I served on a grand jury a few months back. The assistant DA was pretty cool about explaining stuff. He told us then that you have to give your name to a police officer if he or she asks. He said that's all you have to do, but you do at least have to do that. So I don't see how this ruling changes anything, at least for those of us who live in Texas. I don't know about other states. We still live in basically the same world we did last week and the week before.
Not for nothing, but I don't necessarily trust an assistant district attorney to tell the truth (especially given that the DAs in Dallas have no trouble with pleading people out against their will and without their knowledge on charges such as "failure to ID" when the District Attorney says such a charge is against the law). He may have been saying you have to tell them once arrested or otherwise detained, as that's the way I understood the law in Texas, and that's what the Dallas City Attorney has said the state law was (and why Houston police don't arrest people for Failure to I.D.). Unless you were under arrest or were otherwise being detained, you had an absolute right to not say a single word no matter what the question. EDIT: Oh, and State District Judge Manny Alvarez has noted the same in regards to the failure to ID cases.
Here's the section from the Texas Penal Code, by the way: Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. ~ (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: ~ ~ (1) lawfully arrested the person; ~ ~ (2) lawfully detained the person; or ~ ~ (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. ~ (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. ~ (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
From what I understand, this was ruled back in '67, this is only an upholding of the law. And the right to remain silent only states that anything you say after that will be used against you, not before hand. Soooo if you get arrested w/out IDing you and then they read you your rights, you do not have to give your name?
Well, according to Texas law, once arrested, you gotta tell 'em your name. And the right to remain silent only states that anything you say after that will be used against you, not before hand. That's not true or else police couldn't use anything you say before you're arrested against you. If that were the case, you could confess to the crime before you were arrested and not worry about that being brought up in court.
Your name is self-incriminating testimony? Are there certain illegal names now that I am not aware of. I'm assuming that is the case, otherwise your condescending post is completely irrelevent.
Since when is a sidewalk arrest a court of law? I know there are some bad names out there, but this is a bit over-protective.
The rationale made sense. You originally claimed that since it wouldn't make an innocent person go to jail, that people should be allowed to be forced to give their names. Sam pointed out that pleading the fifth wouldn't make an innocent person go to jail either(thus the connection), so why not get rid of the fifth amendment? He was applying your logic to our constitution.
last year i had some legal woes that i wont get into here, but i asked my attorney about this very matter. he told me that if an officer asks to see your license than you must show it, even if you have done nothing wrong. in my case i was a passenger in a car that got pulled over for speeding and the cop requested my drivers license.
I'm as liberal as they come, and I agree that this administration is the worst enemy of our civil liberties,... but... ...there is a big difference from being required to identify yourself to a law enforcement officer and your "right to remain silent."
But it's not logical. One pleads the Fifth in a court of law; one gives one's name on the sidewalk somewhere. They are not remotely similar. Providing a name may go a long way towards preventing false arrest and mis-identification... won't it?
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to not give your name, or that it's a good one. I'm just talking about the freedoms involved. Your distinction between the sidewalk and the court of law is tenuous. Police reports are entered as evidence in courts of law all the time. The policeman may put your name into a report which later ends up being evidence in a court of law.
If you're in Texas, you had a bad lawyer because that specifically isn't the law in Texas and it's been quite the controversy in Dallas since officers have been using "failure to ID" - a charge that District Judges and City Attorneys and even the Dallas Police Chief have said is not a valid charge - to harrass an intimidate minorities. ...there is a big difference from being required to identify yourself to a law enforcement officer and your "right to remain silent." How so? Silent is silent, is it not? My problem with it is the ability to use the law to harrass people. Let's say I'm taking part in a protest against the city, for example, so the police set up officers on the street to take the ID of everyone who's protesting. Even though those protestors would be exercising their right to protest, having cops there taking names could very well be intimidating and used to stifle dissent. In Dallas, I could see this exchange between officers and people officers don't like the look of: OFFICER (quickly): What'syourname? CITIZEN: Excuse me? OFFICER: You're under arrest for failing to tell me your name. (Donato Garcia was beaten and arrested by a Dallas officer for failing to give his ID quickly enough, even though the officer's request was illegal, as later determined by the Dallas Police Citizen's Review Board, a jury, the City Attorney (and an assistant city attorney who attempted to get a guilty plea by illegally tricking an attorney who wasn't Garcia's attorney and who had never met Garcia into pleading out the case without Garcia's knowledge), and a judge, and the city council will soon acknowledge the fact when they pay out yet another large settlement to Mr. Garcia).
Isn't there a legitimate distinction between what goes on inside a court of law as opposed to outside a court of law? If identifying yourself is likely identical to incriminating, can't they just haul you off on suspicion until your identitity is clarified? Enough of the rope length and loopholes for criminals!
I don't think Sam was saying that the 5th was identical to identifying yourself, just that both don't end up dealing with innocents being convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
