Snuka #398 @7454>> Are you an attorney or in law school?<< No. Snuka #398 @7454>> BTW, could you give me the details and decision on that Brown v. Texas Case. Thanks.<< Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment. This appeal presents the question whether appellant was validly convicted for refusing to comply with a policeman's demand that he identify himself pusuant to a provision of the Texas Penal Code which makes it a crime to refuse such identification on request. When the officers detained the appellant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they performed a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment of course "applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT "THE COURT:...What do you think about if you stop a person lawfully, and then if he doesn't want to talk to you, you put him in jail for committing a crime. MR. PATTON [prosecutor]: Well first of all, I would question the Defendant's statement in his motion that the First amendment gives an individual the right to silence. THE COURT: I'm asking you why should the State put you in jail because you don't want to say anything. MR. PATTON: Well, I think there's certain interests that have to be viewed. THE COURT: Okay, I'd like you to tell me what those are. MR. PATTON: Well, the Governmental interest to maintain the safety and security of the society and the citizens to live in the society, and there are certainly strong Governmental interests in that direction and because of that, these interests outweigh the interests of an individual for a certain amount of intrusion upon his personal liberty. I think these Governmental interests outweigh the individual's interests in this respect, as far as simply asking an individual for his name and address under the proper circumstances. THE COURT: But why should it be a crime not to answer? MR. PATTON: Again, I can only contend that if an answer is not given, it tends to disrupt. THE COURT: What does it disrupt? MR. PATTON: I think it tends to disrupt the goal of this society to maintain security over its citizens to make sure they are secure in their gains and their homes. THE COURT: How does it secure anybody by forcing them, under penalty of being prosecuted, to giving their name and address, even though they are lawfully stopped? MR. PATTON: Well I, you know, under the circumstances in which some individuals would be lawfully stopped, it's presumed that perhaps this individual is up to something, and the officer is doing his duty simply to find out the individual's name and address, and to determine what exactly is going on. THE COURT: I'm not questioning, I'm not asking whether the officer shouldn't ask questions. I'm sure they should ask everything they possibly could find out. What I'm asking is what's the State's interest in putting a man in jail because he doesn't want to answer something. I realize lots of times an officer will give a defendant a Miranda warning which means a defendant doesn't have to make a statement. Lots of defendants go ahead and confess, which is fine if they want to do that. But if they don't confess, you can't put them in jail, can you, for refusing to confess to a crime?" Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court: Reversed. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of California as amicus curiae.