Authoratarian regimes do this to keep you "safe". It may be a big deal if you use AS because they may keep you on a "list." Do you really want to live in a place where theoretically any officer can stop you on the street and scan your ID card without any probable cause? What if you have an outstanding parking ticket or if you have been convicted of AS possesion what if they say that is probable cause to search you there? The implications go on....

[Tock]

You have to think this through.... The next logical step would be for states to require everyone to carry their ID cards at all times. Authoratarian regimes do this to keep you "safe". It may be a big deal if you use AS because they may keep you on a "list." Do you really want to live in a place where theoretically any officer can stop you on the street and scan your ID card without any probable cause? What if you have an outstanding parking ticket or if you have been convicted of AS possesion what if they say that is probable cause to search you there? The implications go on....

It's not something that only folks with trunks full of contraband or unpaid parking tickets should worry about. It's people with whistle-clean records who have never done anything illegal in their lives should worry about . . . the loss of their right not to be stopped by government representatives of any kind without reason. The nature of government is to want more power over its citizens, and by golly, the way most people in this country are, they'll be only too glad to trade freedom for a little more security. And then a little more . . . and a little more after that.

It's not the way I want to live . . .

[Money Boss Hustla]

You have to think this through.... The next logical step would be for states to require everyone to carry their ID cards at all times.

I do have to. $350 fine if caught driving without it.

You guys are paranoid.

[Commando_Barbi]

In the state of Washington, it is a criminal offense to drive without an ID. I think it's $101.00 but I can't remember for sure....may be more. My brain is fried on RCW crap right now.

I believe that if a police officer asks you to ID yourself you should have to. As was said earlier, LEO's put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. We need to know who we are dealing with.

As a citizen I have never had a problem providing my identity to someone in authority if asked. I have nothing to hide so why worry. There are people who need to be off the streets for good reason and if this is how they are going to find them...so be it.

As a future LEO.....I want to know who I'd dealing with.

I do have to. $350 fine if caught driving without it.

You guys are paranoid.

[chicamahomico]

You would think it would work this way but in reality it just doesn't. It has nothing to do with 'right to remain slient it is about proving your identity and that's all.

...What if you have an outstanding parking ticket or if you have been convicted of AS possesion what if they say that is probable cause to search you there? The implications go on....

[Tock]

Whats the big deal? Why would you not give a police officer your name unless you were hiding something? .

That's sort of like saying, "Unless you have something to hide, you'd let the cops search your home."
It's a subtle but important loss of personal freedom for us, and a win for the government. Basically, if you have not committed a crime and are not suspected of having done so, law enforcement should leave you alone, period. Now, with this ruling, they have the right to extract a bit of information from you. With the next ruling, the government will gain more rights over us, and we'll lose a little more. And on and on until . . .

It's the principle of the thing . . . now the precedent has been established that the government has the authority to make us reveal a little information. Next they'll require us to reveal more . . . and more . . .

That's the big deal. Giving up personal freedom bit by bit. Trading freedom for security. Not a good bargain, IMHO.

-Tock

[Big Rush]

That's sort of like saying, "Unless you have something to hide, you'd let the cops search your home."
It's a subtle but important loss of personal freedom for us, and a win for the government. Basically, if you have not committed a crime and are not suspected of having done so, law enforcement should leave you alone, period. Now, with this ruling, they have the right to extract a bit of information from you. With the next ruling, the government will gain more rights over us, and we'll lose a little more. And on and on until . . .

It's the principle of the thing . . . now the precedent has been established that the government has the authority to make us reveal a little information. Next they'll require us to reveal more . . . and more . . .

That's the big deal. Giving up personal freedom bit by bit. Trading freedom for security. Not a good bargain, IMHO.

-Tock

The way I make all decisions is simple. I ask myself, "Is Tock for this or against this?" If he is against something, I am for it...and vice versa. This works for every issue on the table. Hasn't failed yet.

[Tock]

The way I make all decisions is simple. I ask myself, "Is Tock for this or against this?" If he is against something, I am for it...and vice versa. This works for every issue on the table. Hasn't failed yet.

I'm for freedom.
Guess we know where you stand . . .
-Tock

[LilVito469]

me personally i can care less...if its what they have to do to stop the terrorists then by all means go for it...

[Billy_Bathgate]

i have nothing in my house, but wouldnt want anyone searching it just cause they make such a mess on tv and dont clean it up

[Rhino58]

Sounds like some people here have a libraterian point of view on some of the laws.

[50%Natural]

666, the mark of the beast is coming....

[nsa]

With all the sh!t going on with terrorists im glad they did something like this.

[buffteen]

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether freedom or security."--Some historical figure....

[inheritmylife]

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether freedom or security."--Some historical figure....

Benjamin Frankin

[singern]

Neither my freedom nor my rights have been affected by this. I will do what ever it takes to keep my family, and my nation safe from those who would do us harm.

[DADDYDBOL]

Benjamin Frankin

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether freedom or security."--Some historical figure....

IML....you sure....I think it was Thomas Paine....I could be wrong though....


This is crazy....if you mess up bad enough to warrant this type of paranoia then I think refusing to give your name will be the least of your worries....

[Commando_Barbi]

At least know who you are quoting!

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether freedom or security."--Some historical figure....

[Football_Bill]

As long as I can remember, in this state you must carry an ID if over 16, or you can be fined. A law requiring you to tell an officer your name is stupid, unless you have an ID to verify anyways. The cops are trying to keep us safe, the law makers are just making stupid laws to try and produce more fines, and more work for the cops to do. not like they don't have enought things to do, between harassing big bros, or stopping a teenage drivers, there might be a random shotting or rape that they will have to eventually get to.

[Phillyboy1]

you people are just crazy paranoid.

[nsa]

I don't think the point of this is to make more work for cops considering it takes 2 seconds to ask 'what is your name?'. Its for security. With all the people who are in this country illegally including terrorists and mexicans we should do more.

[nsa]

I don't think your giving up much freedom for having to tell a cop your name. Considering you have to show your ID most of the time anyway, which has your name on it...

[buffteen]

I don't think your giving up much freedom for having to tell a cop your name. Considering you have to show your ID most of the time anyway, which has your name on it...

You still dont understnad what this ruling means, States can now pass laws that REQUIRE you to be in possesion of an ID when in public.
Example: Germany in the 1930s made all citizens carry IDs in public so the SS and other police could stop you in the street and demand it. So much for anonymity...

[Mart651]

You still dont understnad what this ruling means, States can now pass laws that REQUIRE you to be in possesion of an ID when in public.
Example: Germany in the 1930s made all citizens carry IDs in public so the SS and other police could stop you in the street and demand it. So much for anonymity...

I think it's a good thing. 95% of the people without ID have something to hide.

[buffteen]

Police: It is possible that you have a pipe bomb in your house, if you have nothing to hide, the let us search your house.
Police: It is possible you are under the influence of steroids (since you are muscular), let me see your ID to make sure you have not broken any drug laws before. (run Id in computer) Oh wait, it looks like another officer has previously spotted you at ----- gym, a known steroid dealing ground, I will have to search you....

[singern]

Police: It is possible that you have a pipe bomb in your house, if you have nothing to hide, the let us search your house.
Police: It is possible you are under the influence of steroids (since you are muscular), let me see your ID to make sure you have not broken any drug laws before. (run Id in computer) Oh wait, it looks like another officer has previously spotted you at ----- gym, a known steroid dealing ground, I will have to search you....

This is not reality, this is extreme hypothetical scenario that feeds conspiracy and distrust.

[Commando_Barbi]

First of all......there's a difference between asking someone for their ID and searching them. A "pat down" is done for officer safety and generally only conducted if the contact is acting suspiciously or if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the contact is a danger to him or the public but furtive movements or demeanor. A "search incident to arrest" is another issue and is legal. There are numerous Supreme court cases that guide us on what we can and can't do when we contact the public. All attempting to balance the civil rights of the in citizen and the safety of the officer.

With that said....while I don't necessarily agree that your personal choice to use steroids should be governed...that is the way it is. If YOU don't like it...work to change it. If you are contacted, and an officer has reasonable suspicion to arrest you, searches you and finds steriods ON you, that is your stupidity and you get what you deserve.

Asking you for your ID is not invading your privacy IMO. There are lines and as long as the officers act within the established department policy, they are fine. If they overstep their bounds.....report them, sue them, do what you are entitled to do by the Consitution.

If you are worried about it.....I'm sure there's a country or two that you can relocate to that will not have a problem with your anonimity. If you don't like it, register to vote, lobby your congressmen and fix it.

Police: It is possible that you have a pipe bomb in your house, if you have nothing to hide, the let us search your house.
Police: It is possible you are under the influence of steroids (since you are muscular), let me see your ID to make sure you have not broken any drug laws before. (run Id in computer) Oh wait, it looks like another officer has previously spotted you at ----- gym, a known steroid dealing ground, I will have to search you....

[damiongage]

he could always just call you asshole........no wait that would be offensive......

[Neo]

Why wouldn't you give a police officer your name? With all the bullsh*t that goes on today, why would you make it harder for law enforcement to do their job? You want to be safe and feel secure in the USA right? Everyone needs to pitch in and lend a hand. Big deal if they can ask you to produce ID.....you should be willing to produce it anyway. (which by the way doesn't even come close to giving police probable cause) I'm tired of people whining about "I can't believe the cops did this..." Be a man and sack up.....It's not the cops fault if you are doing something illegal.....

[buffteen]

The problem is not driving without a driver's lisence, it is the fact that states now can pass laws that require one to be identifiable in public. Would you be willing to accept a law that says you must display an ID badge on one's shirt or arm? Or willing to accept a scan of your finger prints when asked, having broken no law and minding your own business.

[Commando_Barbi]

We are already requiring people to be finger printed when they enter our country. In my job, I wear an ID badge every day. I carry an ID card in my front left pocket at all times. If I am asked to provide it by someone that has the proper authority to ask for it....I provide it. If I don't think they have the proper need to know...I challenge it. If an Officer of the Law asks me for ID I provide it. He or she is doing their job to protect the public as a whole. I just don't see it as a huge invasion of my privacy to give up my name when asked.

The problem is not driving without a driver's lisence, it is the fact that states now can pass laws that require one to be identifiable in public. Would you be willing to accept a law that says you must display an ID badge on one's shirt or arm? Or willing to accept a scan of your finger prints when asked, having broken no law and minding your own business.

[Elliot]

We are already requiring people to be finger printed when they enter our country. In my job, I wear an ID badge every day. I carry an ID card in my front left pocket at all times. If I am asked to provide it by someone that has the proper authority to ask for it....I provide it. If I don't think they have the proper need to know...I challenge it. If an Officer of the Law asks me for ID I provide it. He or she is doing their job to protect the public as a whole. I just don't see it as a huge invasion of my privacy to give up my name when asked.

Exactly... so do I... I work in a hospital and we are required to wear ids... this is done to prevent impersanations, which may lead to assaults, rapes, robberies, etc... Also if your on the lab floors past 8 with out an id they can and most likely will arrest you for trespassing... now do I feel like I’m being crucified by big brother every time I have to scan in my idea or a HPO asks to see my id... no cause its ridiculous because if they didn’t do that I might run into a crack head looting a lab who'll shoot me or stab me.. This is done to protect you, if you dont like it carry a shotgun.. Simple as that if you are an honest person you have absolutely nothing to worry about...

[Tock]

We are already requiring people to be finger printed when they enter our country.

Those are not US Citizens. They come here voluntarily, they play by a slightly different set of rules.

[In my job, I wear an ID badge every day. I carry an ID card in my front left pocket at all times. If I am asked to provide it by someone that has the proper authority to ask for it....I provide it.

Again, that's you job (on private property, I presume), you agreed to those provisions voluntarily. You have the right to toss your badge and not tell anyone who you are, and it may get you fired, but it won't get you thrown in jail.

[If an Officer of the Law asks me for ID I provide it. He or she is doing their job to protect the public as a whole. I just don't see it as a huge invasion of my privacy to give up my name when asked.

It might not be a huge invasion of privacy, but it IS an invasion of privacy, nonetheless. If a cop has reason to suspect you of a crime, that's one thing. But if he has absolutely not reason to suspect you of anything--if you're doing nothing but sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons--he shouldn't have the authority to make you do a **** thing, including disclose your identity.

Basically, it comes down to how much authority y'all think the government should be allowed to have over you. IMHO, if they've got a reason to think you're involved in a crime, sure, they can demand information from you. Otherwise, if they've got no reason to mess with you, it's unreasonable for them to do so.

$.01 of my $.02 worth . . .

[Commando_Barbi]

Actually, I work on Federal property.

I understand the concerns. However, the ruling was not saying that they can just walk up to you and demand your name. As a matter of fact, in a social contact if we ask and they say NO, there's nothing we can do. However, if there is reasonable suspicsion, which there appeared to be in this case, the officer did what he was allowed to do. You have the right to say no, but with all decisions, there are consequesnces.

Those are not US Citizens. They come here voluntarily, they play by a slightly different set of rules.





Again, that's you job (on private property, I presume), you agreed to those provisions voluntarily. You have the right to toss your badge and not tell anyone who you are, and it may get you fired, but it won't get you thrown in jail.





It might not be a huge invasion of privacy, but it IS an invasion of privacy, nonetheless. If a cop has reason to suspect you of a crime, that's one thing. But if he has absolutely not reason to suspect you of anything--if you're doing nothing but sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons--he shouldn't have the authority to make you do a **** thing, including disclose your identity.

Basically, it comes down to how much authority y'all think the government should be allowed to have over you. IMHO, if they've got a reason to think you're involved in a crime, sure, they can demand information from you. Otherwise, if they've got no reason to mess with you, it's unreasonable for them to do so.

$.01 of my $.02 worth . . .

[buffteen]

As a matter of fact, in a social contact if we ask and they say NO, there's nothing we can do.

Your situation may be true in your state today, however this ruling gives states the ability to extend police powers so they may be able to demand ID even in social contact.