May police now arrest people for refusing to identify themselves?
By Jennifer Van Bergen

The following article was contributed to the[*] by Jennifer Van Bergen, the author of the upcoming book, The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. She has been an adjunct faculty member of the New School for Social Research in NYC since 1993 and lectures on the antiterrorism laws and the Constitution.

Several days ago, three persons stood on a street corner in a suburban area of the United States, exercising their rights to assemble and express themselves in their opposition to the American invasion, occupation, and corporatization of Iraq. The group has been holding protests since early last year and has often demonstrated in public areas, including the one they were in this time, in front of the County Courthouse.

But this time was not the same as the other times. This time was a little different. A police officer came over and asked them what they were doing. Three people standing there with signs and clearly marked t-shirts showing their anti-war views. One of the three pointed to her t-shirt, which said the name of the peace group to which she belonged.

The officer asked for identification. Only one of the three had I.D., and the police officer asked that person to come with him. The remaining two immediately objected that they did not want to be separated from each other. The officer insisted, and one of the protesters said, “Officer, there is a First Amendment: we have a First Amendment right to stand here and protest!” to which the officer replied, “There is also such a thing as police business!” and he took the third person with I.D. away to question her.

The story has a relatively happy ending. The officer questioned the person with I.D. and left the protesters alone thereafter, perhaps because that person was an attorney who showed the officer her bar card. But the protesters felt harassed. This had never happened before. The group regularly protested, and the police knew them by now. This event seemed to signal trouble for peaceful protesters. They wondered whether surveillance and harassment of activist groups were on the rise.

I quoted the introduction to this article to ensure that the topic is well covered before asking my question. My question is this - Do the police have the right to identify any person, for the mere exercise of their "curiosity"?

The background is the right to privacy.

In New York, it is legal for police to randomly park a patrol car and scan license plates of all motorists passing by, to ensure valid registrations.

In Florida, it is legal for a police officer to demand that you provide ID for just standing around too long.

If you get a chance to read this article, please do, before answering this question and providing comment.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

I think we are getting to a place where we are surrendering too many of our civil liberties to be protected. I don't think the police should be allowed to just walk up to anyone and ID them for no probable cause. The cop who ID'ed the people standing in protest is a great example of what the tip of the ice-berg looks like. Pretty soon, that crack the article talks about will widen. And when it does, our sons and daughters will not be able to walk to their church meetings, or their political meetings without some agent of the govt. being able to stop them and demand to see ID. And if you can't produce ID, they get to take you to jail. Freedoms are being eroded and we are loosing the appreciation of this, in our society.

I don't want the police tracking my movements because I might decide to drive a car with a suspended license or an unregistered license plate. I don't want the police monitoring me or my neighbors, just because I decided to stand outside the courthouse with a sign. This is wrong!

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., No. 03-5554 (June 21, 2004)

Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 ( 1968 ).

You can read these for yourselves. They are contrasted in the article cited in post 1.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address