Be aware the G can ask you for your name during a Terry stop-- one in which they only have a suspicion that a crime has occured and not probable cause-- and if you dont give it to them that they can arrest you.

Many people have had that impression for a long time, but now it's official:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040621/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_identification_5

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html
from the June 22, 2004 edition
Court: If police ask, you must give your name

The high court rules 5 to 4 that officers can arrest people who won't reveal their identity.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police.
In what may become a major boost to US law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts, the US Supreme Court Monday upheld a Nevada law that makes it a criminal offense for anyone suspected of wrongdoing to refuse to identify himself to police.

Civil libertarians see the decision as a significant setback. And it remains unclear to what extent it may open the door to the issuing of national identification cards or widespread identity operations keyed to terrorist profiling at bus terminals, train stations, sports stadiums, and on city streets.

"It's a green light to explore the bounds of how much personal information can be demanded on pain of arrest," says Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute in Washington. "It also gives a green light to perhaps the Congress to move with a national law."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, says the decision has clear implications for the war on terror.

"We know identification continues to be one of the key demands of government agencies involved in homeland security," he says. "[This decision] - depending on how broad it is - could open the door to new demands for identification."

The ruling marks the first time the nation's highest court has endorsed a provision compelling citizens to reveal information in a citizen-police encounter that may become a police investigation.

The 5-to-4 decision says that neither the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination bars states from passing laws requiring citizens to identify themselves.

In effect, the majority justices say that in most cases it is no significant intrusion for police to request - and a suspect to provide - his name.

"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "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."

Justice Kennedy adds that if a case arises in which the furnished identity provides a key link leading to the conviction of the individual for a different crime, the court will revisit the issue.

Joining Justice Kennedy's majority opinion were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens says the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination must always shield a criminal suspect who is being questioned by police. Since police may only request the name of someone they find suspicious (under the upheld Nevada statute), that person is by definition a criminal suspect who may not be compelled to make statements that might incriminate him, Justice Stevens says.

"The court reasons that we should not assume the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him," Justice Stevens writes. "But why else would an officer ask for it?"

Stevens adds, "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about a person particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases."

The decision stems from the case of Larry Hiibel, who was arrested in May 2000 after he refused a deputy sheriff's repeated demand that he produce some form of identification.

The encounter took place at the side of a road in Humboldt County, Nev. The deputy had received a report of a man striking a woman in a pickup truck. When the deputy arrived at the scene, Mr. Hiibel was standing outside a pickup truck that was parked on the shoulder of the road. His daughter was sitting inside the truck.

The deputy asked Hiibel 11 times to produce identification. Hiibel repeatedly refused, saying he'd done nothing wrong. The deputy placed him under arrest in accord with a Nevada law that permits police to detain criminal suspects for up to 60 minutes to compel them to identify themselves.

Hiibel refused to comply. He was charged and convicted of violating the mandatory identity law, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. His conviction was affirmed by a state appeals court and the Nevada Supreme Court.

In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.

here was my interpretation of this story

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=6418

Sigh. And this was done by the so called "conservative" judges, as well.

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]here was my interpretation of this story

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=6418[/QUOTE]
Pardon. I was working on that one while you posted, 3 minutes ahead of me. I've merged them.

[QUOTE=Chain]Pardon. I was working on that one while you posted, 3 minutes ahead of me. I've merged them.[/QUOTE]

you had a more "colorful" description!

Take To The Streets, Ye Patriots!

You guys relax. In practice they already did this all the time.

Anyhow, look on the bright side. This is an important step when we need to use the system to root out all the Jews. Pogrom becomes more and more feasible, technologically, every day. I'm sure Ginsberg and Breyer both had that in the back of their heads when they voted on this.

Homeland defense, patriot act, all that-- all valuable tools if we can get into place to employ them. Meanwhile, you calling on people to take to the streets is funny. White people cant get off their asses just to turn the televitz off.

Jews today like Yahoodit may say Homeland defense is a comin for me and thee. I doubt it. More like, as the election draws near the "PAYOFF" for the system to put the blame for the war right where it belongs-- on JEWS-- grows daily. Expect more breakaways like Jim Moran and Fritz Hollings. Question is what do we do to capitalize?

[QUOTE=norcalnative1971][SIZE=3]A century ago, yes,

Sadly, today there will be but a whimper of protest from the "Defenders of Civil Liberties." And millions of cowards claiming it's "for our own good."[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I would say 50 year ago :p

Greetz

In NY you get charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration (OGA, a violation or mebbe a low level misdemeanor if you are convicted) if you refuse to identify yourself to police. And the cops don’t release you from custody until you are fingerprinted and positively identified, I’ve had this happen to me twice when I have refused to ‘cooperate’ with the authorities, and I can remember this being the case going back to the 1970’s.

AE is correct that this ruling is a two edged sword for the jew. It’s going to be funny as hell when the oppressive constructs the jew setup to enslave us are turned and used on him with a vengeance. This war in Iraq is a godsend for us, the jew has come out in the open and tipped his hand. He has totally disregarded the caution and secrecy in which he gained all this power and this was a fatal error on his part.

Every time historically without fail that the kike has tipped his hand like this the ensuing result has been pogrom. This time will be no different, except in the intensity that modern technology will enhance the destructive capacities on all sides. Itz gonna be a doozy, this coming Great Pogrom.
Cheers

TG

[QUOTE=T.Garrett]Greetz
......... This time will be no different, except in the intensity that modern technology will enhance the destructive capacities on all sides. Itz gonna be a doozy, this coming Great Pogrom.
Cheers

TG[/QUOTE]

TG, so right! I can only add:

"LAISSEZ LES BON TEMPS ROULEZ!"