What's In a Name?

The Supreme Court ruled today, by a 5-4 vote, that the Constitution does not prohibit state laws making it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself to the police, even where there is no probable cause to believe that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime. People Must Give Police Their Names, Court Rules [WiredNews.com]. The decision reasons that police are allowed to stop people whom they have "reasonable suspicion" to conclude may have acted criminally, without a warrant -- known as a "Terry stop" for the 1968 case permitting them -- so the arrest is no greater intrusion.

But in Terry, the Court concluded that a warrant was unnecessary because individuals subject to a stop based on reasonable suspicion are "not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest." And the majority today also concluded that identity alone is not incriminating. As Justice Stevens pointed out in dissent, however, "if we accept the predicate for the Court’s holding, the statute requires nothing more than a useless invasion of privacy."

All of this goes to show just how screwed-up criminal law in the U.S. has become in the wake of 9/11. This case was about a man standing on the side of the road talking to his daughter through the open window of her pick-up truck. All he wanted was to be left alone. Now the law says the police can drive up and cart you off for doing nothing wrong, with no crime involved, just because you refuse to give your name. This is wrong. As Justice Brandies said nearly 100 years ago, the Constitution protects "the right to be left alone." At least it did until this conservative Supreme Court got through trashing privacy in favor of law enforcement.

 Posted by glenn