Post by AtomHeartMother on Jun 24, 2004 17:18:14 GMT -5
Give name or go to jail
Court upholds power to arrest
Dan Chapman - Staff
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested even if they have committed no crime.
The court's 5-4 decision, which angered privacy advocates and protesters, upholds laws in 21 states, including Georgia, that allow police to demand names and to jail individuals who don't cooperate.
It remained unclear Monday evening what impact the ruling might have on the status of protesters arrested on St. Simons Island during the recent G-8 summit who have refused to divulge their names.
Criminal justice and law enforcement groups praised the court ruling as a necessary tool to combat crime and terrorism. Civil libertarians decried it as yet another infringement.
"If a police officer could ask someone demonstrating peacefully, 'What's your name?' and the person refuses, the police would have the grounds to arrest that person and, de facto, make peaceful protest illegal," said Bill Cristman, a Fulton County lawyer. ''That would have a chilling effect on the ability of people to exercise their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly and petition."
Cristman, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, acted as a "legal observer" during Group of Eight protests where 18 demonstrators were arrested June 10. The protesters were charged with criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and other offenses after they attempted to cross a police barricade blocking access to Sea Island, where the leaders of the world's most prosperous democracies were meeting.
On Monday, six protesters remained in custody at the Glynn County detention center, including four who refused to give their names, said Sheriff Wayne Bennett. They are scheduled to appear before a magistrate Thursday.
''I've been in this business 26 years, and I've never seen a person arrested for not giving a name," Bennett said. "If they don't give a name, they can't be afforded bond. So they'll just sit in jail until they do or until a court orders them released."
The withholding of one's name has been a time-tested act of defiance used by protesters at least since the Vietnam War.
The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said that during the civil rights movement, many rank-and-file protesters --- but not the leaders --- refused to give their names when arrested, for fear of losing their jobs. In 1988, anti-abortion demonstrators in Atlanta remained in jail rather than identify themselves.
The practice increased during anti-globalization protests in Seattle in 1999. And, at last year's huge anti-war protests in New York, hundreds of demonstrators refused to give their names to police.
"Often, from our experience, these are the results of mass arrests that are not based on probable cause," said Heidi Boghosian, executive director of the Lawyers Guild. "One concern we have is that initiatives such as this will intimidate people who haven't protested before but want to come out and protest the current administration."
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any evidence. But until now, the justices had never held that, during those encounters, a person must reveal his or her identity.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas siding with him. Justice John Paul Stevens led the dissent, joined by Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The court found that forcing someone to divulge his name does not violate his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches or his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.
"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic,'' Kennedy wrote. ''Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, such as driver's licenses.
But Stevens said requiring people to divulge their names goes too far.
''A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases,'' he wrote.
The Associated Press and Journal-Constitution staff researcher Joni Zeccola contributed to this article.
www.ajc.com/tuesday/content/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_047d4c36433921f31032.html
Court upholds power to arrest
Dan Chapman - Staff
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested even if they have committed no crime.
The court's 5-4 decision, which angered privacy advocates and protesters, upholds laws in 21 states, including Georgia, that allow police to demand names and to jail individuals who don't cooperate.
It remained unclear Monday evening what impact the ruling might have on the status of protesters arrested on St. Simons Island during the recent G-8 summit who have refused to divulge their names.
Criminal justice and law enforcement groups praised the court ruling as a necessary tool to combat crime and terrorism. Civil libertarians decried it as yet another infringement.
"If a police officer could ask someone demonstrating peacefully, 'What's your name?' and the person refuses, the police would have the grounds to arrest that person and, de facto, make peaceful protest illegal," said Bill Cristman, a Fulton County lawyer. ''That would have a chilling effect on the ability of people to exercise their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly and petition."
Cristman, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, acted as a "legal observer" during Group of Eight protests where 18 demonstrators were arrested June 10. The protesters were charged with criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and other offenses after they attempted to cross a police barricade blocking access to Sea Island, where the leaders of the world's most prosperous democracies were meeting.
On Monday, six protesters remained in custody at the Glynn County detention center, including four who refused to give their names, said Sheriff Wayne Bennett. They are scheduled to appear before a magistrate Thursday.
''I've been in this business 26 years, and I've never seen a person arrested for not giving a name," Bennett said. "If they don't give a name, they can't be afforded bond. So they'll just sit in jail until they do or until a court orders them released."
The withholding of one's name has been a time-tested act of defiance used by protesters at least since the Vietnam War.
The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said that during the civil rights movement, many rank-and-file protesters --- but not the leaders --- refused to give their names when arrested, for fear of losing their jobs. In 1988, anti-abortion demonstrators in Atlanta remained in jail rather than identify themselves.
The practice increased during anti-globalization protests in Seattle in 1999. And, at last year's huge anti-war protests in New York, hundreds of demonstrators refused to give their names to police.
"Often, from our experience, these are the results of mass arrests that are not based on probable cause," said Heidi Boghosian, executive director of the Lawyers Guild. "One concern we have is that initiatives such as this will intimidate people who haven't protested before but want to come out and protest the current administration."
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any evidence. But until now, the justices had never held that, during those encounters, a person must reveal his or her identity.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas siding with him. Justice John Paul Stevens led the dissent, joined by Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The court found that forcing someone to divulge his name does not violate his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches or his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.
"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic,'' Kennedy wrote. ''Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, such as driver's licenses.
But Stevens said requiring people to divulge their names goes too far.
''A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases,'' he wrote.
The Associated Press and Journal-Constitution staff researcher Joni Zeccola contributed to this article.
www.ajc.com/tuesday/content/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_047d4c36433921f31032.html