4um: Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

This program has been active for at least 3 years, so the (very dopey) customers are there.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

I understand, thanks to a recent SC decision, people have to ID themselves when asked. So, I'd suggest they identify themselves (no need to show ID unless pressured) and not a single word more.

Well this certainly sucks but there is a solution short of destroying the phone before you give it to them. Wipe it clean by restoring it to its state from the factory. They won't be getting any data then. When you get back home just restore your data from a backup. I can see people getting shot over this invasion of privacy. People have had enough of this crap.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

Invest in a 2nd cell phone, a minimum plan deal to order pizza and stuff like that with. Hand him that one if you want to overload their system with GIGO.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

if youre referring to the heibel(sp?) case at papersplease.org, thats the guy who was standing outside his pickup truck w/ his daughter when cops arrived &demanded his id.he lost in SC, but may it have been b/c the cops were there for suspected dom/abuse?

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

also, remember the tx troopers admitted in writing they had no right to demand my id.& they retrained the cops..Despite the fact that the conspiracy sites (which thrive on victimhood) didnt feature it. it ws a significant & notable admission & victory.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

How would you have reacted to this Jethro. And how do you think officers today would react.

You get pulled over. The first word out of your mouth would be. Officer am I under arrest. The officer says no. You drive away.

I wouldn't drive away until I knew why he stopped me and what he intended to do (a traffic summons, as an example).

Police can require names, Supreme Court rules.(Knight Ridder Newspapers)

var addthis_config = { "data_track_clickback": true };

Byline: Stephen Henderson

WASHINGTON _ Siding with authorities in an important test of their power, a divided Supreme Court said Monday that citizens can be arrested for refusing to give their names to police.

A name may be unique, but it's also a universal characteristic, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 decision. So while the well-known right to remain silent is important with regard to information that could be incriminating, Kennedy said, "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 decision drew sharp criticism from privacy and civil liberties groups that had rallied to support Larry Hiibel, the Nevada rancher whose challenge to police authority inspired the high court battle. But it drew praise from police advocates, who said the ability to ask routine questions is at the heart of investigative work.

"This was not an unjustified demand of `your papers, please' by an officer of a totalitarian regime," said Charles Hobson, an attorney for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation who offered a brief supporting police in the case. "It was a reasonable request by a sheriff's deputy who had been called to the scene of a suspected crime." The court would have "tied the hands of police" by siding with Hiibel, Hobson said.

Hobson said it's important to note that the court isn't giving police a right to randomly stop people and ask them questions, only the right to ask important questions during a legal stop that results from reasonable suspicions.

"If it's not a reasonable stop, you still don't have to answer," he said.

Tim Lynch, who directs the libertarian Cato Institute's project on criminal justice, said the ruling muddles an issue that was already clear to most Americans.

"With this ruling on the books, ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert their right to `remain silent' without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," Lynch said. "Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can turn a person's silence into a criminal offense."

The case is a follow-up to a 1968 ruling that permitted police to stop people, on reasonable suspicion, and ask them questions. That ruling brought into question whether laws enabling officers to force citizens to "stop and identify" themselves were constitutional.

Twice before, the court struck down such laws on technical grounds, but it left open the question of whether citizens must give their identities to police when asked during routine stops.

In 2000, sheriff's deputies confronted Hiibel along a rural Nevada road after receiving report of an assault involving a man and a woman in a truck. Hiibel was standing outside a truck matching the description when officers arrived. His adult daughter was inside the truck.

When the officers asked Hiibel who he was, he refused to give his name. After 11 attempts to make him identify himself, he was arrested under a state law that requires citizens to identify themselves to police during investigations.

Hiibel was convicted and fined, but he challenged the result, saying police violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination.

A state appeals court denied his claims, and the Supreme Court agreed Monday.

"Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations," Kennedy wrote. "In the ordinary course, a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating" rights against unreasonable searches.

Hiibel's disclosure of his name "presented no reasonable danger of incrimination," Kennedy wrote. While Hiibel may believe that he doesn't have to disclose his name, Kennedy said, the Constitution's protection against self-incrimination doesn't permit him to refuse it. He noted that Nevada doesn't require citizens to produce identification, such as a driver's license. It just compels them to give their names.

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Stevens wrote that a person's 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." That information could be "tremendously useful" in a criminal prosecution, he said.

Lynch, of the Cato Institute, said the court's ruling could provide an opportunity to further attack people's rights against self-incrimination.

"Right now, people aren't required to take the witness stand during a trial, but I could see a prosecutor challenging that and using this opinion to say `I only want to ask question that aren't incriminating,' " Lynch said. "The court is opening a door on these issues that invites further litigation."

He said the ruling could have the worst impact on people who "stand up for their rights."

"Some people let the police walk all over them," Lynch said. "But some people want to stand up for themselves and assert themselves when they think police are out of line. It's a blow for people who think that way, because now you can get in trouble for it."

the hibel SC case was not recent, it was several yrs ago. & as JTs article points out, the ruling did not say cops can demand anyones name randomly for no reason. it has to be 1. a legal stop w/ reasonable suspicion.i dont have to show id for false cause

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

what is frustrating is that CT sites peddle a 'police state' where we all are hapless victims 'forced to SHOW PAPERS' OR BE TAZED! bullshit. Only idiots buy this tripe.I know when a demand is lawful as evidenced by the tx states admission of wrongdoing

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

in my cse a few mons. ago the cops demanded id. the hibel case noted that with just cause, cops can demand a name.This does not mean that everyone must comply with name or id demands when there is no just cause.Even the crooked SC didnt claim that.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

if cops are investigating what they believe is yer involvement in a crime & you dont give your name, yer likely to have problem.This is much different from granting cops broad power to ID everyone for no reason.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

yes that is precisely my understanding.but as your article points out it is a 'tricky' issue. We all know when cops are playing games or on a power trip.If i know a cop has no just cause.i will not show my id.period.if its reasonable,i will be happy to ID

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

This article muddies the waters between when one has to ID themselves (name, address, etc) and showing ID. If I understand Hiibel correctly, one is required to ID themselves but it isn't required to show - or carry - ID.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

exactly correct. hibel was about giving your name when theres reasonable susp. not about showing a license.It does not give cops broad or suspicionless power to demand either name or ID though."We ID everyone in TX" does NOT Fly! :-)

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

the irony of the hibel case is that the socalled 'reasonable suspicion' is that a busibody motorist drove past them & decided it was domestic abuse rather than a father daughter chat.The cops then violently threw the teenaged girl to the ground.MUST see.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

Correct, but let's keep this in mind. There isn't a cop in uniform who can't instantaneously come up with at least five causes that would satisfy "reasonable suspcion." Their reasons are normally lies, of course, but we need to know the system as it exists, not as it should be.

if its a traffic stop, id show my id. if im walking down the street or the cop has no sensible reason or cause, i would not comply with either my name or my id. id ask him if im being detained & why.Use your own good judgement.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

I'd bet it would extend to where one lives, without supplying a specific address. But I'm not sure.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

thanks, i appreciate your points. Is it really that easy though for them to make up reasonable suspicion?

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

yeah i think its generally a good idea to deal with the grievance later rather than on the spot which would allow them to escalate it or trump up charges.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

who am i kidding? i make a habit of telling the F-ing PIG he/she's a criminal on the spot. & i never get arrested. i then follow up to prove to them i was right, & i win.For me,i am just not afraid of them.righteousness is bulletproof.i do nothing illegal

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin