Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 12:04 AM 6/22/2004, Justin wrote: On 2004-06-21T22:38:01-0700, Steve Schear wrote: > Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that > use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and > non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that > wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does > not conform. It's legal to _have_ any name you wish, but in some states you can just use the name you want, and in other states you have to legally change your name. California's DMV changed their policies five or ten years ago - this used to be one of the places where changing your name on a whim was not only freely accepted, but just about mandatory in Hollywood, but at least the DMV now requires you to legally change your name (not sure if the rest of the law requires it.) Don't citizens have to have an english-alphabet transliteration of their name to use for legal purposes (birth certificate, green card, social security record)? No legal requirement that I'm aware of, nor is literacy mandatory. Some individual types of paperwork may require that (wouldn't surprise me if the INS thugs did, for instance, though their standard rule in the past was that they'd assign you an inaccurate transliteration...) but that doesn't mean they all need the same. You're not required to get a birth certificate, though if your kid's born in a hospital they'll tend to issue one whether you ask for it or not. I never applied for a social security number, so I haven't seen the forms (my parents had already done that for me, and I assume that the number I memorized in ~2nd grade was correct, though I've long since lost the paper.) Is there a list of the other 20 states with stop-and-identify laws? Go read the Supreme Court majority opinion - the states are mentioned there, though the opinion doesn't say exactly what each state requires. California, BTW, isn't on the list. The DMV differentiates same-name people by SSN, right? It tries :-) It also tries to differentiate by address. Most DMVs aren't very good at record-keeping, and the last two states I've lived in have each spent ~$50 million on huge computer modernization processes that have failed miserably... Is it very far-fetched to imagine that state courts and federal appeals courts will uphold state laws requiring SSN disclosure for identification purposes? State laws requiring SSN disclosure for driver's licenses were illegal under the Privacy Act of 1974, and then legalized for limited uses in ~1986, and the Feds have made them all but mandatory. They're also mandatory for income-taxable business, except when you can use a Taxpayer ID Number instead. After all, the Supreme Court didn't rule this way for fun; You're overestimating the morals of the more conservative members of the Court, though "fun" requires a sense of humor which may be lacking in Rehnquist's case. (Some of them do have fun - Scalia recently went hunting with Cheney, for instance, and Thomas got raked over the coals at his acceptance hearings because of the fun he'd had harassing Anita Hill. And one or two of the liberals are a bit on the odd side as well.) Maybe the 9th circuit will be safe from mandatory SSN disclosure during Terry stops, but I doubt any other circuits will be. The Supremes can't want to hear another case of this sort in the near future. They just cranked up the temperature; if they crank it up again too soon the frogs may notice they're about to boil. They didn't take this case just because they wanted it to - they took it because Gilmore and Noise and friends helped Hiibel and the Nevada Public Defender get it there. They aren't likely to hear another case soon that isn't edgy like this, but the FBI, Homeland Security thugs and their antecedents have been pushing for more and more government control over citizens, so any available edge is likely to get pushed. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Morlock Elloi wrote: incriminating, and the State has a substantial interest in knowing who you are -- you may need medicating, or you may owe the government money, or Exactly ... and maybe you are on this "consumer" list: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458 Thanks for ruining my day! Now I'm going to go home and watch Equilibrium again. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
> incriminating, and the State has a substantial interest in knowing who you > are -- you may need medicating, or you may owe the government money, or Exactly ... and maybe you are on this "consumer" list: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458 >The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental >disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental >health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool >children. According to the commission, "Each year, young children are >expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely >disruptive behaviours and emotional disorders." Schools, wrote the >commission, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students >and 6 million adults who work at the schools. > >The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with treatment >and supports" including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific >medications for specific conditions." The commission commended the Texas >Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment >plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better >consumer outcomes." BTW, looks like designation "citizen" has been obsoleted by "consumer". = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2004-06-21T22:38:01-0700, Steve Schear wrote: > Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that > use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and > non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that > wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does > not conform. Don't citizens have to have an english-alphabet transliteration of their name to use for legal purposes (birth certificate, green card, social security record)? Everyone should change their legal names to Agent Smith. Is there a list of the other 20 states with stop-and-identify laws? The DMV differentiates same-name people by SSN, right? Is it very far-fetched to imagine that state courts and federal appeals courts will uphold state laws requiring SSN disclosure for identification purposes? After all, the Supreme Court didn't rule this way for fun; they ruled this way because they think that citizen have a duty to reveal their identity to police. If a name isn't enough to do so, I would think a SSN would be required. Maybe the 9th circuit will be safe from mandatory SSN disclosure during Terry stops, but I doubt any other circuits will be. The Supremes can't want to hear another case of this sort in the near future. They just cranked up the temperature; if they crank it up again too soon the frogs may notice they're about to boil. -- "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that." "Not your decision to make." "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter." - Beatrix; Bill ...Kill Bill Vol. 2
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2004-06-22T02:52:15-0400, Gabriel Rocha wrote: > > On Jun 21 2004, Steve Schear wrote: > | Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that > | use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and > | non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that > | wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does > | not conform. > > Well, in principle this is a nice "screw you" method. But in practice... > well, if you have to write down your name because the sound doesn't > exist or can't be pronounced, you're that much more singled out eh... > And for those of us who wish to travel, well, passports become difficult > to manage I suspect. I am quite surprised with this ruling actually (I > haven't yet read the specifics) but the first impression of it says that > this does not bode well for opponents of the "War on Terrorism" (tm) or > for anyone who doesn't like the great big database in the sky... Yes, we're screwed, but not because of the name requirement. Soon we will have to recite our citizenship number whenever a police officer, I mean pig, is "investigating an investigation" and asks us to identify ourselves. The supreme court will uphold that requirement for the same reason they just upheld the NV law. The number itself is not incriminating, and the State has a substantial interest in knowing who you are -- you may need medicating, or you may owe the government money, or you may have violated any number of illegitimate laws and therefore need reeducating in a federal prison. -- "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that." "Not your decision to make." "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter." - Beatrix; Bill ...Kill Bill Vol. 2
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On Jun 21 2004, Steve Schear wrote: | Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that | use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and | non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that | wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does | not conform. Well, in principle this is a nice "screw you" method. But in practice... well, if you have to write down your name because the sound doesn't exist or can't be pronounced, you're that much more singled out eh... And for those of us who wish to travel, well, passports become difficult to manage I suspect. I am quite surprised with this ruling actually (I haven't yet read the specifics) but the first impression of it says that this does not bode well for opponents of the "War on Terrorism" (tm) or for anyone who doesn't like the great big database in the sky...
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong. The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity. The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work. Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does not conform. Steve
[IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:19 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says X-Mailer: SnapperMail 1.9.2.01 by Snapperfish, www.snappermail.com Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Dave Farber +1 412 726 9889 .. Forwarded Message ... From: Kurt Albershardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:44:00 -0700 Subj: When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong. The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity. The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work. Privacy advocates say the decision gives police too much power. Once officers have a name, they can use computer databases to learn all kinds of personal information about the person. The loser in Monday's decision was Nevada cattle rancher Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor after he told a deputy that he didn't have to give out his name or show an ID. The encounter happened after someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck parked along a road. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name. Hiibel repeatedly refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws." In fighting the arrest, Hiibel became an unlikely constitutional privacy rights crusader. He wore a cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie to the court this year when justices heard arguments in his appeal. "A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone, but lost," said his attorney, Harriet Cummings. The court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases. "One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases," he wrote in a dissent. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) also disagreed with the ruling. Crime-fighting and justice groups had argued that a ruling the other way would have protected terrorists and encouraged people to refuse to cooperate with police. "The constant danger of renewed terrorist activity places enormous pressure on law enforcement to identify suspected terrorists before they strike," said Charles Hobson, an attorney with the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. But Tim Lynch, an attorney with the libertarian-oriented think tank Cato Institute, said the court "ruled that the government can turn a person's silence into a criminal offense." "Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert their right to remain silent without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," said Lynch, who expects the ruling will lead more cities and states, and possibly Congress, to consider laws like the one in Nevada. Justices had been told that at least 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities. Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said America is different 36 years after the Terry decision. "In a modern era, when the police get your identification, they are getting an extraordinary look at your private life." The case is
