Supreme Court Ruling.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a statute requiring a person to identify themselves to police is valid. The case came up in a challenge to a Terry stop in Nevada. Under Terry v. Ohio, police may briefly detain a person on less than probably cause (the level of proof required for arrest) if they have reasonable suspicion a crime is taking place. A Nevada statute makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself in this context.

This is a major departure for the Court. The clear implication prior to this decision was that a suspect could always remain silent. (Also open was whether this silence itself could be used to determine probable cause). While this is a departure for the court, I think it is a reminder that 9/11 really did happen.

If you read some commentators this is the end of civilization as we know it. (See this short piece in Slashdot). People seem to be missing the point. First, a state has to have a law criminalizing failure to identify oneself. Second, one's identity is not testimony in any sense. Requiring someone to tell their name in a judicial context merely requires a subpoena. This doesn't even require the reasonable suspicion standard of Terry.
- posted by Base10 @ 10:25 AM