No I.D. Presented, Don't Have to Tell Your Name.
OK, now about not having to identify yourself to LE, and the Hiibel case's seeming contradiction.
Based on your Miranda rights, (Miranda v Arizona, 1966) ([url]http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/pdf/miranda_v_arizona.pdf[/url] for a synopsis and explanation of the case), you have the protection of Miranda anytime you are experiencing "Custodial Interrogation". Miranda gives you the absolute Right to Remain Silent.
What is Custodial Interrogation? Anytime the Police are investigating a crime, and you are being detained and questioned, this could qualify as Custodial Interrogation. If you are being Detained (which can, unless you are arrested, last no longer than 20 minutes) and Questioned, you have the unrestricted Right to Remain Silent. Silent. You [i]do not[/i] have to answer [i]any[/i] questions you are asked by LE.
As it was explained to me, if you are pulled over, you can ask the LEO, "are you investigating a crime?" They will probably answer yes. You then have every Right to say: "I choose to remain silent", and there is nothing they can do. They will threaten and cajole, and may even threaten to arrest you. You can remain silent, [b]although they may arrest you.[/b] You [i]have[/i] to be prepared for that to happen, and ready to go to jail to protect your Rights. Or, you could show them your ID, and say nothing else.
If, when you ask the LEO if they are investigating a crime, they say "No", then the next thing you should do is ask "Am I free to go?" If they say "No" to that, then guess what, you are being detained, and your Right to Remain Silent is always there.
re. Hiibel: His argument was that his arrest for not showing ID violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. Here are the texts for the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution:
[QUOTE=U.S. Constitution]Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/QUOTE]
Hiibel was ruled against by the US Supreme Court. The 4th doesn't apply as he was not at his house, wasn't being searched, and there were no Warrants being served. His argument as to the 5th was closer, as he was defending his Right against self incrimination. However, the Court ruled that simply giving your name wasn't, per se, going to lead to self incrimination. The Dissenting Opinion of the Court made an effort to relate the case to Miranda, saying in part:
[QUOTE=Judge Stevens, US Supreme Court Justice]Under the Nevada law, a member of the targeted class “may not be compelled to answer” any inquiry except a command that he “identify himself.” Refusal to identify oneself upon request is punishable as a crime. Presumably the statute does not require the detainee to answer any other question because the Nevada Legislature realized that the Fifth Amendment prohibits compelling the target of a criminal investigation to make any other statement. In my judgment, the broad constitutional right to remain silent, which derives from the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5, is not as circumscribed as the Court suggests, and does not admit even of the narrow exception defined by the Nevada statute.
“[T]here can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467 (1966). It is a “settled principle” that “the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved crimes,” but “they have no right to compel them to answer.” Davis v. Mississipi, 394 U. S. 721, 727, n. 6 (1969). The protections of the Fifth Mmendment are directed squarely toward those who are the focus of the government’s investigative and prosecutorial powers. In a criminal trial, the indicted defendant has an unqualified right to refuse to testify and may not be punished for invoking that right. See Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288, 299–300 (1981). The unindicted target of a grand jury investigation enjoys the same constitutional protection even if he has been served with a subpoena. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760, 767–768 (2003). So does an arrested suspect during custodial interrogation in a police station. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467.
There is no reason why the subject of police interrogation based on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, should have any lesser protection. Indeed, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s protections apply with equal force in the context of Terry stops, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), here an officer’s inquiry “must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for [the stop’s] initiation.’” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984) (some internal quotation marks omitted). “Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.” Ibid. See also Terry, 392 U. S., at 34 (White, J., concurring) (“Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation”). Given our statements to the effect that citizens are not required to respond to police officers’ questions during a Terry stop, it is no surprise that petitioner assumed, as have we, that he had a right not to disclose his identity.[/QUOTE]
Judge Stevens made a reasonable attempt to protect Hiibel, but, sadly was in the Minority of the Court.
The entire text of the Hiibel case finding can be found here: [url]http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf[/url].
Essentially, if Hiibel had gone to Court with the argument that the Nevada law violated his Rights as given in Miranda, he probably would have won the case. However, his 5th Amendment argument wasn't wasn't the right argument for the case.
As always, [b]I am not an Attorney, nor an Expert on our Rights. I am not recommending anyone do anything, just stating a few of our Rights, as I understand them.[/b]
Wallie
Re : I Wouldn't Advise It
[QUOTE=Wallie]
The backing for the case is that [i]you do not need a license to do something which is not otherwise illegal.[/i] [/QUOTE]
You've made this assertion several times during this discussion . You and your lawyer friend's
understanding of the concept of a "license" is blatantly [b]*WRONG*[/b] and yer mis·leading people here
A LICENSE is [i]" The permission by competent authority to do an act which , without such permission ,
would be illegal , a trespass , or a tort "[/i]
IOW , your definition of the need for a license is completely back·wards from the legal reality
There are a few instances where you need licenses or permits to do a whole lot of things that
are perfectly legal to do without a license some of the time , but which require them in
specific circumstances . Examples =
· You can drive a motor vehicle on your property with·out a license , but need one to operate on public roads
· You can nail two boards together , no problem , but you need a building permit to build a house ,
and then an occupancy certificate before you can move in
· You can remove a delapidated dog house from your property , but need a demolition
permit to tear your house down
There are also a lot of activities that *always* or almost always require a license =
· Flying an airplane [ some experimental aircraft are exempt ]
· Hunting , fishing and trapping [ some Native Americans are exempt ]
· Selling alcohol
· Practicing Medicine , Dentistry and other medical professions
· Operating a motor vehicle [i]on public roadways[/i] falls into this category
Why don't you give this one up and go back to trying to explain why none of us
need to pay income taxes