?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

"You have the right to remain silent...."

Well, actually, you don't have the right to remain silent any more.

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
shadowbody
Jun. 22nd, 2004 05:45 am (UTC)
I'm rathered confuzzled by people's reaction to this ruling. For years now, laws have been on the books that require people to give the police their names, and in some states their SSN.

Neither of these factors could be used to self-incriminate, only identify. The same laws also grant law enforcement the ability to lock a "John Doe" up forever, or until they positivley identify themselves.
rillifane
Jun. 22nd, 2004 08:32 am (UTC)
I found this decision utterly horrifying.
eagle243
Jun. 22nd, 2004 11:30 am (UTC)
Just the other day (Sunday) I was stopped on my way to church, at what the officer called a "routine license check." Uh, I've lived in that area for nearly four years, and this has only happened twice now - there ain't nuthin' routine about something that happens once every 21 months...

I debated whether to present my ID (I was only asked if it was "available") but decided to present it because I was in a hurry and didn't want any trouble. Good thing I did, because yesterday this ruling came down.

Unbelievable.
sidelobe
Jun. 22nd, 2004 12:04 pm (UTC)
If this guy was driving a car, he could reasonably be asked to identify himself. But if not, then this law is requiring him to carry ID, which is absolutely chilling.
prester_scott
Jun. 22nd, 2004 12:41 pm (UTC)
Yes, it is this aspect of it that bothers me. The way is now paved for mandatory national ID.
peacheater77
Jun. 22nd, 2004 03:23 pm (UTC)
Why am I not surprised?

I heard about this on the radio last night and I was a bit confused because you always state your name to a police officer. So I don't get what the deal is.
asqmh
Jun. 22nd, 2004 04:50 pm (UTC)
I agree, though, that this didn't violate the 5th amendment unless their was reason to believe that in divulging one's identity, one is incriminated. For some, this may be true -- but for most it's not and therefore asking a person to self-identify isn't covered under the 5th. It's like the question of "reasonable expectation of privacy;" you have it on your home phone, but not on a public payphone. You have it in your own bathroom, but not in a public restroom, therefore there are different channels to go through when you're dealing with an arena in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy versus when an arena in which he doesn't.

Do I like it? Not particularly. But in this case, I have to say I agree with the court's ruling -- that it's not something that conflicts with our constitutional rights as they stand now. So maybe we should change 'em.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2013
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow