Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court

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."

Wear the yellow star

Slowly, slowly, we slide down this long road. Don't close your eyes, you'll miss the whole thing.

Re:Wear the yellow star

How the heck did the yellow star post get marked as offtopic? do you have no knowledge of 20th century history? nazis made Jews wear yellow stars to publicly identify them... and you also had to show ID whenever an SS or Stormtrooper or police officer or judge or MP or any anonymous person asked for it. The above post is saying that the US can become like the nazi state if we allow this kind of raw authority into our civilization. At least, thats my take on it... and if you dont think so all i can say is, "Sieg Heil"

Re:Wear the yellow star

no no, its not sig heil, its ... "whatever ..."

Re:Wear the yellow star

You know, the Nazis had pieces of Flair that they made the Jews wear.

Re:Wear the yellow star

Actually, they had pieces of 'flair' for lots of groups in society they wanted to keep tabs on.

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

The fact that you had to point out the mis-moderation tells you how bad it already is. The dumbing-down of the youth has been going on now over 25 years. The new youth is being brought up by relatively un-educated older-youth. With the fucked-up ruling in California [google.com] involving Diebold, it's, well, time ...

for people to pay the fuck attention!

V

Re:Wear the yellow star

He had no right to ask for ID. What he could have done is asked the guy what his name was, first! Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID. That's what is meant by being secure in one's person and PAPERS.

Re:Wear the yellow star

I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI

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

duncanatlk wrote: I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI . . .

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

What he could have done is asked the guy what his name was, first

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

I am a police officer in the State of Georgia, in DeKalb County. You said "The police officer did NOT have the right to ask his name," and also "The whole point is that you do not have to identify yourself to the police simply because they want to know who you are."

I don't know about the particulars of this case, however, I will tell you that in the State of Georgia, we /do/ have the right to ask the name and information of any person in any public place (the roadway is considered a public place) at any time, for any reason. We don't need probable cause. We don't even need reasonable suspicion. You can like this or not, but the law has been upheld.

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

driver's license / motor vehicles
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 /do/ have the right to ask the name and information of any person in any public place (the roadway is considered a public place) at any time, for any reason. We don't need probable cause. We don't even need reasonable suspicion.

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

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to a person who wishes my death, or even if I should, but none-the-less, I will try to do so to the best of my ability.

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

The law applies to pedestrians, as well as anyone traveling in a motor vehicle. It applies to anyone in a "public place," which I defined in the previous entry. If the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional, then it will be repealed and I will no longer enforce it. I don't make the laws, that's not my job. I enforce them to the best of my ability under the circumstances I am given. I don't recall making any statement as to my particular feelings about the law. I am interested, as many are, to see what the Supreme Court says about the matter. In the past, the law has been held up as constitutional. For now, however, not answering questions -- specifically, not answering the question of your identity -- /is/ a crime. Even your right to plead the fifth amendment does not preclude you from having to state your own name.

Re:Wear the yellow star

However, it sounds odd (to European ears) that people are freaked out that they need to show ID to police.

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.

The cop had probable suspicion to investigate the claim that Hiibel and his daughter had been fighting, but he:

1. Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around ...)
2. Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate
3. Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID

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

Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around ...)

Of course he didn't. As soon as he pulled up, Hiibel walked up to him. Obviously he's going to deal with the guy who's standing right in front of him first before turning his back on him to stick his head in the truck and check on the daughter. And based on his response to, "Can I see your ID?" it's pretty obvious, "Can I look in your truck," would have made him just blow up. At least, if I was the cop, that's what I'd have assumed.

Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate

It was the first thing he said. It was on the video and the transcript. I have no idea why the summary claims otherwise.

Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID

He should have repeated what he was investigating, sure. But Hiibel was being pretty deliberately obtuse himself. He responded, "I don't know about that," when the officer first mentioned the fighting report, so it's obvious he heard him. But then he kept repeating, "But I'm parked legally," pretending he thought it was just a traffic stop.

What does an ID give a cop in an investigation?

The ability to check for outstanding arrest warrants? He's investigating a possible domestic abuse. Now if he walks up to the girl and she has a bruise on her arm, but says she just whacked it on the door getting in, should he believe her or not? Well, if there's no reason except the vague report of "a guy in a pickup with a cowboy hat", probably he does. But if he runs the ID and finds out there have been a dozen prior complaints in this family, that makes a big difference.

Sure, if he has probable cause that something illegal happened,

Which he did...

he'll need to ID the person, but that can wait until he's taken back to the station.

But the results of running the ID affect whether he'll be taken back to the station. Say it's a relatively minor crime, and the cop gets enough evidence to arrest him. A normal guy with just this one offence might go quietly, but if he's got an outstanding murder conviction the cop doesn't know about, he's gonna want to stay out of custody at all costs. The cop's gotta know this, or the first he'll realize there's something out of the ordinary is when the guy turns on him.

Probable suspicion is not enough to arrest a person, or even ask for an ID.

I don't know US law, but in my opinion it's not enough for an arrest but it's certainly enough to ask for an ID. A much more interesting question is, what is probable suspicion? An anonymous tip? A profile match? A black man in a posh neighbourhood? (Before you flame me, those are all examples of things that aren't good enough but cops will try to get away with.)

Re:Better yet, watch the video

Which he did...

No he didn't. The state isn't even claiming he did.

I don't know US law, but in my opinion it's not enough for an arrest but it's certainly enough to ask for an ID.

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.

/sarcasm

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. /!sarcasm

Re:RTF Web page, please.

Thanks for the sarcasm tags.

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.

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.

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.

Wants a [sic] warrants baby... Wants and warrants
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.

You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.

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

You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.

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

Any investigation that the cop might have started on the side of the road did not require, nor would have been furthered by, Mr. Hiibel's ID. The cop had a report that there was some kind of fighting going on in a truck who's description (i assume) matched Hiibels. He would have had reasonable suspicion that something had been going on and that a he had the right people but he did not have probable cause. And since (as far as we know) the witness did not name any names ("that looked like Hiibel in that truck"), asking for Hiibel's ID was unreasonable as the cop was not looking for a specific person by name.

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

So I'm allowed to ask anyone I encounter for their ID to verify that they aren't dangerous to me if they act "hinky"?

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

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (USSC+)

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

After watching the video..I kind of sympathize with this guy..you can tell he truly believes in his right "not to be fucked with"...by anyone.

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

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.

"Having your guard up" is not the same as having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

It's a difficult line to draw. Both arguments seem reasonable.

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.

If you are planning on civil disobedience...

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.

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.

Body language is not probable cause for arrest.

Re:Wear the yellow star

"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!"

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.

Re:Wear the yellow star

Yes standing up for freedom deserves getting modded up, but so does real perspective.

As a student of the Politics of Local Justice, let me tell you that this kind of event is a lot more common in Humbolt Co., NV or Anytownship, USA than it is in Chicago or San Antonio. The reason is that police in rural jurisdictions are expected by the townsfolk to keep tabs on everything going on in town. If there is a stranger who isn't just passing through, it'd be good to know who he is.

This happens for two reasons: Constitutional rulings keep getting handed down at a VERY rapid rate from the Supremes, and rural cops don't have the time or the training to keep up with them. Also remember they're less well paid and less educated in general than city cops. Second, rural cops have to deal with a lot of weird shit because of how intimately they're tied to the community. If Johnny and Tony get in a fight, cop takes them home to Mother--an extralegal response, but a lot more efficient/practical than prison.

What you guys need to remember is that there's a big difference between policies enacted at the National level in Nazi Germany and power exercised on the "capillary" level, to use Foucault's term, power and authority exercised beyond what is precisely legally ordaned. This second type of overstepping can be called more harmful, because it happens below the radar--blacks in the South got kept down by the man way after the post Civil War constitutional amendments.

But the way our government is set up, it doesn't lead to Naziism. Local police are subject to local constraints on their behavior, what the townsfold consider right, and that restricts them a lot more than state/fed constitution. Basically the slippery slope argument is null here, because when cops pull stunts like these [not this specific case but other similar abuses] in the Big City, judges don't buy it. Federal judges especially will tell prosecutors to fuck off, and don't come back, if they try the "drugs fell out of his pocket" routine in open court.

But the way things work on the ground in rural America is a bit different--but it generally works out okay. If it makes you queasy, move to the city, and you'll be fine. Nevermind the Nazi FUD trolls.

Wow

The first thing that ran through my head while reading the summary was a Nazi German saying, "Your papers, please."

Imagine my surprise when the site of the article is papersplease.org [papersplease.org].

Re:Wow

I found the site contents somewhat ironic:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.

For What it's Worth

The first thing that ran through my head while reading the summary was a Nazi German saying, "Your papers, please."

I don't think it's really comparable to that at all. The Police Officer in question was responding to a domestic violence call involving an adult man and a female child. When he arrived he saw two people that matched this description. He made a quite reasonable request to see ID which was refused. The guy never asked him if he had probable cause to ask for ID -- he just refused. His body language wasn't exactly friendly either.

Mind you, that's no defense for what they did to his daughter. I would expect my daughter to be somewhat hysterial if I was in the process of being arrested too. But then I also wouldn't choose to make a political statement in a situation where my daughter could be hauled off to jail as a result of my actions. Maybe he should have thought of her first instead of making his stupid stand.

For the record I've refused to show ID to a police officer once on princepal. For starters he knew damn well who I was (small town) and I wasn't involved in the incident. I was eating breakfast at a small cafe and some drunk guy had an argument on a payphone with somebody (presumably his wife?) -- when he left he kicked the glass door and shattered it. Naturally they called the cops.

The officer who responded had been my DARE instructor many years prior (I love small towns) -- he called me by my first name when he entered the establishment. Then they started asking for witness statements -- I had no statement to give because I didn't witness anything. I was on the far side of the cafe and hadn't seen anything -- just heard it. I told them this and they refused to accept it at face value.

"Are you sure you didn't see anything?"
"I'm positive."
"I find that hard to beilive."
"I was focusing on my newspaper and my breakfast. I'm getting ready to go to work."
[nods as he's taking notes] "Uhh huh. Do you have ID on you?"
"Yes, why do you need to see it?"
"May I see your ID please?"
"No, you may not. Am I a suspect in your investigation?"
"No you aren't. May I please see some ID?"
"No you may not."
"How did you get here?"
"I drove."
"Then you need to have your license on you."
"I do have it on me, but you don't need to see it."
"Sir, may I please see your ID?"
"No, you may not. You know good well who I am."

At this point the Officer gave up. Or so I thought. When I walked out to my car to leave I noticed another cruiser sitting there -- both officers watched me climb into my car. It was obvious they were going to pull me over the minute I started it. Being the stubborn bastard that I am and refusing to concede my point I called a friend and arranged a ride to work. Picked up my car later in the day. Waved to the officers as I left in my ride. Not a damn thing they could do about it.

Check and mate. I win. But I was actually in the right. I don't think this guy has a chance in hell. I'm typically defend him (hell I just spent the whole day arguing against mandatory roadside BAC tests on another story [slashdot.org]) -- but he's obviously in the wrong here. The Police Officer was just trying to do his job.

Silly me, and I thought...

'investigating an investigation.'

...it was Internal Affairs that "investigated investigations". Oh well...

Kjella

Re:Silly me, and I thought...

Yeah, he should have told the officer that that sounded like a conflict of interest. Then he would have been let go for sure.

Welcome to the Police State

Produce your papers, comrade.
Always carry your papers, comrade.
Do not question us, comrade; that, of course, is our job.

Did I just wake up in 1950s Communist Russia?

I quote Michael Moore: "Dude, where the hell did my country go?!?!"

Re:Welcome to the Police State

How easy will it be to force people to do things against their will when we have no guns to defend ourselves?

You think if Hiibel had defended his rights with a gun he'd still be alive?

Re:Welcome to the Police State

This really reminds more of feudalism and the kind of society that exists in some third world country, especially in the Americas. We have been sliding down this slope for a while. Fortified castles in the form of gated and guarded communities. People driving around in military and pseudo-military vehicles. People fear being in certain neighborhoods because, even though the roads are theoretically public, the police are owned by those with money.

This has always been true to some extent in the US. It has always been the case that some people were considered better. It has always been the case that if you did not have the proper skin color or proper style or proper accessories, you were subject to police harassment. The scary thing now is that we are reaching a point in which a very few people, those with money and power, are exempted from government abuse. The rest of us are not. The police can no longer look at you and decide if you are protected. The officer must now know your name.

Which is to say, these laws are no ones fault but our own. We are really a democracy. All of us who live in the US are responsible for our country's actions and decisions. We all must willing make the sacrifices necessary to bear or change the policies. We are in fact not a dictorship in which we can be forced to comply, no matter how much our president has stacked the appellate courts in that direction.

How can they do that?

I love to watch COPS. I know, I'm a horrible exampe of white trash. But I just can't resist. I see things like this happen on COPS all the time - no really, watch it and you'll see. And I always wonder, "How the *hell* can they do that?!"

You'll see them come up to some guy who seems like he's just minding his own business, and they'll totally abuse his rights -- although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.

This seems like as good a time as any to ask - how CAN they do that?

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

You'll see them come up to some guy who seems like he's just minding his own business, and they'll totally abuse his rights -- although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something. No one sees the COPS footage were the innocent person was abused, found to be innocent, and then let go -- that would not make good TV.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

If the program were to show that, they would no longer be invited to film the action. Just like you never see critical reporters in white house press conferences.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

scripsit nursedave:

I was hoping the SS would take him out back

I prefer to live in a state where there is no SS to take people ``out back''... But maybe I'm just biased after that whole Holocaust business...

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

Sure it would make good TV, but how much longer do you think that COPS would be allowed to stay on the air? No police would let them do ride alongs if they showed police abuse.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

No one sees the COPS footage were the innocent person was abused, found to be innocent, and then let go -- that would not make good TV.

Actually, it'd make excellent TV, but not for COPS, which depends on keeping good relations with law enforcement agencies to be able to keep making shows.

Re:How can they do that?

the guy always ends up being guilty of something

Well, there are so many laws on the books that it's almost impossible for anyone go through a normal day without breaking a few laws. Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to play "spot-the-stoner". And of course we're talking about TV... all the stops they make that don't result in an arrest wind up on the cutting room floor

This seems like as good a time as any to ask - how CAN they do that?

Because we let them.

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:How can they do that?

You'll see them come up to some guy who seems like he's just minding his own business, and they'll totally abuse his rights -- although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.

The show needs access to police departments. The police depts. want to be shown in a favorable light. The show has editors. How many clips ended up on the cutting room floor of the times have they abused the rights of someone when they don't end up being guilty?

Re:How can they do that?

although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.

Duh!

Think the innocent people who get harassed will show up on TV? If the show did that even once, they'd get no further cooperation from the police departments.

-jcr

Re:How can they do that?

... although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.

Of course the ones you wind up seeing on TV are guilty, what about all the incidents you do not see that never make it on TV? Also, all the car chases you see on TV end in the death or capture of the criminal ... they never show anyone getting away. Of course, I'm not advocating criminal behavior, just pointing out the subtle conditioning that's going on with these shows.

Re:How can they do that?

I saw a similar show, (I think it was called "Scariest Police Chases") and in one chase the guy being chased had a criminal record and the narrator actually used the phrase "criminals never learn". I couldn't believe it, somebody was actually said that criminals lack the ability to learn from their mistakes. Like they are some kind of retarded sub-human scum.

I realize that this was not exactly the cream of American Television, but it really bothered me. It seemed to echo the whole American policy of simply locking people away instead of bothering to rehabilitate them.

I spent 8 hours in jail for this

I was coming home from a party in LA thrown by CRAPTV (the folks who brought us 'Orgasmo') and I made the mistake of getting a ride from a fellow party goer who was slightly tipsy. The cops stopped her after she made a right turn from the left lane. At the time, all I had was a Hawaii state ID. The cops couldn't find me in the computer system, so they said, "Well, legally, we can hold you for up to three days while we try to find out who you are." I was in a cell for eight hours. Finally they came in and said, "We found you. You're free to go." No apology, of course. Welcome to Kalifornia, may we see your papers?

thank you John Asscroft!

Don't feel bad there's not much you as an individual can do unless you have a boatload of money to throw around...

In 1952, the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act mandated 3 million non-citizens to carry ID cards and threatened 11 million naturalized citizens with deportation if they were charged with being communists. A bus drivers' union official was grabbed from the bargaining table where he was successfully negotiating a wage increase and shorter hours and held at Ellis Island, New York for deportation to Canada. Harry Bridges, for decades the leader of the San Francisco Longshoremen, was harassed with repeated deportation efforts. source [lrna.org]

Don't worry though the USA PATRIOT ACT's will take care of all your problems.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

Let me get this straight. You read slashdot but you go to parties and drive around with girls?
dude we know your lying.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

Similar story about being detained illegally....

one evening, i was riding with a few friends to go pick up some computer parts from someone. we get to our destination and the driver - who knew the guy, ran in to grab the stuff, just a couple of drives and some ram. while he was in there, a police officer pulled up, asked me and my friend (sitting in the back seat) what we were doing there. We told him - he demanded ID. Following the guise of "Well, I have nothing to hide - here." He procedes to check our ID's. He comes back after seeing that I had minor history, says he wants to check the car. Not knowing that the driver had a 'bud' of marijuana under his seat (note: under the driver's seat) He sees that, puts me in cuffs. Takes me down to the station, and doesnt even bother with the driver. After about an hour of asking for a phone call to call a lawyer, as well as trying determine just why I -was- there, he proceeded to tell me to shut up or he would make me. I said "I'm just trying to excercise my rights." Well, I guess he took that as "being smart" so he came, open the cell, back handed me across the face twice and said that I'd better just shut up. I decided to get "smart" at that time, telling him: "I hope you feel more like a man for hitting someone you know isn't going to hit you back." He turned red and walked away....waited about 15 minutes (for the redness of my face to go away, I assume) and took a 'mug shot' (with no numbers, mind you) and told me to leave. Shame of it is, the best I could get out of the department was a written apology. Even more shamefull is that this isn't the first time I've been harassed by an officer of the law. On another occasion, I was targetted for having a 'Phish' sticker on the rear glass of my car. I was broke down, waiting for a tow truck. They searched me, searched the car. They never offered any assitance, asked if I need to call for a tow, nothing, it was straight to the point: "Where's the weed?" they asked. They felt there was something missing since they didn't find anything.
Walking back to their car to leave, the one officer jeered with a snicker, "You might want to take that sticker out of youer window..." and then he proceeded to peel out onto the road from behind me.

From those nights, I've lost most of my regard that I once had for police officers. Luckily, I have not lost my regard for my fellow man.

I may not have a completely clean record, but I'm no criminal by any stretch - I'm merely trying to get past my follies and live life. I'm an Eagle Scout, Assistant Scoutmast, and a deacon at my church - go figure.

Sorry for being off topic, but I just felt like sharing.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

From those nights, I've lost most of my regard that I once had for police officers. Luckily, I have not lost my regard for my fellow man.

just give it awhile, you'll get there.

note to moderators: not funny.

waste of time

For anyone who truly believes you have a fighting chance ... Sure you do, you're one of those 5% who has a shot in hell against winning a case against the government. Do your research [google.com]. Too many people I notice have this notion of a great justice system, a place where your interests and liberties are protected, and in some cases they are, but to the average joe, you're bound to lose, and what happens when you lose, you either appeal or deal with it. The stats on appeals are similar where the gov has more than a 90% win ratio. So keep dreaming if you think it's as clear cut as walking in with proof. Think about that deeply for a second. Firstly you're going up against a gorilla with unlimited financial resources, secondly for those who don't know and have never been to a trial, it is scripted. What can be asked, what can't be asked. And if you're high profile... Shit the gov is going to do everything they can to "perp walk" all over your liberties and identity to make the public feel all warm and woozy about justice being done... Justice? For whom? For those in office seeking more government cheese (aka budgetary funds), to support them.

I would continue on, but alas most people don't understand the politics behind the legal system. Just look at the Martha scam... In case you're too blind to know the truth, she's on trial for going on television and stating "I didn't do anything" nothing more. What does the media and DoJ do? They overhype it to look as if Martha is on the same level as the Enron, Tyco mobsters. Give me a break. Your best bet is to get over it, it happens (legal shaftings) much more than you think I know firsthand.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

In California they do this in order to determine whether or not you're an illegal, in which case that will give you a drivers license, food stamps, free tuition at the local community college and more. In this case you only received 8 hours of free room and board until such time as they realized that you're a US tax payer. God bless those happy liberals.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

In California you are required to provide ID, as pointed out in a couple of college classes in the California State University system. Both professors said California is the only state that requires this. So even if Hiibel wins the court case, nothing will change in this fine state.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

I'm going to blow off some karma here and be redundant, because it's important for people to be aware(beware?) of this. Not to diminish yours or other's bad experience, but you all have nothing on this guy [civiliansdown.com].

Putting a stop to this now.

No doubt there will be posters who are want to argue the facts in the case, to argue the internet does'nt tell boths sides of the story. But to pre-empt them: it doesn't matter! The case is going before the Supreme court because the courts based their rulings on a state law that requires ID to be shown when requested by an officer. None of that other stuff matters a wit; it was after all only a $250 fine anyway.

Thus this case really is about whether or not it is legal to require people to show ID.

I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

"I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case."

That's why the Supreme Court will have trouble deciding against this guy's appeal. There isn't a national ID card that they can require, and they, being a Federal court, cannot make a requirement that all citizens of the several states must carry a certain ID, because there isn't one that they can specify in their jurisdiction. They can't order the States to require an id card. They can't create a national id card because that would require an act of Congress.

The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law. As it should be. Lesson learned: Choose your Local and State government wisely. Be part of the process that puts the local guys in power. Local politicians become national politicians. It's a hell of a lot easier to reach them before they grow up!

IANAL, and I'm especially not a Supreme Court justice on a republican-appointed court.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law.

The state might have that authority. Or it might not. That will be decided by the Supreme Court. States do not have the authority to do absolutely anything not prohibited by Federal law; the U.S. Constitution limits States as well.

I think a convincing argument can be made that the police demanding an ID for no legitimate reason is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the right to privacy. (The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a right to privacy, even though it is not a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.)

A person should have the right to peaceably and lawfully go about their business without having to present identification.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

On a side note to this discussion i saw something wholly disturbing at a rest stop today : "Support out troops abroad and at home" it was a poster soliciting donations for the NYPD benevolent assoc. Frankly i am going to have nightmares for the rest of my life because of that. Civil law enforcement are not 'troops' and equating them as such really has the nauseating feeling of the blurring lines of the civilian and military. I am very much afraid that it may be way to late to turn away from the eventual police state.

Keep these points in mind,

* ceding more power to the govt causes it/them to want more (for reference please see the abuses of power at the FBI under JE hoover and the reforms that were put in place after his reign.)

* the criminalization of civil matters (look at the actions of the RIAA MPAA, and the use of not only federal resources, but their own legally allowed goons to threaten and harass)

* Govt influence is being bought and sold by big money (see again RIAA/MPAA and Senator Disney (Hollings)

* The rather insane need by certain govt officials to amend the constitution to limit the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry (where as the document lays out the restrictions of the powers of the govt.)

* The drive of some to also remove the miranda warning as to put people into a coercive situation with law enforcement and deprive them of at least the cognizance of their rights.

* People being held without charges and without counsel.

There are a lot of people that benefit from having these powers to arbitrarily make inconvenient people go away temporally or permanently, and even a well meaning leader may not be able to reverse the course.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

Just because a law is bad does not make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, and allowing them to do so in cases we favor only grants them the power to do so in cases we don't. This is a fight that belongs in congress, not the courts.

His webserver must not have shown ID

Apparently it's been arrested.

Probable Cause?

I wasn't aware that "parking off the road" was probable cause to "investigate an investigation". Surely this is a free country and so long as he wasn't trespassing, parking on the side of the road isn't a crime? I see truck drivers do it all the time. Are they required to show ID? Not to mention, its not just the $250 fine or the invasion of privacy that's at issue. There's also the impound fees, the potential bail/bond fees and lost interest on funds that could be sitting in a bank account, not to mention possible lost time at work, etc. This is what is known as a cop having nothing better to do with his time.
I had a similar issue arise recently in which I was stopped while driving to a shooting range and suspected of possibly having a stolen vehicle. I was searched and the gun I was taking to the range was found and confiscated (I live in California where just owning a gun is typically considered a crime). Thankfully, I showed proof of legal ownership of my truck *before* the search which removed the probably cause (not that transporting a gun was a crime anyway). The judge realized this and dismissed the case. But again, its an example of cop on a power trip. Once you refuse to cooperate, they act like the judges themselves instead of just the peace officers they're supposed to be.

The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers [nccomp.com]

Re:Probable Cause?

I wasn't aware that "

parking off the road" was probable cause to "investigate an investigation".

I think the "probable cause" would be the call from the witness claiming they saw some domestic violence going on. Both the story and the cop in the video mention it. So it's not a case of where the police cruiser just pulled over because they thought the guy's face looked funny.

Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department came on the scene - siren a-wailing - in response to a domestic violence report. Someone saw Mimi arguing with her dad and thought it had come to blows. The witness said that he saw "a man with a black cowboy hat" who "slugged the female". Dove was there to investigate the report.

Not being an expert on legal matters, I can't really say anything from a rights standpoint, but I do feel obliged to point out that from a pragmatic standpoint a little bit of calm and courtesy probably would have prevented things from escalating the way they did. On the video it looks like the man started getting visibly agitated and shouting pretty easily, when he could have just calmly stated his case. Unfortunately when you get right down to things, if you start by being hostile and loud it usually doesn't help things. This is true regardless of whether you're talking to a cop, a secretary, airport security, or whatever. (On a side note, I've seen what I'd consider much more aggressive tactics given much less provocation every time I pass through the airport.)

Re:Probable Cause?

(On a side note, I've seen what I'd consider much more aggressive tactics given much less provocation every time I pass through the airport.)

Hence why I don't fly unless I absolutely positively have to.

Great things this new age is doing for the airline industry, their service was already going down the tubes without the Gestapo at the gate. I have to admit the TSA people are a lot more professional now than the private security companies, but when I get shit about my insulin supplies and can't carry them unless I have a written prescription on me...fuck them. Like i'm going to hijack an airplane with a 3/4" needle that is thin enough most people can't even feel it go in. Oooo, scary weapon.

The whole industry can go bankrupt for all I care. I vote with my wallet. Ass holes.

Re:Probable Cause?

Actually "probable cause" is why the supreme court is interested. The Neveda law states that reasonable suspicion is all thats required for an ID detainment, and that you are then *required* to ID yourself. They can then detain you up to one hour to verify the ID you gave them. The legal question is whether "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" is necessary in order to require ID.

NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.

IANAL but I am a citizen. My take is that we are to be consider innocent until proven quilty, and that we have an expectation of privacy. Resonable suspicion is not probable cause. No one says "innocent until reasonably suspected". At what point does their suspicion outweigh my rights? I say they need to more than suspect its possible, they need to have proof that its probable.

Probable Cause isn't required

That's what you need for a warrent. For a stop or informal questioning, they just need reasonable suspicion. That, as the name imples, means they just need to see you do something that could reasonably cause them to suspect you have commited or will commit a crime. They don't need any evidence, they don't need to believe that you did, just reasonably suspect you did.

Similar to the difference between trial and grand juries. A trial jury must find that the evidence shows you comitted a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning that there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the facts. A grand jury just needs to find that there is legally sufficient evidence (the law mandidates minimums to go to trial) and reasonable cause to believe. Doesn't mean they have to think you did it, just that they could reasonably believe that you did.

Just don't get it

I live in Panama (in Central America, not FL) and here, like in most other places in Latin America, you have a Cedula, basically a national ID. When a law enforcement agent asks you for your ID, you show it to them. If you don't it means that A) you don't have one because you're an illegal immigrant or B) you're a convicted felon and have escaped from prison...or something to that extent.

I fail to see what's so horrible about this system. I'm not trolling, I really don't see it. Comments are most welcome.

Re:Just don't get it

Have you ever asked a blind man to describe what "red" look like?

Please board the train for relocation

And when masses of people were herded onto trains for 'relocation', or into ghettos, because the State told them to do so, they were just obeying too. You don't see whats so horrible about it because you've been brought up in a State where this level of massification is accepted. I'm not trolling either, its just something thats very important to a people who (until recently) did not expect this sort of behavior from their police.

Re:Just don't get it

I live in Panama (in Central America, not FL) and here, like in most other places in Latin America, you have a Cedula, basically a national ID. When a law enforcement agent asks you for your ID, you show it to them. If you don't it means that A) you don't have one because you're an illegal immigrant or B) you're a convicted felon and have escaped from prison...or something to that extent.

One point of difference is probably the political system you've been raised in vs. the one in which US citizens have been raised. I don't know what the panamanian constitution looks like, but I imagine that its very different from the freedoms provided in the US constitution, particularly in the area of the Bill of Rights.

The concern that some US citizens have is that the US government is devaluing personal privacy, which some view as an infringement of the rights provided in the constitution. The US legal system, for instance, is based on presumed innocence. i.e. law enforcement is expected - no, mandated - to presume citizens are innocent, not guilty of commiting crimes. There is not, to my knowledge, any federal law mandating that US citizens carry identification. It appears (I do not know for certain, as I cannot get to the article) that the individual in question was not in the act of committing a crime - or even suspected of committing a crime, but the law enforcement officer demanded that the individual identify himself as the officer was 'investigating an investigation.' This would appear to be insufficient reason to detain and fine the individual in question.

Re:Just don't get it

Responding to my own post but oh well. I read the ACLU amicus brief. Terry v. Ohio states that a police officer must have probable cause to arrest an individual. Terry allows the officer to ask a moderate number of questions in order to satisfy himself BUT, the person being questioned does not have to answer them. The officer cannot arrest the person unless he has probable cause. Nevada law, however, says a person MUST identify themselves (give their name). This goes against Terry's right to refuse to answer questions by the officer.

The question of the case then, I guess, is whether the Nevada law requiring a person to give their name to an officer is Constitutional. I'm hoping they vote no and the ruling overturned.

The US is different

For better or worse. We don't HAVE a national ID. There is no card that identifies you as a US citizen. Closest thing is a passport, and that is an optional travel document.

The reason is that we feel it is a privacy and freedom issue. Why should the police have a right to demand we show proof of identity? That means if I ever want to leave my house, I'd better have my ID with me or I can get in trouble. That seems to many Americans to be very Big Brother-ish (as in fomr 1984 by Orwell) or Soviet Russia-ish.

There is also the simple fact that since we don't have one national ID, they have less of a claim.

Not papers, just a name

The problem is that he didn't give his *name*, not his papers.

According to courts, you don't have a reasonable expectation to not have to give your name, because you use it all the time. You probably do, however, have a reasonable expectation of not having to rattle off any ID number that's private.

What's so wrong about giving a cop your name if you give it to everyone else?

Re:Not papers, just a name

Not only did the cop not see Hiibel driving the truck, but Hiibel hadn't even been driving the truck -- his daughter had. He wasn't driving at all, let alone driving without a license.

Re:Not papers, just a name

The reason someone shouldn't give there name is the same reason i wouldnt give my name if some stranger came up to me and asked for my name.

A police officer without any probible cause should be treated as just another citizen and should not have special privilages to access any information.

Re:Not papers, just a name

From the transcript on the video page [papersplease.org], you can see that Deputy Dove was demanding papers: "I need to see some identification", then "I just need to see some identification", then "Show me your identification".

Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".

The standard advice from ANY lawyer is to not say anything when accosted by cops. Not even your name. And the mass of court decisions, e.g. Kolender v. Lawson, concurring opinion of Brennan [usff.com] state that nobody has to answer ANY of the questions a cop asks of them -- even IF the cop suspects them of a crime:

"... States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer."

Here's another one, Terry v. Ohio [findlaw.com], concurring opinion by White: "[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." 88 S.Ct., at 1886 (White, J., concurring).

Happened to me

Several years ago, I ended up working late on some Microsoft catastrophe at work. By the time I got home at 1am, I was too keyed up to sleep, so I went for a walk. This is in a suburban-rural area, typical small town neighborhood. While walking around, a police cruiser pulls up, the window rolled down, and the spotlight went in my face. The conversation went something like:

Cop: Hey pal, whats going on?
Me: Nothing, just out for a walk.
Cop: Kind of late for that.
Me: Well I just got home from work and I'm still really awake.
Cop: Got any ID?
Me: Um sure..whats going on? (fumbled for wallet, gave license)
Cop: (mutters into radio with my info)
Me: Is there some problem, has there been a crime reported?
Cop: Um yes, we've had reports of someone walking around.
At this point, a truck LOADED with lawn furniture, to the point where it's mounded up in the back, with ropes holding it in, drives by. Driver and passenger of said truck watch carefully. Eventually, I was released, after being asked if I was wanted for anything. Had I been old (was 24 at the time), or walking a dog, or female, I'm sure none of that would have happened.

Re:Happened to me

I ended up working late on some Microsoft catastrophe at work.

Nice. Work in a dig at Microsoft. Ah, Slashdot.

Good thing you're not black

Or it might have went like this:

Cop: Hey boy, whats going on?
Me: Nothi....
Cop's begin beating you

ACLU

Even the ACLU says to you have to show ID when stopped in a car. (read here [aclu.org]) It is irrelevent whether or not you are parked. (You can get a dui for sitting in the driver seat of a parked car with the engine off.)

Re:ACLU

All fine and good, but he wasn't stopped in a car. He was standing next to a lawfully parked vehicle.

-Ted

The EFF?

While it's nice to have them on his side, why would the EFF want to be in this case? I thought their brief was *electronic* rights.

This was on Kuro5hin

Some of the comments [kuro5hin.org] on K5 were very good, especially the ones by people who RTFA and watched the friendly video. Despite my own right-sided tendencies, I don't side with this guy. He'd been drinking, he'd been arguing, he was rude to the cop (which shouldn't be illegal, but is certainly stupid), and generally isn't a good guy. There are insinuations that the subtitles in the video don't actually agree with what people are actually saying, which makes his position appear weaker.

I hope not carrying ID, or not giving it out w/out good reason, stays legal, but I also hope that drunk, obnoxious jerks get regulated on.

Re:This was on Kuro5hin

Yeah, what a jerk. Fine him! Attitude police everywhere unite!

Seriously now, is saying "I have right sided tendencies" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) supposed to pacify us and make us think "Well gee, if this guy is generally a Republicrat and he approves of the cops doing this, it must be ok?"

I'd post a link to the video, but I can't find it anywhere on the net and I forget what newsgroup post I originally found it in. The file is called no_id_arrest_SMALL.mov for anyone who cares to search around on their own. And from what I could understand being said on the tape the subtitles were pretty damned accurate. In fact, many times they only printed "(garbled)", when I could in fact plainly make out what was being said. I think they just wanted to air very much on the side of caution about captioning what was being said.

Anyhow, this guy seemed out of it, but beyond that did nothing at all to get arrested. In fact the cop started giving him trouble and the guy just told him not to touch him, and asked pretty plainly why it was that he was being harrassed. When the cop said something along of the lines of "I'm investigating... stuff" the guy then asked why that made him have to give ID. In the end this guy just gave up and told the cop he wasn't going to give id, but if the cop wanted he could go right ahead and arrest him. Which the cop then did.

Then comes the best part... 2 more cops show up, run up to this guys truck and start harassing the passenger. They held the door shut for awhile, and when they finally let it open they literally grabbed the girl inside and slammed her to the ground. Fairly small girl, not nearly a match for these 2 cops, and as far as I could tell she did nothing more than perhaps yell at them. She certainly wasn't resisting anything.

These guys are just a bunch of backwater fucktards on a power trip. I hope they get their asses in a sling for this. Cops should spend their time arresting criminals, not harassing semi-argumentative old guys.

I was arrested for this offense in Texas

Long story short: Last year a newbie Sheriff's deputy arrested me for "failure to I.D." I was walking back from the store early in the morning, and a cop who I'd already had an incident with demanded my I.D. I'm fairly well-versed in Texas law on the matter, and I knew I was right.

Anyway, I plead not guilty and the deputy didn't show up at trial. I'm currently in the process of having the arrest record expunged.

The bottom line on this is: Constitutionally, every search or siezure must be reasonable, which the courts have decided means that reasonable suspicion must exist. If you're just walking down the street (like I was), and you don't match the description of a person wanted for a crime, and you're not committing a crime, there's no reason you should be compelled to identify yourself. Period.

Re:I was arrested for this offense in Texas

Walking is a very suspicious activity. The only people who walk are (1) criminals or (2) people who are too poor to buy a car and so are probably also criminal.

I write a weekly newspaper column

and I talk about this subject with some frequency. Judging from the feedback I get, most people just don't get it or don't care. Most believe that if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem. I've been searching for a more elegant way to rebut this other than saying its just dead wrong but have yet to come up with it.

People equate the "papers please" line to movies about Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia but I think we are closer than most of us would admit.

btw, if you've got a good way to rebut this that doesn't include fuck or asshole, I'm all ears biatches...:)

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

If you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind this body cavity search either right?

-or to take a step back-

If you have nathing to hide, you won't mind if we put cameras in the bathrooms right?

With the state of legislation these days EVERYONE has SOMETHING to hide. Most laws are written by folks who think "their way is best", and through force of law feel the need to cram it down the throats of the rest of us.

There are many laws that I think MOST of us can agree on: murder, rape, etc...

There are far more laws that MOST of us don't agree on: prohibition of drugs, abortion, j-walking, etc...

The first defence we have against the "stupid" laws is some level of privacy, protected by NOT having to submit to this kind of intrusion..

Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich www.kucinich.us [kucinich.us] voted against the PATRIOT ACT in congress, and forcefully supports the elimination of it as well as it's related nonsense. He also supports repealing NAFTA and removing the US from the WTO, etc. Yeah, that's why he isn't going to win, but he makes a lot of great points. I wish he got more coverage! He's the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, who I have ever felt excited about- once I heard him talking about his platform on NPR I was in shock to hear a candidate who actually made some sense. just an FYI!

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

Sometimes its a matter of asking the right question. Try asking you readers this:

Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.

Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?

Why not?

Now, why it is OK for a cop to do this to an adult?

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.

Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?

It's certainly not a crime, but I think that any child that ages from 10 to 12 years old within the span of one Sunday afternoon would arouse some suspicion!

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

I think I have a moderately good defense of privacy: the foundation of our criminal code is based on external acts, that is acts against another person or entity. The proof for an external act would then be public material, or material provided ("made public") by the harmed party. Therefore, privacy is a restriction on the encroachment of law: if you can't be shown to be doing it, you can't be convicted of it. Thus privacy is a good thing can be derived from the idea that "if you didn't harm another, it's not a crime"

Another way to say all this is: If you didn't hurt anyone, you didn't commit a crime. If you did commit a crime, the person hurt (or a person witnessing or affected) would come forward with evidence: you don't have to prove you didn't do it. Privacy is your right to an accuser.

Many of the problems we've had in recent years with the law have been 1) "victimless crimes" or "societying-wronging" (drugs are the classic example), and 2) where the state is the accuser.

Both of these are in part because there is no concrete person wronged, so it's difficult to defend yourself. Even worse is when the state is the accuser, because the state is An Authority: what they say is true. Very hard to prove otherwise, and the individual clerks process so much information each day that things are just assumed to be true because they're written: no one remembers writing them.

These fears are often dismissed as being kafka-esque, but anyone who has ever delt with a large corporation that has a "it's written so it must be true" problem can understand what the problem is. Now imagine where the result is not paying an extra $100, but having 5 years of your life taken away. High stakes. And beaurocracies don't get any better when they're played at those stakes.

That's a basic defense of privacy. I'm still struggling with the "ihre papieren, bitte" (sic?).

While it's bad, it's not as bad as implied

The site goes on about the cop saying he was "investigating an investigation" and implies the cop gave no reason for it or anything.

Which is overstating.

The cop never said he was "investigating an investigation" from watching the video. He did, however, say to the man as soon as he got there something along the lines "I'm investigating reports of a fight between you two" indicating the man and the woman in the car.

And the person asked for ID was fairly belligerent. He kept on asking the officer to arrest him.

The charge isn't specifically a law that makes it illegal to present ID, I think (though I'm not sure), it's a charge of obstructing a peace officer. Which may be from aforesaid law, but I didn't see that when I looked before.

Duh!

Mimi Hiibel was hauled-off to juvenile detention and charged with resisting arrest. In court, her father asked the judge a simple question: what charge was Mimi arrested for resisting? The case was dismissed. This is true; at least in California, you cannot be arrested for the sole charge of "resisting arrest". The amazing thing is that they actually had to have a court case to set a precedent to establish this as part of California state law! By the way, you are also legally allowed to resist arrest if you beleive the officer intends to harm you in an unlawful manner -- but just try arguing THAT one in court!

Re:Duh!

By the way, you are also legally allowed to resist arrest if you beleive the officer intends to harm you in an unlawful manner -- but just try arguing THAT one in court!

DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer, just a law student

No.

Follow that rule, and you may well end your ass up in jail. The rule in most jurisdictions is that you do not have a right to resist arrest unless one "reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect against an arresting officer's use of unlawful and deadly force"

Essentially, you cannot resist arrest unless you're in fear of your life or grevious bodily injury -- EVEN if the arrest or use of force is unlawful. The way to deal with unlawful use of force is a civil action later. It is not up to the man on the street to decide whether an arrest is legal or illegal -- that is a matter for a judge and jury.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Biagini (655 A.2d 492) is a good example (and coincidentally where I stole the above quote from). Man is arrested without sufficient cause. During the arrest he assaults an officer. Man is found not guilty of original crime, but does time on the resisting arrest charge.

I don't think I can state it clearly enough -- you do not have a right to resist arrest except when in immediate fear of death / near death.

Not "investigating an investigation"

The officer clearly stated right away that he was investigating a call about a fight between Mr. Hiibel and the woman in the video. He asked to see his ID to get his name and to make sure this was the guy. How else was the officer supposed to gather information on the suspect? Last I checked, mind-reading was not a core class at the Police Academy.

Re:Not "investigating an investigation"

How else was the officer supposed to gather information on the suspect?

He could have asked. I watched the video. The officer did not ask Hiibel's name. He started out by asking for his ID. Hiibel didn't have any ID on him. If the person who made the call in the first place knew Hiibel's name, and told the police his name, then the first thing the sheriff should have done was asked "Are you Dudley Hiibel?" He could have asked Hiibel's daughter if Hiibel had hit her, if she was okay, etc. But he started out by assuming that a crime had occurred, based only on an anonymous tip. Rather then trying to determine if a crime had occurred (which would have given him cause to ask for ID), he jumped to the asking for ID part.

More interesting and less /.'ed site

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html

Of much interest:
"A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck."

So it would seem he was not 'accosted at random'.

What would everyone prefer a policeman to do?

I understand that everyone wants their right to exist peacefully without being harassed. However, there are occaisional occurances of wanted individuals being caught simply because their car broke down. Let's be honest: If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them. Anyone must be able to deduce that it is not unreasonable to expect that at some point, they may be questioned by an officer... so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise. Do we really want law enforcement to just start turning a blind eye to any car they see occupied that has a passenger inside? It seems to me that refusing to give one's name or ID is very unhelpful and almost antagonistic. People are always observing that Police don't spend enough time stopping real serious crimes, but when individuals like this person refuse to be helpful, it takes that officer's time away that he could have spent on a serious crime. The point is the officer was just doing what he felt was the right thing for him to do and it is possible he ended up getting angry, but being angry over someone who's wasting your time and the gov't's time isn't so abnormal a reaction, is it? Would we really be better off if we made it illegal for an officer to expect someone to give them their name? I don't see how. If someone has a better idea on how the police should react when a person refuses to identify themselves, I would be keen to listen.

Re:What would everyone prefer a policeman to do?

Anyone must be able to deduce that it is not unreasonable to expect that at some point, they may be questioned by an officer... so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise

[...]If someone has a better idea on how the police should react when a person refuses to identify themselves, I would be keen to listen.

I think this misses the point... a demand for identification in this case was never necessary in the first place. Here's how it should have been handled, in my view:

Cop: Afternoon, sir... is everything here alright?

Hibel: No problem, officer... what's up?

Cop: Well, we had someone reporting a fight and need to check things out to make sure everything is OK. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm sure you understand that ww need to look into reports like this... Would you mind waiting over there...

Driver is directed to a place safely off the road where the cop (alone at that time?) can keep an eye on him while interviewing the daughter.

Cop talks to daughter, determines if anything is amiss -- does she seem upset beyond what might be expected from an argument and being a young driver confronted with a policeman, possibly for the first time? Been crying? Any obvious bruises? Does she plausibly deny having been hit? (yes, sometimes domestic violence victims deny having been abused. That dosen't mean you don't ask!)

In all likelihood, he'd have arrived at the truth of the matter in short order -- that the original report called in was an over reaction -- and he'd have shaken hands all around and created good rather than ill-will. In less time than his confrontational approach would have taken even if Hibel had cooperated from the outset.

And guess what? He'd never have needed to ask for IDs or names at all, or even called in the license plate of the pickup truck (though he probably did anyhow as a safety measure when he pulled up - a sane and non-invasive precaution.)

This case is Extremely Important.

The American government is using the 911 pretext to bring in a national ID card with your fingerprint and eyecan embedded in it. They are trying to make this happen by forcing all passport holders who come to America to either have fingerprints and eyescans in their passports or face being fingerprinted and eyescanned at an American Airport.

Since all of the the people in the world are having to have fingerprints and eyescans to enter the USA, other countries will use the same biometric technology to control who comes into their countries. If you do not have a biometric passport, you will eventually be scanned say, when you enter Canada or the United Kingdom or any other country.

This means that Americans will either have to have biometric passports issued by their own government (meaning that the government routinely fingerprints and eyescans innocent citizens) or, Americans will be fingerprinted and eyescanned when they travel to other peoples countries.

Paper based passports are going to become a thing of the past; all passports will be reduced to a machine readable card. Once this happens, your drivers licence can be your passport AND your drivers licence at the same time. This means that your fingerprints, taken by the governemt so that you can travel, will be available to the police when they ask you for your drivers licence.

This case is crucially important to the rights of American citizens. If Mr. Hiibel loses this case in the Supreme Court, it means that any policeman can ask for your ID, which will eventually mean that he can demand that you put your thumb into a portable fingerprint reader - on a whim. If he wins the case, the police will not be able to ask to see your ID, and the deployment of the national biometric ID system will be at the very least, delayed at best it will be destroyed completely before it starts.

If you want to read the reasons why ID cards are a non starter, try this [privacyinternational.org].

And read this [bbc.co.uk] about the man who single handedly brought down the British ID Card system.

I hope he wins, because this will be a win for the entire Amercan public, and it will also be a clear sign to all other countries in the world that claim they are free democracies; ID cards violate your rights. They are bad for democracy, and should be shunned.

torrent of video

torrent of hi-quality quicktime movie [rit.edu]

Devil's Advocate...

I honestly don't see police requirement of ID as the problem here. Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement. There are a number of good reasons for this.

First, it allows law enforcement to QUICKLY know if you are the person they are looking for. If you look similar to a wanted felon, and the police stop you. How are they to know you are not the felon unless you identify yourself somehow? If you don't ID yourself, they have to take you to the police station and put you in a line-up or find some other man-hour intensive task to find out who you are.

Secondly, every time that your ID is run through the FBI's CIC, a record is added to your file that says that this specific law enforcement branch checked your identification at such and such a physical location. There may be a legitimate privacy issue that I can not perceive, but primarily this has become a legitimate tool for law enforcement investigations. It allows law enforcement to do "offline" checks to see what stops were made in an area. Its especially useful in serial offender situations where often a blanket police action may have contact with the serial offender in the area of a crime, but at the time they didn't know he is the cause. But after three different officers in three different police agencies stop the same person in the area of crimes with similar MO's, they can narrow their investigation. This has been used successfully and legally to all of our benefit in the past.

That being said, police don't need probable cause to stop someone, they need reasonable suspician. A lot of times, police define reasonable suspician as something they call Just Don't Look Right (JDLR). It might not be the most reasoned way to do police work, but a well intentioned police officer can use this to his advantage to elimitate social chaos in his community.

I haven't examined this particular case in any kind of detail yet, but it sounds like the "individual" conduct of the police officer is what should be investigated. Not whether or not law enforcement needs to have the right to require you to ID yourself.

Law enforcement in the U.S. is mostly localized. As such, community input into policing policies is very strong today. You as a ciitizen need to decide if you want your police given the tools they need to ensure that felons are not walking the street. Taking this away from will definitely make it a major burden to perform this service for us.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

I think you're not thinking this through.

Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement.

Really? Big marbles statues that speak, or something? If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.

People (read: me, but I am not the only one) get upset about this kind of thing because it sets precedent. The path from a free society to a Police State (where all your movements are tracked and must be justified) is lined with stepping stones, and this is one of the bigger ones.

A Couple of things...

First off to everyone here asking "why didn't he just show is ID?" I have lived in Urban areas and I have lived in small country towns. Being a caucasian male in his mid-twenties I have never had a problem with law enforcement in the urban areas that I have lived. However in the small towns with the small police departments where there is little more to do than harass the local teen and early twenties population I have had nothing but problems. I have never been officially arrested. Nor do I have or deserve any criminal record. But I have been pulled over, searched, taken in and otherwise annoyed by these small town constables more than I can remember. One day in my late teens early twenties I finally had enough. I had been routinely pulled over and had both my vehicle and person searched at least once a week for several months. I decided I wasn't going to do it anymore as none of the stops ever resulted in more than a ticket for a burnt out taillight. I decided to start refusing the search request. I began to tell the officers that since they have no probable cause to enter my vehicle that the most they could do was a plain sight search. And if they wanted anymore than that to get a dog or a warrant (keep in mind that if they do opt for the dog, which they have in my case a few times, that you should ask them to declare how the dog alerts prior to them letting the dog loose on the car.) This will piss a cop off so be ready for the backlash. I had to do this a few times and sit and wait for them to get a k-9 unit to respond but eventually they began to leave me alone as it took to much time for them. Having gave that background I can complete understand why this man refused the police officers request. The officer had little of no resonable and probable cause to make this request.

Should have got their ID

Fight back is a good idea. You missed one important point: get their id. By law they must give you their badge ID. When they stop you for no reason all you need is a lawyer to file charges against them.

BTW, while technically they are not required to help you in getting that id, if you don't have a pen handy and they refuse to lend you their's, write a formal letter of complaint to the police chief. Might or might not result in anything, but it will go on his record. (In most areas you can and should check that record to make sure it is there)

Re:Did you notice?

What constitutes probable cause?

A concerned citizen called 911 to report a possible domestic violence situation, saying they had seen punches thrown.

The officer arrives to find the vehicle had been stopped in an erratic, sudden, and aggressive manner.

The man is immediately belligerent.

If you're saying the officer should have NO RIGHT to identify that person in the course of attempting to determine what is going on, e.g., to check for prior domestic violence arrests, then that simply represents a fundamentally different philosophical position from mine.

I take offense that you'd imply that I somehow don't deserve to call myself a US citizen simply because I believe that police officers should be able to identify persons when they arrive at the scene of a possible crime because of a dispatch by a 911 call.

Try being black!

I'm amused by how shocked you all are. I'm black, and to make matters worst I've lived in Wisconsin most of my live. Milwaukee is a nice city with very few racial issues, but as soon as you step foot out of the city limits, it's a whole new world. These types of things have happened to me countless times. If there is a cop behind me and I am outside the city limits there is a 90% chance I will be pulled over. They will simply follow behind me until I make a little mistake, or I have left their jurisdiction.

I've been pulled over for going 3 mph over the speed limit, pulled over for "looking suspicious" (AKA being black in a white neighborhood), pulled over for "matching the description" (black male about 5' 10", isn't that like 70 of black men?), pulled over for "running a red light" (that was clearly still yellow after i cleared the intersection), the list goes on and on. Each time my car is searched, I'm searched, they find nothing and I go away without as much a warning because they know they had no reason to stop me in the first place.

Here's a good story...
My cousin and I were cementing the base of my aunts garage. I went in the house to get more cement. When I came back out I find two officers, with weapons drawn pointed at my cousin. Now to draw the proper mental picture my cousin is of course black, the officers are white, one is holding a shotgun, the other is holding his sidearm. My cousins hands are covered in cement, he has a bucket of cement at his side, and a spatchel (or whatever its called) in his hands. I say "what the heck is going on here?". Cop1 "we got a report of break ins in this area". Me "Are you blind? We live here, we have for 10 years! We're fixing the garage." cop2 "Sir put your hands up!" I put my hands up, this exchange goes on for 5 minutes. They get a radio call, and proceed to their car. I request the officers badge number to file a complaint. He slams the car door in my face and they drive away.

The sad thing is I have many more stories like this, and so does pretty much every black person I know. Maybe from now on I will start video taping myself everywhere I go.

Not just Nevada -- also Ohio

"Your papers please" comes to Ohio [underreported.com]

ACLU membership (and some advice)

As someone with a contrarian (read: Yankee) spirit, I often leave my wallet at home when I go out for a walk. And, being a dork, I'm often up late working or thinking, and so I end up walking late at night.

I have never had a problem in the big cities. This is most probably because I am white. The police there have focused their efforts on hispanic and Af-Am people. If you want to hear about civil rights violations, how about the kid who was just shot and killed for walking on the roof of a housing project in NYC?

But when I go down to the beach in small town Long Island, I often run into cops. Either rent-a-cops who will watch me as I walk down a long, empty avenue, or the real police.

Here are your rights (as understood by the court up until now):

1. The police have a recognized right to try to stop and talk to you. (i.e., don't get all like "hey, you have no right to bother me. I ain't doing nuffing wrong.") Argue with it if you like, agitate to change the system, but don't bother to try to change it right there.
2. The police have a (generally) recognized right to ask you where you're going and where you're coming from. This is a bit fuzzier.
3. You do not have to show them identification if you don't want to. This does not apply if you are in your car and driving, and are pulled over: then you must produce Driver's ID. If you are a cyclist, like me, you have to have some kind of ID if you a cycling on the road, but it does not have to be a Driver's license.

Watching this video, this guy is making a lot of mistakes. Look, I don't like dealing with the police, but if your real intent is to be left alone to exercise your freedoms (and not to just cause trouble), you are well advised to:

1. NOT make any sudden movements, jump around, act agitated, or get nervous. Look, I know you want to exercise your rights, and if you're (like me) a white male who's never been in trouble with the law you are probably the most likely to succeed, but calm the hell down. If you can't calm down, you have lost. Bzzt. Sorry, Constitutional Crusader.
2. Do not elaborate. Repeat what you have said. Refuse to show your id. Expect the officer to play mind games.
3. Once you have repeated your refusal not to show your id, ask, very calmly, "am I free to go?" If the officer says, "no," ask "am I under arrest?" Repeat this question until you get a firm answer. If he says "no," then say "as I am not under arrest, I wish to go. Am I free to go?"
4. If questions of searching, "helping out" or otherwise obliging come up, repeat "I do not consent." This is robot time, people, don't get involved in a debate.

This is the ACLU 'Bust Card.' [aclu.org]

It's the way it works. If you really care, give $100 to the ACLU. They work on these things, and they really have been effective in a huge number of national, state and local cases. They don't just cover the big ones.

Re:ACLU membership (and some advice)

>1. NOT make any sudden movements, jump around, act agitated, or get nervous.

And for Krelden's sake keep your hands someplace visible.

Police have to deal with some really nasty people. They've seen situations go bad really quickly, either in real life or in training films. If you're a stranger they'll think about officer safety when interacting with you.

Don't alarm them. Standing on your rights is one thing, making an officer worry about his safety is a completely different thing.

Where it all leads

"It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the President and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics at the time... That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn't even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn't even an enemy you could put your finger on...

Things continued in that state of suspended animation for weeks, although some things did happen. Newspapers were censored and some were closed down, for security reasons they said. The roadblocks began to appear, and Identipasses. Everyone approved of that, since it was obvious you couldn't be too careful."

--Margaret Atwood
The Handmaid's Tale [barnesandnoble.com]

FINALLY ON TOPIC!

In Soviet Russia, the police...um apparently operate the same way as those in Nevada.

Re:Uh.

>when you are detained by a peace officer, you are
>under "custodial arrest", meaning you can't leave,
>but you are not under arrest either.

Do I have the right to remain silent, or don't I?

Do I have the right to consult an attorney before answering any questions, or don't I?

Do I have the right to keep any papers or belongings being inspected or taken away from me, without a duly executed warrant that specifies the items to be searched or taken from me, or don't I?

I get the impression that you would tell me I don't have these rights.

I don't draw a distinction between this corruption, and the supposed "real corruption" that you allude to. It's all the same, the camel's nose under the tent.

If the police officer had a reason to detain or investigate the person in the story, that's an entirely separate matter from the question at hand. Was it the guy's responsibility to provide evidence against himself to the police? This starts with demanding papers. It didn't help or hurt the police investigation that the man chose not to surrender his papers. What will hurt, however, is the blatant violation of the rights of the accused, which appears to have begun well before he was actually accused of any crime at all.

Suspects are presumed innocent. If probable cause exists to make an investigation, then the police should investigate. But the suspect is not required to provide whatever evidence the police would like to have. On the contrary, he is explicitly protected from being required to do so, it's one of the fundamental laws of the land, one of the most important rights afforded to Americans. It's one of the primary things that defines us as a free nation, and citizens who enjoy liberty.

If you disagree, that's your right, but don't tread on mine just because you'd throw yours away.

The Cato amicus brief says best what's wrong here

Cato Institute's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada [epic.org]. They point out that even if the cops have a warrant, they not only can't make you answer questions, but they are required to warn you that you have a right to remain silent. You are free to be silent at every other stage of an investigation or prosecution, from casual conversation with cops all the way through sentencing.

Cato also discovered that more than 20 states have laws like this on the books (it's in the appendix of their brief).

You can read any or all of the briefs in the case (including my own [epic.org], which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel [epic.org].

Suspicion of being suspicious

I grew up in a small town where everyone knew everyone else, and the local cops always pulled the same people in for questioning every time that something happened in town. We coined a new charge for the local cops (not that they appreciated our "attitude") and named it "Suspicion of being Suspicious." This was 20 years ago, and I see that things haven't really changed much in the attitudes of the police, but there's something larger at stake here: this court case risks institutionalizing such behavior by our police. If this case goes the wrong way with the court, it will no longer be a tounge in cheek charge in some rivalry between some small town teens and ego tripping small town cops, but instead a simple fact of un-Ameican life that the cops have a right to do this sort of thing.

Re:Here is the situation

Suppose you're a police officer. Every day of your life is filled with danger; not only on the job, but also at home, from vengeful and spiteful people like the ones here who lurk and unfortunately, sometimes post. Then, the day comes when you pull someone over who may have been on one end of a domestic dispute. You ask for an ID, but he doesn't give it to you. In your "perfect utopia," the suspect wouldn't have to give an officer an ID, so you let him go. Later that night, you're at home, watching the news and the top story is a double family homicide. As it turns out, the suspect you let go had murdered a family earlier that day and had an APB out. Unfortunately, without seeing his ID, you didn't know and he got away.

Do you know what an APB / BOLO is? What it includes? How it's sent out?

If you do, you'll be aware that an APB / BOLO will generally have more information than just a name. In fact, they don't usually have names. It'll be something more like:

"Be on the lookout for a middle aged white male, approx 5'9, weight approx. 200 lbs, last seen driving a late model blue sedan, travelling north on NC-58 near the South Carolina line. Suspect is wanted for questioning related to a double murder in SC, and is to be considered armed and dangerous", or something to that effect.

Now if your hypothetical cop pulls over a late model blue sedan being driven by someone of that description, and he won't show ID, I'd think you're into the area of "probably cause" for an arrest.

Some time later, after he got away, he went out and mudered another innocent family. Damn, how I wish I could live in your "utopia." It sure does seem a lot safer.

A couple of comments on that:

Life is dangerous. Do it long enough, you die. That's a fact of life. Living in a very free country may be slightly more dangerous than living in a more tightly controlled country. That's a trade-off. We in the U.S. generally prefer liberty and freedom over perceived safety.

I say "perceived" safety because giving in to more of a "police-state" type environment doesn't *necessarily* make things any safer. What if the guy in your scenario had a fake ID which identified him as some upstanding, law abiding citizen from far across the country, and the cop let him go? He still commits your hypothetical double murder. Face it, cops exist primarily as a deterrent to crime, and to investigate crimes after they happen. In general, cops do not routinely interrupt crimes in progress, and prevent double murders, except by blind luck.

Then there's the issue of safety as a personal responsiblity. If I was the husband / father in the innocent murdered family you describe above, wouldn't I have a responsiblity to have locks on my doors and windows, and make sure they're locked at night? Would I not have a responsiblity to have an alarm system to alert me if my house is broken into while we sleep? Would I not have a responsibility to own a firearm or other weapon for self-defense, and take action to protect my family if need be? And if I'm not home, should my wife and/or kids not be trained in using such a weapon as well?

The question is, who is fundamentally more responsible for my family's safety, me or the government? I would argue that the answer to that question is quite obviously "me."

Torrent for the hi_res quicktime movie

This is a movie of the incident in question.

http://tracker.apt202.net/no_id_arrest_LARGE.mov.t orrent [apt202.net]

Please keep your downloads open. Thanks!

Anyone with any contact to the webmaster please tell them to provide that link if they would like.

As a police officer

This is probably a bad place to post my opinions after looking at the feeling of the majority here. But everyone is entitled to their opinions, and everyone bases their opinions about police officers on their personal experiences. Unfortunately many things that officers routinely do is often misunderstood by those interacting with them. But I don't really have the time to get into that.

Concerning this case: I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience. Unfortunately I believe that he could have handled this call in a better way. This is an example of how I like to think I would handle a call of this nature. (If I was ALONE WITHOUT backup on the scene)

D: Sir, step back here and talk to me. H: Ok D: Listen, I'm here because we got a call about some fighting out here, what's going on? H: Nothing I'm not parked illegally. D: Ok sir can I see your driver's license please? H: Nope, no way, no how. D: Do you have any ID on you? H: None that I'm going to show you. D: Ok listen, I want to know who you are and I want to go check on that person in the truck. I want to make sure your not going to run off so please give me your ID. H: Why? D: I'm not going to leave you back here without knowing who you are or having some other way of making sure your not going to attack me or run off. You know who I am, but I don't know you from a mass murderer. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but for my safety I like to know who I'm dealing with. H: Not showing you nothing! D: Ok sir if you don't cooperate with me I'm going to place you in investigative detention, which means for my safety while I figure out what is going on, I'm going to put some cuffs on you and sit you down while I conduct my investigation. H: What are you investigating? D: A call for an assault or domestic violence. H: Why don't you just take me to jail now? Here. (Holds out hands) D: Ok sir put your hands behind your back, understand that your not under arrest but being detained. (cuffs and sits him on the ground) D: (approaches truck and talks to daughter)

At that point I figure out that their has PROBABLY not been an assault because both stories (obtained seperately from the two parties) seems to match up. However, as a good law enforcement officer, it does not end there. There could be something going on here that is not readily apparent. Daughter could be not talking because she thinks dad is going to beat her (it does happen!) Daughter could not be daughter at all, but kidnapped or a runaway being harbored by this guy. Somebody called the police for a reason! I will not end my investigation until I check both names for local warrants and the national computer for warrants, missing, etc, etc. Once I am satisfied that everything is on the up-and-up, I release pops from the cuffs and everyone goes on their way. With a proper warning to pops not to drive since he is intoxicated.

Again, it's easy for me to say what I would have done having ALREADY SEEN what happened. This officer was trying to do the right thing although perhaps got a little too caught up on the whole ID thing.

The moral is: Fine, if you don't want to tell me anything about anything, you will sit there in cuffs till I figure out what is going on. If nothing, your free to go. If something, THEN your under arrest. People tend to assume as soon as cuffs go on that you are under arrest. This is not always the case, and as an officer I always tell people: you're not under arrest yet, but you're also not free to go. You are in what's called investigative detention. At this point it's basically for an officer's safety, and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. An officer can hold a suspect there on the scene for a "reasonable" amount of time to figure out what's happening.

In this case, I believe that the deputy has reasonable suspicion to detain the father. 1st- the call for domestic battery. 2nd- intoxicated, somewhat belligerent man s

Re:As a police officer

I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience

You argue well, young jedi, and my general experience with cops meshes with yours (although I have known many who could get a bit over-enthusiastic about their view of the "law" as an immutable, nearly religious concept.)

However, one of the finer points of a democratic society based on the rule of law is that it should not depend on the professionalism, dedication and reasonableness (is that a word?) of individuals tasked with its enforcement. I'm not trying to set up a straw man argument here, but what you see with a lot of monarchists is that they support the concept of an absolute ruler based on the ideal of a "benevolent tyrant". That is, one who means well and who has the power to do good things despite the opposition of idiots and evil men.

That said, what happens when said power falls into the hand of someone who's not-so-benevolent? No security mechanism in the world can guarantee that this will not happen. Likewise, even if 99% of cops are good, what's stopping you from hitting the one bad apple, or maybe even just a guy having a bad day?

Perhaps I'm stretching a bit here, but I find the title of this /. article extremely appropriate. Pragmatically speaking, I, as a (generally) law-abiding citizen don't have a problem with having my papers checked. It doesn't really harm me, even if I may believe that its impact on everybody's safety is miniscule. However, I do not want this to become the standard, as I fear the prospect of a nazi or soviet or islamic or whatever state arising, with the powers (obtained under the premise of good, responsible police using them only when appropriate) to check my ID, detain me, take it from there.

And YES some cops have a sense of humor.

Yes, who doesn't, but alas, this "sense of humor" could also be applied to a bunch of cop buddies of a UK friend of mine who made a sport of playing 'car check bingo' (i.e. pulling over drivers based on the color of their cars--"oop, I need a red one. There's one! Let's check his license!") Sounds hilarious, I agree, but not if I'm the driver.

the Supreme Court will NOT uphold any law that requires showing ID to law enforcement for NO reason.

Probably right too--however, define "reason". Never forget that there have been and are countries where "probably cause" includes "he looks like an enemy of the state". Or arab. Or jew. Or whatever.

You'd never do that, you say? You know what, I believe you. I honestly do. Nor would the guys who helped us chase the drug-addict trying to kick down our door, or the cops who brought my girlfriend home when she had an accident, or the ex-cop who ran one of my IT projects. But the 20-something combat-booted cocksuckers who wanted to impress their female colleagues (okay, I would too, I have something for cute chicks in uniform carrying submachine guns, sue me) by picking on the guy in a sports car, well, I don't hesitate to believe for a second that they would. And they're just immature, badly-trained idiots. I shudder to think what happens if were that aforementioned, purely hypothetical one-in-a-hundred bad apple who really is a card carrying member of the Michigan militia in his free time.

Oh, and as an aside, you shouldn't rule out replying to flames and trolls--they're sometimes the most amusing ones :-)

Re:As a police officer

It's interesting to see how a cop thinks about this sort of situation - and interesting to see how you ignore a citizen's rights, probably just because whoever trained you did.

If you ask me to show you papers, and I say no, then the answer is no. I'm not required to testify against myself - thats the fifth amendment. I'm also not required to give you permission to search and sieze anything in my "persons, houses, papers, and effects". That's the 4th amendment, and the law of the land.

If you have cause to arrest me, then go ahead. Seeing my ID won't make any difference in cause. Otherwise, I'm innocent until you can prove me otherwise, and you should go about your business.

Cops should keep in mind that every one of them is just another citizen, not one of the the "King's Men." I have no requirement to allow you to violate my rights, and you have no power to "detain" me beyond the gun that you will threaten me with.

Public servant positions, like police officers and presidents, need a serious overhaul - Start serving the public again, instead of yourselves and your own opinions of how the world should work. Read the constitution, and if you accept the job, live by it.

Shame on you for stating that demending my rights is a sign of guilt. It does not point to probable cause. Shame on you thinking that you are allowed to decide if a crime is being committed based on somoene's willingness to excercise those rights, as guaranteed by the constitution.

What should have happened there? I'll play next-day quarterback, since you did too.

d: Please step away from the vehicle.
h: Ok.
d: There has been a report of domestic abuse going on here. Is there any going on?
h: No.
d: Can I see your papers?
h: No.
d: Ok, I'm going to ask these same questions of the lady in the truck. Please stay where I can see your hands, for my own safety.
h: Ok.
d: Hi. Young lady, can I see your papers?
h: No.
d: Ok, what happened here?
g: My dad and I got in a fight because he doesn't like my boyfriend.
d: How big fo a fight? Did your dad hit you?
g: No, I hit him.
d: Are you sure? You can tell us, and we'll keep you safe.
g: No, really. I hit him - I was driving.
d: Sir, is this what happened?
h: Yes.
d: Do you intend to press charges against your daughter?
h: No.
d: Ok, then. Please move along here - cars on the side of the road make people nervous and can cause accidents. You could continue your conversations - calmly - at the resturaint a few miles up the road. As long as no one is hitting anyone else, I'm sure they'd be happy to let you guys work this out. Young lady, here's my card, just to be sure. You two have a nice day, and for all our sakes, try to be more civil.

Cops have the possibility to regain th epublic trust they once had. When I was a kid, we'd think nothing of going to a street cop to ask for help . Now, I'd teach my kids to steer clear - cops are mean and badly trained, concerned more for thier own safety and protecting business interests than upholding thie rights of others.

Dudley Hiibel will lose

Mr. Hiibel seems to think that the police had no right or business to investigate the fight between him and his daughter. However, because the police received a call from a witness, the police were duty bound to investigate. How our the police supposed to investigate a crime when they are not even allowed to obtain the identify the culprit?!

Mr. Hiibel also seems to think that if he loses, police will be able to ask for the ID of any person they come across. But that isn't true ether. When he loses, police will have the right to ask for the identify of those they are investigating, IF they have a reasonable suspicion to investigate. Which in this case, the police clearly did.

I once talked my way out of a vandalism charge

One day, I was crossing on a green light when I was nearly ran over by a woman in a minivan. I naturally kicked hard at the side door, only to have the slut disappear on the horizon.

A passing oxcart (up here, we call cops "beefs", hence the appropriate name for police cruisers) didn't lose any of it.

Naturally, being assholes, they didn't care that the slut nearly killed me, all they did was the dent on the door of her holy sacred minivan. So they start giving me shit, and, first things first, they asked me for ID.

Since there is no official "ID cards" up here nor any requirement to carry some, I simply hand over a business card. While the other beef keyed-in stuff in their terminal, the beef starts giving me shit for kicking the van, saying that this is vandalism.

I said back, angrily, that the fucking slut nearly killed me. I then said, "let me hop aboard along with you, and let's go after the fucking slut so you can ticket her".

Now, that they would have to ticket someone for nearly running-down a pedestrian was too much for them. The cop handed me back my business card, said "be careful next time", and they left (probably their blood donut level was too low).

Assholes.

Nevada Supreme Court - Dissenting Opinion

Here's what a Nevada Supreme Court justice thought of this decision. Clearly this justice is the one who really understands what's going on here: (emphasis added)


AGOSTI, J., with whom Shearing and ROSE, JJ., agree, dissenting:

As the majority aptly states, the right to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, is a fundamental right of privacy in a democratic society. However, the majority promptly abandons this fundamental right by requiring "suspicious" citizens to identify themselves to law enforcement officers upon request, or face the prospect of arrest. I dissent from the majority's holding that the identification portion of NRS 171.123 is constitutional.

It is well-established that police officers may stop a person when reasonable suspicion exists that that person is engaged in illegal activity.[1] However, it is equally well-established that detaining a person and requiring him to identify himself constitutes "a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment."[2] In light of these constitutional requirements, the United States Supreme Court has stated that although the officers may question the person, the detainee need not answer any questions.[3] Furthermore, unless the detainee volunteers answers and those answers supply the officer with probable cause to arrest, the detainee must be released.[4]

The Fourth Amendment requires that governmental searches and seizures be reasonable. Reasonableness is determined by "a weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty."[5] A court's primary concern in weighing these interests is to assure "that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers."[6]

Anonymity is encompassed within the expectation of privacy, a civil liberty that is protected during a Terry stop. The majority now carves away at that individual liberty by saying that a detainee must surrender his or her identity to the police.

I agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' reasoning on the issue of whether a person may be arrested for refusing to identify himself during a Terry stop.[7] In Martinelli v. City of Beaumont,[8] a woman was arrested for delaying a lawful police investigation by refusing to identify herself during a Terry investigation.[9] The court held that allowing the police officers to arrest the woman for failing to identify herself in effect