It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Fifth Admendment is now officially dead

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 08:40 PM
Hello ATS,

This is the first topic i have done since being a member so bear with me please.I'm not even sure I'm doing this right or if this tiopic has already been touched upon....I remember as a teenager getting pulled over with friend.After the officer told my friend why he pulled him over(speeding)and asked to see his license and insurance..He(officer)then asked for everyone elses I.D.sMy two buddies in back gave theirs up without hesitation,I on the otherhand knew i didnt have to show my identification because I was.nt the operator of the car...after arguing and persistance from my friends i gave in..but prided myself in knowing i was right...I read an article today that kinda takes that pride away..It's a rather short article so I'll post the whole thing...(if this is not the way it's done please let me know)
This is the address to the

One lawyer says the government will now be able to "turn a person's silence into a criminal offense."

A sharply-divided Supreme Court has ruled five-to-four that Americans have no constitutional right to keep quiet when police ask for their names.

Privacy rights advocates say the ruling essentially opens a can of worms, forcing people who haven't done anything wrong to give information that can be used in broad data searches.

The head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says the modern age means police get "an extraordinary look" into somebody's private life simply by getting their identification.

But the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation says officers will only be able to demand I-D from people suspected of criminal involvement.

The case involved a Nevada rancher who was arrested after refusing multiple requests to give an officer his name.


posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 08:45 PM
I live in New England and I was seeing this on the News this morning. Apparently Logan airport is getting big on this as are the city buses in Boston. Unfortunately its going to get to the point where we will be required to say who we are and show ID just to go to Taco bell for a soft taco. Not sure what they are trying to do witg this and it will be interesting to see what the politicians say once they start getting questioned on it.

Personally I think it sucks because its nice to go someplace where noone knows you and just relax. If this becomes law that will no longer be able to happen.

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 08:46 PM
Yes it has been touched upon

And this is the wrong forum

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 08:59 PM
Welcome to ATS S_B, yep this has been commented on here at ATS. The ruling on the Fifth is based on the theory that giving your name is not self incrimination, can't disagree there can you? How can your name be incriminating?

The 14th amendment issue (I believe that was it) was not breached because the court ruled that had the gentleman simply given his name verbally then the state statute would have been satisfied (technically no papers required) but since he refused even that the charge of failure to identify was upheld.

The moral of the story is to know and read your states law on this subject if you want to challenge at a stop.

The police officers in this incident did way over react and escalate it beyond what it should have been, they should be fired.

Tip: use the search function before posting and you can easily see if something has been brought up before (google linked to ATS is real useful)

Check the various forums for applicable subjects, for instance this would go in Politics and Scandals.

Click this for link to Politics and Scandals


log in