The Fourth and Fifth amendments are what are in question. An individual has a constitutional right not to respond to police inquiries, regardless of whether it would actually be more reasonable for him to answer the questions and be on his way. “Reasonableness” serves as a limitation upon state action, not upon the conduct of its citizens. Simply because people often share their identities under mutually agreeable circumstances does not mean that the State can demand it in circumstances a citizen may find less favorable. Demanding the production of identification by armed police officers (with the uncertain outcome of refusal) is not only an assault on anyone's absolute interests in their personal privacy and secuirty, it is a direct assault on acknowledged Fourth and Fifth amendment protections granting the right to remain silent. The State has not asserted a specific threat. Both Ashcroft and Ridge were on the air yesterday saying that there was nothing specific and the terror level was not being increased. Yet we have these new "mandates"--not laws, not regulations--in place as a response to nebulous security concerns. Failing to answer questions about one's identity is not facial proof of criminal intent or a threat to public safety.
Of course, this all may be moot because no one seems to know what the consequences are if you refuse to identify yourself.
Granted, not all of my own words, I'm borrowing some from the ACLU amicus brief (PDF) for Hiibel v. Nevada
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
Of course, this all may be moot because no one seems to know what the consequences are if you refuse to identify yourself.
Granted, not all of my own words, I'm borrowing some from the ACLU amicus brief (PDF) for Hiibel v. Nevada
no subject
on 27 May 2004 10:26 (UTC)