Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:24:00PM -0400, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> Dudley Hiibel loses, the Supreme Court approves
> state laws requiring Amerikan citizens to identify themselves
> to police on request...
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5473543
> 
> What a tragedy...  G. Gordon Liddy had it exactly right when
> he said "When I was a kid, this was a free country."

I'm confused. So, freedom depends on your right to be an *anonymous*,
drunken, child abusing danger to yourself and others, in public? 

   "Based on a report from a witness, Hiibel was suspected of hitting
    his daughter, who was inside the truck. Hiibel also was suspected of
    driving under the influence of alcohol, based on his eyes,
    mannerisms, speech and the smell of alcohol."

Mmmm...oKay.

I dunno but it seems to me that once you've been seen driving a vehicle
drunk and beating your daughter, in public, the cops have a right to ask
you who the hell you think you are. Article 4 protects your "persons,
houses, papers, and effects" against "unreasonable searches and
seizures", without a warrant - asking for your name while you're
standing outside your truck on a public street seems a bit of a stretch
to include under those categories. The Constitution doesn't grant you the
right to remain silent, either, according to this:

 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20021209.html

Now, we probably /should/ have that right, but it's not clear that we
do, or that we ever did. Certainly police brutality was a problem in the
years before and during Mr. Liddy's childhood. And, let's not forget,
Liddy is a convicted criminal who made his fame working as a Nixon aide
responsible for creating the DEA, among other Libertarian favorites, and
who was responsible for the Watergate break-in in an attempt to
discredit Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who released the Pentagon Papers.
Some friend of civil liberties, that one.

Maybe Article 5 would have been more appropriate:

 "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
  himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
  process of law"

This might cover the case Stevens brought up - where someone wanted for
crimes might want to refuse to identify himself. But Article 4?

IANAL, but come on.
Steve

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Buy "Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation, 2/e" today!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159059231X/heskecominc-20/ref=nosim/