Surrender your identity

2004.06.27 — Government | Law | by Derek Jensen

The Supreme Court has blessed us with its interpretation of the Constitution on the subject of Dudley Hiibel. You'll recall that Hiibel was arrested for refusing to reveal his name to sheriff's deputies in his home state of Nevada. The Court has decided that he—and you and I—have no right to remain silent, no right to privacy, and no right to anonymity when the cops come calling. Be prepared to surrender your identity on demand.

Hiibel's reasoning (and sobriety) may have been suspect, but he knew that he was guilty of no crime and therefore felt no need to talk to the cop in question. The cops went way overboard in arresting both Hiibel and his daughter without even bothering to tell them why they had stopped to talk to them.

Neither was driving when the cops came upon them at the side of the road. The daughter readily told the cops her name. And she was not drunk or belligerent... until they yanked her out of the truck and threw her to the ground to cuff her. "Big men," her father taunted them.

Only the charge of "delaying a police officer" stuck, but the Court didn't care:

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.

The dissenting opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Stevens, who logically reasoned that the police can only detain and question someone whom they suspect of a crime, and that person is, as a matter of common sense, a criminal suspect and therefore has a right to remain silent under the fifth amendment and the Miranda ruling.

Stevens said:

There is no reason why the subject of police interrogation based on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, should have any lesser protection.

Besides, how is this ruling enforceable? Your name is only valuable if the cop can be sure that you are who you say you are, Mr. Dick Mefirmly. That suggests that they can not only ask politely but also demand proof of your identity, which starts to smell a lot like the Nazis in Casablanca demanding to see your papers.

If you can't provide proof of your identity (because, say, you're out jogging without your driver's license) can the cop arrest you and haul you in until he's sure that you're not the UA park rapist? You "fit the description," after all (along with 80% of all other men).

The suspect is described as a Caucasian male with a dark tan, slim build, approximately 6-feet tall, with short dark hair, possibly in a crew cut, and clean shaven. He was last seen wearing tan colored shorts and a shirt of unknown type or color.

It also means that you can't simply walk away from a cop if he happens to feel chatty. Presumably, you don't have to answer any questions except your name and, I imagine, rank and serial number.

Some have suggested that surrendering your identity is just not that big a deal. We do it all the time, especially in office buildings and such that require security ID cards. But the reason we tolerate this invasion is because it is voluntary (your employer can't arrest you for not doing it; he can only fire you). These are private buildings whose owners have every right to decide who does and and does not enter their premises and when. Our government has no such right over us, in buildings or in public places... except where it's necessary to demonstrate competency by licensing, like on the highway.

Let's take the new ruling to it's logical conclusions. How about if you're passing by a schoolyard and a cop decides that you might be the pervert type? He stops you and takes down your name. No big deal, right? But decline to give your name, and he'll arrest you and haul you downtown.

Is that what we want?

Or say there is a visit by a foreign dignitary. As a matter of "security," the cops go out and, suspicious of criminal mischief by protesters, begin stopping and demanding the identities of everyone they meet, recording them for later investigation... and distribution to other police departments as lists of "known radicals."

Is that America?

Even if you agree that citizens should be required to reveal their identities to the police virtually on demand, should it be an arrestable offense not to do so? After all, if the cop does not have probable cause for arrest already, why should it be that we give him probable cause just by declining to identify yourself? Speeding and disregarding a stop sign warrant a citation. Why should staying mum warrant arrest?

These are minor invasions of our privacy and curtailing of our rights. But they continue to erode our abilities to enjoy real freedom. Benjamin Franklin pointed out:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

f e e d b a c k

Respond to this page by your e-mail client. Please be sure to mention the title of the article.