The essential holding is that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment do not prevent States from enacting laws that require a person to give his name to police officers.
This law is based on a Nevada statute that makes it "a criminal offense for anyone suspected of wrongdoing to refuse to identify himself to police." The real scare from this is that,
The ruling marks the first time the nation's highest court has endorsed a provision compelling citizens to reveal information in a citizen-police encounter that may become a police investigation.
While it might seem harmless to have to give your name if you're suspected of wrongdoing, I don't think that it is constitutionally permissible.
As Justice Stevens, in dissent so clearly points out,
Stevens adds, "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about a person particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases."
I know from dealing with criminal defense that often people are marked by police officers, especially in smaller communities, as being trouble. The police often harrass these people to figure out if they are doing something wrong. They drive by their houses. Follow them in cars. And generally try to make their life miserable.
While this is typically limited to a few police officers who have a chip on their shoulder or hold a personal grudge. It wouldn't surprise me to see them using identification laws to harrass a person even further.
It is slightly upsetting to see the court go from a great decision in Crawford to this disturbing decision today. I'm not sure whether I consider this a terrible decision or just a wrong decision. I'll have to read the opinion to see the reasoning and the dicta behind the holding.
