Any of this sound familiar?

[Shoonra]

The Hiibel v. Nevada decision, June 21, 2004, 542 US 177, upheld a Nevada law authorizing police to require a person (a suspect or potential witness) to give his name, or be arrested for refusing to do. And this law was merely confined to the person speaking his name, not even requiring him to present a DL or other do***entation of his identity, nor providing an address or further details. Hiibel was arrested for refusal to tell his name to the police - who were investigating a reported violent fight between him and his girlfriend in public - and the Supreme Court held that, yes, the cops were entitled to handcuff him and haul him off.

The Supreme Court went to some pains to emphasize that Hiibel was being arrested just for refusal to speak his name, and not for refusal to provide his DL or his address or any other information. This emphasis was probably made to call attention to the fact that Hiibel was arrested for refusing to provide even the simplest and most effortless cooperation. The court did not suggest, by emphasizing this point, that Hiibel could not also have been arrested, if the police encounter had progressed, for refusing to comply with a state law requiring motorists to present their DL; those laws are still on the books and have been plenty upheld.

[Livefire]

Thank you for the clarification Shoonra. You're right about the DL being a different issue. Im sure at some point there will be a case before the high court concerning an arrestee appealing a conviction due to his/her refusal to provide govt issued ID during a police stop (not traffic related). Of course govt will try to rely on Hiibel v Nevada as their justification. That is MY question, is production of a govt issued ID mandatory upon an officers request constitutionally valid? I noticed that Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, with Breyer stating that this was a "slippery slope" issue.

So here's a scenario (not a real case)..... I get stopped by a cop while jogging along side a road for whatever reason. I tell him my name and say I live in the area but dont give an address. He demands that I produce ID but politely say that I understand he has a job, but that I value my privacy and am not required to produce ID since I have already complied with the law (MI has no stop and identify statute!) At this point officer Bubba threatens arrest and does a quick Terry style search...he finds my wallet and decides to open it and removes my ID to get the info he wants. Has he in this case overstepped the 4th amendment at this point??

I also looked up Germany's ID law (§ 1 Absatz 1 des Gesetzes über Personalausweise (PersAuswG)) for fun. It states that all persons from 16 yrs of age are required to have one, but its not necessary to carry it at all times. Its only necessary to carry it at border crossings, nonetheless authorities and police are allowed to detain and under certain cir***stances when its impossible or difficult to ascertain identity, you can be held at the station up to 12 hrs. (None of this has ANYTHING to do with operating a motor vehicle!) Seems US authorities are also moving in this direction.

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Hiibel v. Nevada decision, June 21, 2004, 542 US 177, upheld a Nevada law authorizing police to require a person (a suspect or potential witness) to give his name, or be arrested for refusing to do. And this law was merely confined to the person speaking his name, not even requiring him to present a DL or other do***entation of his identity, nor providing an address or further details. Hiibel was arrested for refusal to tell his name to the police - who were investigating a reported violent fight between him and his girlfriend in public - and the Supreme Court held that, yes, the cops were entitled to handcuff him and haul him off.

The Supreme Court went to some pains to emphasize that Hiibel was being arrested just for refusal to speak his name, and not for refusal to provide his DL or his address or any other information. This emphasis was probably made to call attention to the fact that Hiibel was arrested for refusing to provide even the simplest and most effortless cooperation. The court did not suggest, by emphasizing this point, that Hiibel could not also have been arrested, if the police encounter had progressed, for refusing to comply with a state law requiring motorists to present their DL; those laws are still on the books and have been plenty upheld.

Bernie, you are only giving part of the story.

Hiibel requires giving a name for IDENTIFICATION purposes.

The way to continue to invoke your rights is to simply ask the COP:

1. If I give you my name, are you going to use it to investigate whether or not I have any outstanding warrants?

HE HAS TO SAY YES, because this is what they do every time.

Hiibel places no onus on one to give their name for INVESTIGATION purposes.

Period.

When the COP says yes, you can say, I choose to remain silent, because you have just admitted that you will use my name for INVESTIGATION, and under Hiibel, I am not required to provide my name for INVESTIGATION purposes.

Be prepared to go to jail, but you do not have to provide investigation source for the COPS.

Thanks to George Gordon for teaching me this.

http://www.georgegordon.org/Radio_Archives.htm#Archives

Listen to "Privacy" parts one through seven.

[Livefire]

I appreciate that link Henry!!!! thanks!!

and yes, yer right....ya gotta be prepared to go to jail! LOL

[FreeFromContract]

Bernie,

You of all people, given your ethnic heritage, should know that without public dissent to unjust acts or actions by the government, the path to tyranny and oppression is too easy for those in power to follow.

He neither harmed nor threatened anyone (from what I can gather, he did not in any way threaten the officer) and was arrested for following his beliefs.

You and Lawdog apparently approve of the manner and cir***stances surrounding this man's arrest and subsequent treatment.

One simple question: Is this justice?

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Lawdog has it right. I have seen people on this website and elsewhere who were possessed by silly, sloppy, or distorted legalistic arguments. They refused to listen to words of caution, much less any contrary contentions. And when they took these arguments into court and had their heads handed to them, they still refused to admit tht their amateur arguments might have been flawed -- no, it was always that the judges was crooked.

Such people refuse to learn, except maybe by bitter experience -- an extremely expensive educational method.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

a certain mentality... expects to rise to the top in any control system, so more controls, the more opportunity to advance.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

...people refuse to learn, except maybe by bitter experience -- an extremely expensive educational method.

Its the only way to actually get anywhere- no pain, no gain.

It's not like they teach this stuff in school, if it were even possible.

[Jerry Pitts]

Speaking on the issue of the court rendering a decision relative to the 'refusal to give ID':

Shoonra

Just speculating here for a minute. Seeing from the case site you provided, it is not beyond comprehending that the courts can issue a ruling declaring virtually anything to be a violation of some sort. Now suppose that the courts wanted to prosecute someone on the grounds of 'perjury' for stating "I don't know what my name is." What do you suppose the cops would do in that case? Yes! The police would probably haul him in anyway, so that they could run a background screening on his finger prints and mugshot.

Now take the speculation a little further. Suppose the man had a virtually clean record, never been fingerprinted, never had a mug shot taken, had perfect teeth (indicating no dental records), had never been admitted to a hospital after his presumed birth. In other words, they had no record on file in regard to this man. Would they hold him indefinitely because he did not know what his name was? There are far too many 'John Does' on the books already, so they could not with clean hands, assign to him the name of 'John Doe'.

The point is this. I was not in a state of mind, that would allow me to verify that my name is this, that or the other. All I have is 'hear-say' information. Hear-say, to my understanding is generally not acceptable as evidence in a court of Law. If I were to testify, under oath (under penalty of perjury), that a particular name was 'my name', I would be giving false testimony (as I have no firsthand, actual, personal knowledge of the FACT), and as such, could be prosecuted for perjury.

How can one get around the possible perjury charge, or better yet, the moral factor of knowing that you are telling a lie by declaring that your name is “James” when in fact, you do not know the name that your King has assigned to you? Telling a lie, according to the scripture, is equated with the liar being the son of the Satan/Lucifer/Devil (the father of all lies, and liars).See John 8:44. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it”.

Revelation 3 declares (in part) “5. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” Did your ‘mother’ and or ‘father’ or both, make inquiry to God as to what should your name be? Did God give them a response? Do you know this to be a FACT? Were you there to witness this great event? Do you have that ‘first hand knowledge’ that is required by law? If you say that you do possess such knowledge and you, in FACT, do not possess such ‘first hand knowledge’ you are deemed to be a ‘liar’; a son of the father of lies. Leviticus 5: 4. “Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.”

When Jesus was asked in Matthew 27: 11; “And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.”, He did not respond by correcting them or by attempting to give any other ‘name/title’. The book of John gives a much clearer and detailed description of what transpired at the kangaroo court that Jesus appeared before.

Now tell me Shoonra, with Jesus being my King, the one to whom I owe allegiance, can I justify saying something to another man that would constitute a lie?

Jerry

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Hiibel v. Nevada decision, June 21, 2004, 542 US 177, upheld a Nevada law authorizing police to require a person (a suspect or potential witness) to give his name, or be arrested for refusing to do. And this law was merely confined to the person speaking his name, not even requiring him to present a DL or other do***entation of his identity, nor providing an address or further details. Hiibel was arrested for refusal to tell his name to the police - who were investigating a reported violent fight between him and his girlfriend in public - and the Supreme Court held that, yes, the cops were entitled to handcuff him and haul him off.

The Supreme Court went to some pains to emphasize that Hiibel was being arrested just for refusal to speak his name, and not for refusal to provide his DL or his address or any other information. This emphasis was probably made to call attention to the fact that Hiibel was arrested for refusing to provide even the simplest and most effortless cooperation. The court did not suggest, by emphasizing this point, that Hiibel could not also have been arrested, if the police encounter had progressed, for refusing to comply with a state law requiring motorists to present their DL; those laws are still on the books and have been plenty upheld.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust

I refused to give name or ID to a cop in Cal. and the cop received a letter from the DA explaining why no charges could be filed.

Yeah sure.

Prove it.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust
I refused to give name or ID to a cop in Cal. and the cop received a letter from the DA explaining why no charges could be filed.

Did you give a name to the booking officer?

[Shoonra]

The whole purpose of the cop asking for your name is identification. ANd although the Hiibel case stops at just asking for the name and nothing more, I doubt that a police encounter will stop there. A cop can always make a plausible excluse -- I saw this guy running in a neighborhood that's had a recently wave of burglaries, so I insisted on seeing his DL, etc. Even if they just enjoy swinging their weight around, they can make it sound like good policing fi they have to make excuses for it.

I'm not saying they're right, but I suggest that complying with this simple demand to see a DL or get your address, is probably going to be a lot less troublesome to you than arguing with a cop.