Slashdot Log In
Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Feb 19, 2004 07:58 PM
from the gideon's-trumpet dept.
from the gideon's-trumpet dept.
Pemdas writes "On March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case involving an arrest for lack of producing ID on the demand of a police officer. Dudley Hiibel was parked off the road, and was asked 11 times to show ID to the police officer, who gave the justification of 'investigating an investigation.' Finally, he was arrested, and eventually convicted of delaying a police officer,' and fined $250. The incident occurred in Humboldt County, Nevada; Mr. Hiibel's side of the story includes a good section on Terry stops, and has a video of the incident for download. The parallels to the previously covered Gilmore v. Ashcroft case are striking, and the ruling will be an interesting precedent on the issue of requiring ID's. The ACLU, EPIC, and EFF, among others, have filed Amicus briefs in the case."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1636 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://goat.cx/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 18 2004, @02:34PM)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Funny)
(http://w1xer.de/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 09 2006, @05:55AM)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
Homosexuals had a pink triangle
Communists had a red triangle
Criminals had a green triangle
Anti-Socialists had a black triangle
Emigrants had a blue triangle
Gypsies had a brown triangle
Jehova's Witnesses had a purple triangle.
The fact is (commonly overlooked) that many more people than just Jews were persecuted and interred in concentration camps under the Nazi regime.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
for people to pay the fuck attention!
V
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://operagost.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 01 2006, @12:08PM)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 12 2004, @10:56PM)
He wasn't driving, and nowhere in the charges against him is he accused of having been drunk.
and then has the gall to take this to the Supreme Court.
That's the court you want your case to go to when your Fourth Amendment rights are being violated.
And why is this on Slashdot?
Because search and seizure is a serious topic for geeks old enough to remember the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
No luck involved. His daughter had been driving the truck.
As for why it's on Slashdot, I've noticed that the folks here have a fondness for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Here's [epic.org] the amicus brief the EFF filed in support of Mr. Hiibel.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The police officer did NOT have the right to ask his name. His name had no bearing on determining if a crime had been committed or even if there was probable cause. How is it better for your Constitutional rights to have the police demand your identity by voice rather than by paper? The whole point is that you do not have to identify yourself to the police simply because they want to know who you are.
Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID
Suspicious? How can giving or not giving you name be suspicious? Is "Donald Duck" a suspicious name - or is what Mr. Hiibel answered ("Why?") suspicious enough?
Right to request ID (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about the particulars of this case, however, I will tell you that in the State of Georgia, we
The definition of public place, according to Georgia State Law is:
(15) 'Public place' means any place where the conduct involved may reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than members of the actors family or household.
Furthermore, specifically in regards to a driver's license, the law says this:
(b) Every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. A refusal to comply with such demand not only shall constitute a violation of this subsection but shall also give rise to a presumption of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and of Code Section 40-5-20.
This applies to not only drivers, but also passengers of motor vehicles. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court. I know this because it was on our recent legal update. It also applies to pedestrians.
Asking for ID is not a violation of the fourth amendment, or any search and seizure laws. You do not have the right to refuse to show a police officer your ID. You have the right to refuse to allow them to search you, your vehicle, your home, etc. without probably cause, that is certain.
Again, I don't know the specifics of this case, or what state this person was traveling in, though I'm reasonably certain most states have similar laws.
However, I would make very sure that in your state (or country, etc.) that you know the specifics of the law, because in my county, if you refuse to show me your ID, I will take you to jail. I have done it twice so far in my career, and both times the conviction was upheld.
Re:Right to request ID (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I don't know the specifics of this case, or what state this person was traveling in
He wasn't traveling, he was standing. Everything you wrote about driver's licenses and motor vehicles is off-point.
I am a police officer in the State of Georgia, in DeKalb County... in the State of Georgia, we
Well, that Georgia law is most likely about to be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court usualy doesn't waste time accepting an appeal just let a lower ruling stand.
in my county, if you refuse to show me your ID, I will take you to jail. I have done it twice so far in my career
Then you oughtta pay attention to this case. If the Supreme Court acts on this appeal you may just get slapped with a lawsuit the next time you haul in someone merely for declining you ID request.
Not answering questions is not a crime.
-
Re:Right to request ID (Score:5, Interesting)
Georgia is not a police state. As a police officer, I am held to higher standards of conduct than ordinary citizens. I have no more right to use deadly force than anyone who does not wear a badge. There are only three situations in which deadly force is warranted -- to defend your own life, the life of another, or to stop the commission of a forcible felony.
To curse at, tease, or be disrespectful of a police officer is not a crime. People curse at me in the most foul manner imagineable every day. I ask them to stop, but I don't arrest them for it. One lady told me that she hoped all of my children were born crippled and died of cancer. She then called me a "motherf** pig slug, nigger-loving, white cracker, bitch ho." I'm reasonably certain I've heard just about every insult that could be leveled at me.
Like all professions, there are some police officers who behave better than others. The bad ones seem to make more of an impression than the good ones, unfortunately, and given the highly public nature of the job, that is not surprising.
Yes, sometimes I write people tickets for speeding and not wearing their seatbelt. I have the power to take away a person's freedom, and that is never something to be taken lightly.
Understand however, that if you are bleeding in the street, I will try and save your life. If someone is holding you at gunpoint, I will try and take the bullet instead of you. If your husband (or wife) is beating you, I will do everything in my power to ensure that you escape from that situation. I chase after the people who want to steal your cars, break into your homes, and sell crack to your children. I stop child abuse, and prevent suicide. I teach kids lessons on how to remain safe, to prevent abduction, accidents, and other dangers. I will continue to do this for every citizen, regardless of race, sex, religion, political affiliation, sexual preference, economic station, or any other 'class' into which people are grouped. I will continue to do this regardless of whether or not a particular citizen wishes my death.
I am not God. But neither am I the Gestapo, or a nazi. I try very hard to treat every citizen with the respect that I would like them to show me, even if they want nothing more than for me to die in the most slow and painful way possible.
I don't think that any of my words are likely to convince you to change the impression that you have of police officers. I'm not sure what exactly caused the violent hatred you profess, but it saddens me.
For what it is worth, I do not always vote Republican. In fact in the three elections for which I have been old enough to vote, I have voted Republican only once.
Re:Right to request ID (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.aerique.net/)
Bull.. it doesn't sound odd at all to my Dutch ears.
We didn't have to show any ID nor have any on our person until about ten years back here in the Netherlands. Since then, the powers that be have slowly eroded those freedoms and they are pushing for an obligation to carry and show an ID everywhere. (See the press release [identificatieplicht.nl] and open letter [identificatieplicht.nl] from Privacy International [privacyinternational.org] to the Dutch government.)
Just about all of the reasons for obligatory ID are unfounded or shown misguided yet they are still pushing for it and the majority of the government supports it.
The mind wonders :-(
RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.daishar.com/blog)
The cop had probable suspicion to investigate the claim that Hiibel and his daughter had been fighting, but he:
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation? Sure, if he has probable cause that something illegal happened, he'll need to ID the person, but that can wait until he's taken back to the station. Probable suspicion is not enough to arrest a person, or even ask for an ID.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
Better yet, watch the video (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.notcharles.ca/)
Re:Better yet, watch the video (Score:5, Informative)
(http://antiwar.com/)
No he didn't. The state isn't even claiming he did.
To ask for an ID? Don't need any reason at all. I can ask you for your ID anytime I want, without even being a cop.
The point is that refusing to supply ID is not a crime, nor is it probable cause. Anyone can ask you for ID, but you are not under any obligation to supply it. This guy was arrested on a thinly veiled charge of failing to supply ID, and failing to supply ID is not a crime - in fact it's a constitutionally protected right.
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
So I can just make an anonymous phone call to the effect of "I saw a guy with this description hit a girl with that description in a truck of another description" when some dumbfuck cuts me off, and when he, having done nothing of the sort, questions the situation he gets the shit beat out of him and his skank girlfriend gets cuffed and stuffed too?
sweet.
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:4, Insightful)
An anonymous phone call isn't much... and if you make it from the cell phone while driving, it's not that anonymous, since enhanced 911 tells me whose cell phone it is and where it was when the call was made.
And yes, that may be precisely what may happen if he acts in a violent manner towards an officer. However, if he acts reasonably, he's most likely out nothing more than the time it took to pull over and talk to the cop. Unfortunately the cops have to investigate and take these things seriously, because the first time they don't, then everyone screams about how they're not doing their jobs.
Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around. These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop, every domestic abuse call, every bar fight, etc. If they act in any way to protect themselves and others they're considered Nazi's. If they don't, they're considered incompetent when someone dies on their watch. People waste their time by doing just the kind of trick you've described, and laugh about it. People treat them like dog crap all the time. And still they go out, put on a uniform and take a risk of getting shot. And often it's for 8 bucks an hour and no benefits.
Do I respect all cops? No. There are several in my local precinct that I could definitely do without. There are a bunch on the street that are uptight overdeveloped steroid popping pricks. And they all get tarred with the same brush. But there's also the guy that dives in front of a moving train to save a suicider, breaking several ribs in the process, all for 8 bucks an hour and no medical insurance. Don't believe me? On that one I can even name a name.
Now, when your GF/Wife/Mother/Sister/"domestic partner"/family friend/etc. has an abusive incident, and the cops don't do a damn thing about it, remember what has been posted here today, because incidents like this just cause more cops to look the other way. It's usually easier, and you don't have to testify in Washington DC.
Oh, and I would DEFINITELY make that call from a payphone. False reports to law enforcement is a crime, at least here in Pennsylvania.
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. However, to become a cop you accept a higher level of responsibility. If you're a citizen, and you kill someone in self defense, there aren't any problems. If you're an officer, people immediately question whether deadly force was required, and whether the officer followed every procedure properly from the start, and whether the officer had neglected trainning that may have ended the situation peacefully.
Is it a double standard? Yes, of course, as it should be. We are empowering these armed individuals, with our own tax dollars, to enforce the law against ourselves. They better follow procedure. They better be well trained and alert. We hold surgeons to a different standard because we need to trust them. When they violate that trust, that's a serious problem. Citizens can go about their lives normally and all we ask in a self defense case is "did they THINK their life was in danger and did they THINK that the only way to avoid it was to use deadly force?". That doesn't cut it with cops, sorry. People can make mistakes, surgeons and lawyers and cops CAN'T.
These high law enforcement standards we hold are more valuable than the supposed reduced crime you might get from unaccountable officers.
Oh, and nobody can waste an officer's time. They can only waste taxpayer money. The officer is being paid, so as far as he's concerened, he's working no matter how many delays he's faced with.
Asking for ID should be perfectly legal and fine, just like it's legal to ask if you can search someone's house. But when they refuse, take a hike unless you've got probable cause. There better be some real CHARGES.
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the heck do you think you are, the Terminator?
I've always found that if you act calm and composed with an officer of the law, they will usually treat you as a human being
Of course what you really mean is if you do everything they say when they violate your rights and invade your privacy THEN they treat you politely while abusing your rights. What they are actually doing is treating you like the sheep you are. Note I am not condemning police in general - we are talking about those situations where citizens' rights get violated.
Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.
This is circular logic. If Mr. Hiibel hadn't refused to identify himself he would probably not have been handcuffed and thrown into the back of the police car. To state that another way - if the officer had not decided to violate Mr. Hiibel's rights there would have been no handcuffs or back seats.
I haven't seen the video (slashdotted) but I have news for you - being a pain in the ass isn't a crime in this country. Being unhappy that you've been asked for your ID illegally is not a crime. Non-violent resistance to giving your name or ID (i.e. not "understanding" what the charge is, asking Why, and declining to produce ID) is NOT a crime in this country. However, if more people start thinking the way you do they soon will be.
That brown shirt fits you well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to find a charge, any charge, on which to "get" someone is one of the more horrifying types of abuse of power around. Deciding that someone is a generally bad person and searching for crimes they might have committed is exactly backward.
People are defined as societally problematic only by the effects of crimes they've committed, not the other way around. If you have to work at trumping up some charges, then they simply don't need to be punished, however much you may dislike them.
This becomes even more problematic because it's virtually impossible to not be enacting at least some tiny infraction at any moment, especially while driving. So people aren't really punished according to their detrimental effects on society, but on the capricious decisions of whatever law enforcement official happens to be nearby at the moment. Driving one mph over the speed limit? Tire treads too worn? Driving recklessly, disturbing the peace, or doing anything else that's defined by officer's discretion? Then your world is in the hands of the temporary feudal lord who happens by.
I think the only solution to this would be removing officer discretion from the enforcement process. Enforcement officials should be legally required to punish every single infraction of every law, however minor.
What's that you say, they could never realistically do that? Then the laws are flawed. If an act is so ubiquitous that you can't keep up with punishing people for it, then it shouldn't be illegal.
True colors (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know it's easy for cops to trump up charges. Thanks for clarifying where you stand on that issue.
First you seperate them. This he did. Then you question them. This he attempted. Unfortunately, he was not able to leave the father due to his combative and aggressive state.
I've watched the footage, and you are spin-doctoring it. First off, they were already seperated. Hiibel was outside the vehicle and moved to the tailgate when the officers pulled up. Mimi was in the truck. He did not approach the officers in anything close to a threatening manner. He was obviously agitated but arguing with a loved one tends to do that to a person.
The bare bones fact is the officers made mistake after mistake.
Face it, the officers were acting like blowhards. First off, the officer should have repeated what he was there for. Second, he should have been forthcoming in why he wanted the ID (I'm going to need your ID so I can do a routine background check on you while my partner speaks with the young lady in the truck.) Third, he should have been forthcoming in why he was asking Hiibel to move where he was directing (Sir, I'd feel safer if we put some distance between us and the road while we talk.)
Asking an officer relevant questions, especially a request for clarification of the current situation, is every persons right.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
If you watch the video, the cop made no attempt to even verify that a fight/crime had occurred before he demanded ID and arrested Hiibel. I think that's really the crux of the debate.
Re: Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you are allowed to ask this. That doesn't mean anyone has to comply. Just don't impersonate a police officer when you ask, now that'd be illegal.
A police officer is able to legally ask anything that an ordinary citizen can ask. The thing I don't like is that because police officers have a visual authority and act and use a voice which conveys that they have the authority to ask what they ask, they get alot of people to comply with their requests to the detriment of the people when the police don't have the legal authority to enforce compliance.
The repeat offenders, the dangerous criminals, are not the ones likely to get caught like this. The ones who get caught are likely the younger ones, the high schoolers out drinking and such.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 15 2005, @12:00AM)
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p*48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:4, Interesting)
The cop was fairly reasonable and polite. The cowboy was moderately animated, moved around a bit, and refused to show his ID. I can see how the cop would definitely have his guard up.
It's a difficult line to draw. Both arguments seem reasonable. That's why it's "on the line".
Note: If you are planning on civil disobedience, disobey, and if at all possible, stay calm and state your case...then go to jail. Hiibel could have done a better job, if his goal was to make a point.
Hiibel is hoping the video will clear him. I've got to be candid and say that it's "borderline". In the video, Hiibel states: "i'm being cooperative"...but many people will look at his body language and decide that he really wasn't. Hiibel's wife isn't going to help either, she went off in the video, like a screeching hag. And nobody had touched her yet!
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.infamous.net/)
It's not and they don't. Police can detain a citizen only when there are specific and articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and can make an arrest only based on probable cause. "I don't want to show you my papers, and I don't want to talk to you" is basis for neither.
Civil disobedience means breaking the law. It does not include standing up for your legal rights. The only law breaking going on here was the actions of the police.
Body language is not probable cause for arrest.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
Daughter. At least have the decency to deal with facts rather than assumptions.
She was a seventeen year old girl watching her father get cuffed for an argument that she was having with him. It's bound to be a little stressful, and you have to wonder whether a heavily armed man really needs to sit on a girl to 'restrain her'.
"I can see how the cop would definitely have his guard up."
That's because he was prepared to make an arrest before he was prepared to find out what the situation was. Start confrontational, no matter how polite, and things will remain confrontational, especially where one party is armed and twitchy because they don't know if the other party is armed. Fear isn't a good thing to take into any discussion.
Instead of smiling and trying to find out what the situation was, he did that ludicrously polite demanding that has more in common with a four year old than a trained officer of the law. After being told once that he couldn't see ID is when a decision should be made, but he should have made at least some effort to see if a crime had actually been committed.
Firstly, the statutes tend to deal with innocence before guilt. Secondly, a dangerous precedence is being set up by 'resisting arrest' being the only reason that someone should be arrested.
The main problem is that events like these only serve to reduce the faith that people have in the body that is supposed to be protecting them, and trying to whitewash the incident or dodge the culpability only makes matters worse.