[*BCM*] Just got "pulled over" for running a red on Mass. Ave.

[rawillis3 at juno.com]

The Supreme Court in 2004 in a 5-4 decision called Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) -- and you can readily guess who were the five and who were the four --, ruled that a state statute requiring a person to identify him/herself to police in the course of an "investigatory stop," where the officer has a "reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity," does not violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure or Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.  Is a traffic stop "investigatory"?

Hiibel was a considerable erosion from what had been the law under an earlier decision called Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), which said you did not have to answer any questions at all.  But even in Hiibel, the court did not say that you could be required to produce physical identification, simply state your name.

Also, judging a catalogue of "stop and identify" statutes in a footnote in the Hiibel decision, it would appear that Massachusetts does not have such a statute, though maybe Cambridge has an ordinance.

R.