[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
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...
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
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
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:
Thanks for ruining my day! Now I'm going to go home and watch Equilibrium again. -- Roy M. Silvernail is roy@rant-central.com, and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
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
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 bill.stewart@pobox.com
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/Written by Marc Stevens Theres an incredible amount of energy expended on the subject of so-called "illegal aliens." These are men, women and children who allegedly are not in the "country" "legally." People who think theyre "citizens" believe physical force may be used against "illegal aliens" to cage them and send them back to their "country." This use of physical violence is called "deportation." One of the biggest complaints about these so-called "illegals" is how much they cost "citizens" and "taxpayers" in welfare and other "social programs." However, just as its a myth theres a "country" or "nation" called the "United States," theres no such thing as an "illegal alien." Theyre all part of the http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/governmenthoax.htmlgovernment hoax. To prove theres no such thing as an "illegal alien," one needs to examine what a "nation" or "country" is. A "nation," such as the pretended "United States," is supposed to be a "voluntary association of individuals." The mere fact physical violence is used to "deport" so-called "illegals" contradicts the professed "voluntary" nature of a "nation." A "nation" is composed of "citizens," and a "citizen" is supposed to be a member of a political body ("nation") who owes a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. These two "duties" are the only things separating men who are "citizens" from men who are "illegal aliens." Do these alleged "duties" exist and if so, exactly how were they created? Is the "protection" offered by the "United States government" offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis like other services? No, of course not. "Citizen" is not synonymous with customer. Customers, unlike "citizens," have the choice to say no to a particular service or product without being threatened and killed. You accept and pay for the services provided by men and women doing business as a "state" or be murdered: "The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is thisthat it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot." http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/notreasn.htmNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner. Its fundamental no "duty" or obligation is created by threats of violence and violence. This is one of the fatal flaws in statist theology. Men and women calling themselves "government" violently impose themselves on victims called "citizens," and "ordain" scriptures called "laws" that define the way "government" does business as a crime. I love the following example of this quoted in my article The http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/governmenthoax.htmlGovernment Hoax: "racketeer. The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentines Law Dictionary, page 1051. This describes exactly how men and women calling themselves a "state," "nation" and "government" operate. Now if "duties" and obligations are not created by violence, then theres no "duty" to protect anyone and there is no "duty" of allegiance. These are the only two things separating men who are "citizens" from men who are "illegal aliens" and neither one exists. Because neither "duty" exists there are no "citizens" and no "nation." It then follows there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." The only "officially recognized" "legal" status with any existence is called "res nullius" meaning: "The property of no one." Ballentines Law Dictionary, page 1105. This is why the very idea of a "free government" is ridiculous. Because human beings are not property there can be no valid "government" as "govern" means control and control implies ownership: "The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other." http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/notreasn.htmNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner. The "illegal" problem is classic diversion: instead of focusing on the real problem, viz., men and women violently controlling other men and women ("government," slavery etc.), the focus is diverted to non-existent "illegal aliens." Men and women pretending to be a "state" steal money from their victims (pretended "citizens") and give it to other men, women and children (pretended "illegals"). Instead of refusing to be victims and not permitting their money to be stolen, the victims only complain the people stealing their money shouldnt give it away. Focusing on the non-existent "illegals" instead of the robbery only gives the violent men and women pretending to be a "state" legitimacy. It is tantamount to a bank being robbed and the bank managers only complaint is the robber buys crack with the money. "Hey, dont buy crack! Thats stupid. You should buy more guns and soldiers so you can steal more money." It seems irrational to complain how stolen money is being used. When money is stolen the only relevant issue is that it was stolen, not what the anti-social parasite is doing with it. While "illegal aliens" are not real, violent anti-social men and women pretending to be "states" are. Buying into the illusion there are "states" and "nations" only diverts attention from what these professional parasites are doing i.e., killing, stealing and lying. http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/Marc Stevens is the author of Adventures in Legal Land, the controversial and humorous book exposing the government hoax, order your copy today at http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/www.adventuresinlegalland.com.
participants (7)
-
Bill Stewart -
Eugen Leitl -
Gabriel Rocha -
Justin -
Morlock Elloi -
Roy M. Silvernail -
Steve Schear