If a cop asks for your name...

I have two questions (and I apologize if either has already been covered above):

1) If the police officer asks for your name and you give it, is the officer authorized to follow up and obtain some form of I.D. as verification?

2) I understand how, under the Terry decision, police may stop you (and even frisk in certain situations) if they have "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful activity. Is the requirement to provide a name when asked governed by the same "reasonable suspicion" standard?

If the answer to # 1 is "no" and # 2 is "yes" then I suppose I don't have any real problem with this ruling. After all, police have been conducting legal Terry-stops since 1968.

On the other hand, if the answers are reversed, then police will certainly use the ruling to "boot-strap" justification for previously impermissible stop and frisks.

Possible scenarios:

Me: "Why did you stop me officer?"

Police Officer: "No reason. What's your name?"

Me: "John Doe"

Police Officer: "Prove it. Show me some I.D."

Me: "Sorry, I was just out walking my dog, I didn't bring my wallet."

Police Officer: "No I.D.? Then you'll have to come with us ..."

Or,

Me: "Wait a minute. You asked my name and I told you. If you have no reason to stop me, then why should it be on me to prove anything? I'm leaving."

Police Officer: "I don't need a reason. And, not only that, I think you might be giving me a false name, so I'm going to pat you down for I.D., and if by chance I discover some other contraband in the process, I'll arrest you for that, too."

*Although I still haven't read the opinion, the more I think about this the more I suspect the police are going to be held to the same "reasonable suspicion" standard noted in Terry before being allowed to ask for I.D. As I recall, the courts have traditionally defined non-suspicious questioning as "voluntary encounters" and the citizen has always been free to walk away without providing any information. If my interpretation is not correct, I'm sure the legal community would have gone nuts already and I haven't heard anything so far.
 
This ruling isn't going to open the door for people to go to jail for not having ID on them when not engaged in any suspicious activity.
Nor does it extend the Terry pat down for weapons into a suspicionless fishing expedition for contraband, or into an interrogation.
It simply answers the very specific question, 'Can I with impunity, refuse to tell the police my name, when they have reason to suspect me of some wrongdoing?'

And the answer is 'No'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As to the questions raised by other posters about the right of a police officer to refuse to tell a random citizen their name, or whether this means that the police can force people to confess to crimes or face criminal charges for not confessing, or for a person to be held for hours waiting for a drug dog with zero probable cause...

...A little common sense would go a long way toward answering those questions.

Besides, I am surprised at the total lack of commentaries on 02-1371 and 02-1182, which offer a much greater potential threat to individual liberties than the case being discussed.

Why the disparity?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:

I'm saying that in a free society you shouldn't have to bend over like that for fear that a police officer will trash your christmas presents.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that shouldn't happen in a free society (income tax, compulsory education, compulsory voting, compulsory military service ect.) I've never seen that stop them from doing those things. It's not abuse of power that’s the problem; it's the power to abuse.
 
shuize said:
Possible scenarios:

Me: "Why did you stop me officer?"

Police Officer: "No reason. What's your name?"

Me: "John Doe"
Click to expand...

Me: "Puddintame"

(am I the _only_ one who has thought of this?)
 
'Puddintame...ask me again, and I'll tell you the same...'



Actually, I'm reminded of the Who lyric:

"Woke up in a Soho doorway, p'liceman knew my name..."

Now *that* paints a picture.
 
True, but having a discussion on people's opinions about the law, and actually providing useful information are two different matters, as the linked thread amply demonstrates..
 
crimresearch said:
True, but having a discussion on people's opinions about the law, and actually providing useful information are two different matters, as the linked thread amply demonstrates..
Click to expand...

When the former is not done with the fruits of the latter it is at best worthless, as an opinion not based in fact only resembles reality by coincidence.
 
crimresearch said:


Besides, I am surprised at the total lack of commentaries on 02-1371 and 02-1182, which offer a much greater potential threat to individual liberties than the case being discussed.

Why the disparity?
Click to expand...

I can see 02-1371 as being important, questioning outside Miranda.


02-1182 seems to be an employment law case, Oatman v. Fuji Photo Film USA, Inc.

What is the individual liberty problem there?
 
Sorry, 02-1183, or US v Patane.

Anyway, just I find it a bit odd that the 'outraged ' commentary over having to give one's name when under investigation, outweighs that over cases where people are interrogated outside of Miranda.

In fact, I haven't noticed you posting much at all around here lately, but I'm talking about all the people who were so sure that the Hiibel case was going to be the end of individual rights, and yet had apparently never even heard of the other two upcoming cases.
 
crimresearch said:
Sorry, 02-1183, or US v Patane.

Anyway, just I find it a bit odd that the 'outraged ' commentary over having to give one's name when under investigation, outweighs that over cases where people are interrogated outside of Miranda.

In fact, I haven't noticed you posting much at all around here lately, but I'm talking about all the people who were so sure that the Hiibel case was going to be the end of individual rights, and yet had apparently never even heard of the other two upcoming cases.
Click to expand...

The reasons why are because in these types of cases an opinion creates more interest than a potential opinion in that once an opinion is handed down there is something concrete to discuss. Until then there is speculation.

Plus, the Hiibel case just sounds worse. Especially when people distort it to mean that you must show your "papers" when asked.

These other two cases can't really be laid out in such a dramatic manner. Hopefully the Court will give teeth to Dickerson and fully apply the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to Miranda rights. However, it just sounds to the casual listener like technical slick lawyer stuff. It just doesn't have legs.

I had vaguely heard of the other cases, but since I have no Miranda issues in my caseload at present I really haven't followed closely. After the Crawford decision I try not to be too down about what they are likely to do. At least they gave me one good opinion this term...

I tend to worry more about the state supreme court anyway. More relevant to my situation.

As to the rest I don't usually post here anymore. I was looking for a thread that shanek mentioned and stumbled on a few legal threads, so why not? I may happen through now and then but I'll for the most part stay over there.
 
When a cop arrests someone, aren't they supposed to tell you that you have the right to remain silent? So does this ruling not apply to people that have been arrested? Or when they say "You have the right to remain silent" do they really mean "You have the right to remain silent, unless I ask you your name, in which you are obligated to tell me"? Are cops obligated to tell people what law obligates them to reveal their names? I.e. "If you don't reveal your name, you will be in violation of such and such a law"? Or are individual citizens supposed to either know exactly what they are obligated to say, or else answer every question? I've read that cops can lie to suspects. Can they lie about the law? Can they, for instance, say "There's a law that says that if you don't tell me where the gun is, you'll go to jail"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom