I am confused. The article is about identifying oneself to a police office. I assume that this means giving the officer one’s name – not providing legal ID. I know that the US does not have a compulsory ID system. Even the Real ID Act (goes into effect in 2008) does not require US citizens to have ID.

If an officer were to ask me to identify myself in a public place, I would tell the officer that I was Mr. Harris, Dr. Harris, or Rev. Harris – depending on my mood and the circumstances. I would not provide my first name (I only have one) unless the officer provided a compelling reason. And I have no legal ID on me since I am not required to have legal ID to walk the streets in the United States of America.

If I were protesting as part of an organized protest group, I would respond the same way and indicate that I (or we) were exercising our Constitutional rights for peaceful assembly. While I do not believe that the police (or National Guard) have the right to shoot anyone without the threat of imminent death on the part of the person with the gun, I do believe that the people with the guns are as scared as we are and that shooting might be unintentional.

If, during a protest or other rally, the police walk through the crowds questioning people, I would be polite and simply offer my last name (plus the appropriate title).

Back to the article. The US Supreme Court upheld a Nevada law. This applies only to Nevada, it should not be considered binding on states that do not have a similar law. The article makes is sound as if the US Supreme Court made a serious blunder in this decision. However, the Nevada law may be perfectly valid in the case cited – the person under suspicion of having committed a crime was asked to produce ID – this could have been a reasonable request to produce a driver’s license (the person was in the red and silver GMC truck). The case cited, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., No. 03-5554 (June 21, 2004), is a Nevada case.
The Florida loitering law has no bearing on the issue. It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person...refused to identify himself...a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself...and explain his...presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. Fla. Stat. §856.021 (2003).
I do agree that Justice Stevens (the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) was correct in his dissent with the Court on this issue. As a citizen of the United States of America and supporter of the US Constitution, I object strongly to compulsory ID. As a criminal justice student and PI trainee, I support compulsory ID – this makes CSI and CSI: Miami actually make sense.

While this article is interesting and eye opening, it is seriously biased. It is also incomplete in its evaluation of the issue.