I was in Kiev, Ukraine several years ago riding on the Metro subway system. I was with a 13 y.o. "translator" who, in reality, didn't speak all that much English. Just as we were getting off one of the trains a man approached us, obviously intoxicated and very agitated. He figured out that I was an American and he was shouting various things at me that I didn't understand. My Russian vocabulary consists of exactly two words, Nyet and Spasiba. Neither of which seemed to have much impact on him. He was a short burly guy and I figured I could probably take him in a fight. However, getting into legal trouble in a former soviet republic didn't seem like a real great idea. The guy kept getting in my face and yelling. I was about to "go nuclear" on him when a police officer walked up...
In the former Soviet countries, the police and the army are virtually indistinguishable. The policeman walked up to this guy and as soon as he saw the cop he calmed down immediately. It was incredible. The policeman was unarmed and had used no physical force. He hadn't even yelled at the guy, but such is the power of a police officer in a totalitarian state.
A case before the Supreme Court is now deciding what kind of power a police officer has over an ordinary law-abiding citizen. A Washington Post article describing the case is here. It specifically concerns whether a police officer has the right to ask you your name and compel you to answer. The attorneys for the defendant are making the following argument:
[the] law violates the constitutionally based right to privacy and the right against self-incrimination, Robert E. Dolan, an attorney for rancher Dudley Hiibel, told the justices. It is "an improper tipping of the balance in favor of the state," Dolan said.
As far as I'm concerned, the power of the state over ordinary citizens has gone too far. I wrote about this in a post titled, Roadblock Ahead. If I have committed no crime and there isn't reasonable suspicion to believe I have committed any crime, I shouldn't be forced to show the police any identification or answer any of their questions about my identity.
I'm not optimistic about how the Supreme Court is going to rule. They've already restricted our freedom of speech with McCain-Feingold and have upheld the ability of police officers to use random "safety checks" at roadblocks. I fear it won't be long until our responses to the police had better be the same as that man in Ukraine, or else we'll find ourselves locked behind bars.
Posted by jdmays at March 24, 2004 07:42 AM | TrackBackI'm not opposed to the idea of us being required to give our names when asked. Mainly because I don't see any motive for police to abuse this. Why would they spend their time doing random, harrassing "name-checks"? No benefit to them, even if they were "bad" cops. But if the court says that we aren't required to give a name, it makes cops' jobs that much harder. I think back to my days as a little punk rocker and how much I loved to annoy cops. Then I multiply it by the ghetto hoodlums and myriad other groups out there who aren't exactly rah-rah about law enforcement. It just becomes one more stress for cops who already don't get enough support from society (particularly the courts).
Where I would draw the line would be any requirement that people have ID on them at all time. Here in Ukraine people all have to carry an 'internal passport'. I can usually forget my own passport, unless I'm hanging out with blacks or Iranians. The cops constantly harrass them.
You're right about the military and the cops being indistinguishable. Here we don't have "police", we have "militia." And the militia has quasi-military groups in abundance -- Titan, Cobra, Sokol, and Berkut. Berkut, for example, has an entire sub-machine gun equipped battalion in Kiev riding around in expensive Toyota Land Cruisers. This while children languish in orphanages because their parents can't afford to feed them.
BTW, what was your impression of Kiev? :)
Posted by: Discoshaman at March 26, 2004 04:59 AMFor all the great guys out there who are cops, there are still some who are just plain jerks. They basically abuse their power in order to harass people.
As far as the name thing goes I think you shouldn't be required to give your name unless the police need it in direct connection with the investigation of a specific crime or if there's probable cause to think that you might have committed a crime.
The problem with being required to give your name is that it inevitably leads to the next step which is being required to prove that you are who you say you are -- in other words, you'll be required to show id.
-Jim.
Things may look different when you come to Kyiv next. There's been a lot of new construction. And the airport has gotten so much nicer--and less hassle when you arrive. (Last time we went through, they just waved us past customs. . .)
Posted by: TulipGirl at March 28, 2004 12:03 AM