07-09-2007, 07:41 PM
the way I understand it ... if a cop asks you your name, you are OBLIGED to give it or you are breaking the law. Again, this was a recent SCOTUS decision, IIRC. You do NOT have to be under arrest FIRST.
Again, that is MY understanding... I could be wrong. Probably am. But I will conduct myself in a manner such that I WILL identify myself if asked.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fxF...reme+court&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a
....
It was all captured on video, so you can play along at home. The crucial bit is where Hiibel is asked 11 times to identify himself, and—not knowing why the cop is asking—he refuses. The cops arrested him and charged him for that refusal.
....
When I say 'under arrest' I mean not an arrest-able offence. Like watering your lawn too little. But, in trying to find out WHO to CITE, the office conducting his business asks the person to ID themselves and THEN in refusing to do so, can pull that charge on them.
I would say NO ONE really likes it, but that's the state of affairs we find ourselves in today.
Again, that is MY understanding... I could be wrong. Probably am. But I will conduct myself in a manner such that I WILL identify myself if asked.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fxF...reme+court&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a
....
It was all captured on video, so you can play along at home. The crucial bit is where Hiibel is asked 11 times to identify himself, and—not knowing why the cop is asking—he refuses. The cops arrested him and charged him for that refusal.
....
When I say 'under arrest' I mean not an arrest-able offence. Like watering your lawn too little. But, in trying to find out WHO to CITE, the office conducting his business asks the person to ID themselves and THEN in refusing to do so, can pull that charge on them.
I would say NO ONE really likes it, but that's the state of affairs we find ourselves in today.