Washington, DC * -- A sharply divided US Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.

The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters people must reveal their identities.

The court's 5-4 decision following the usual conservative-liberal split upholds current laws that exist in at least 21 states which give police the right to ask people their names and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work.

Privacy advocates say the decision gives police too much power. Once officers have a name, they can use computer databases to learn all kinds of personal information about the person.

The loser in Monday's decision was Nevada * cattle rancher Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor after he told a deputy that he didn't have to give out his name or show an ID.

The encounter happened after someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck parked along a road. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel repeatedly refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail," and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."

The court ruled that forcing people to give police their names does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination except in rare cases.

The current ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented the decision and disagreed with the ruling.

As an article in the Oregonian put it, "It already has prompted fears among some civil liberties groups that the country just moved closer to national ID cards and constant police surveillance."

Furthermore, as an article in SFGate.com put it, "Stanford law professor Robert Weisberg said that compelled self-identification has disturbing implications for the Internet."

This article was originally entitled "High court rules police can demand name: Decision lets US arrest, punish those who won't cooperate" and was found at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/22/ high_court_rules_police_can_demand_name/ . Additional information was added from the article "Police can ask for IDs, high court says" which was found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? f=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/22/MNGK57A0F41.DTL , from the article "A modified right to remain silent", found at http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf? /base/editorial/1087905330262360.xml, and from the article "Bad ID" by Will Baude found at https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=express&s=baude062204

Search this site for more about Supreme Court Decides Public Anonymity Right *