Supreme Court hears privacy case

I'm not sure if this has been discussed down here yet, but here it is. Landmark case in the Supreme Court on whether or not we will be required to surrender ID at the demand of police.

------------------
link

<snip>

Do you have to tell the police your name? Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the answer could be the difference between arrest and freedom.

The justices heard arguments Monday in a first-of-its-kind case that asks whether people can be punished for refusing to identify themselves.

The court took up the appeal of a Nevada cattle rancher who was arrested after he told a sheriff’s deputy that he had done nothing wrong and did not have to reveal his name or show identification during an encounter on a rural road four years ago.

<snip>

“I would do it all over again,” Hiibel, dressed in cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie, said outside the court Monday. “That’s one of our fundamental rights as American citizens, to remain silent.”

<snip>

Edited: Darned HTML tags

Then the option of digitized thumbprints on Driver's License/Id cards becomes mandatory.

State ID's are a de facto National ID card already, with the sharing of databases among the states.

and this seems like a very bad case (or maybe a good case from the point of view of a government intent on separating us from our rights).

There was some sort of altercation with his teenage daughter just before the stoppage/questioning, so the police had good cause to question him. He is obviously much older than the girl, so it would seem that the police took logical and reasonable steps to insure her safety.


I guess we can hope that the supremes tailor thier ruling narrowly to make it apply only to very similar situations, and not give away too much.

including the original arrest video. I do not recall the officer telling him that he had any probable suspicion of anything nor did he tell him why he wanted to see the ID.