No use for a name?

From now on, you may be prosecuted for refusing to tell a police officer your name.\nThat was the verdict handed down in a narrow 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court Monday in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.\nNevada law requires any person stopped by the police under reasonable circumstances to "identify himself" if asked. Larry Dudley Hiibel was approached by a Nevada police officer investigating a report of an assault, but Hiibel, after being repeatedly asked to identify himself, refused.\nOnce again, presented with a gigantic precedent (as they were in the "under God" case last week), the Supreme Court failed to address a larger concern and left the door open for further complaints.\n Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said it was OK to demand Hiibel's name "because in this case disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination."\nBut the concerns of everyone else were not answered. Kennedy explained that should a case arise when providing your name might be a link in a chain needed to convict, the court could then consider whether the Fifth Amendment applies.\nThis is a case that should have been resolved. We believe the targets of law enforcement should cooperate as much as possible, but we strongly believe they have the right to remain silent.