Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
He HAS a good reason. The BEST reason. He is defending his (and your, and my) rights. Defense of your rights and fundamental freedoms is the ONLY thing worth killing or dying for.
Everything else is trivial.
One of the few things that distinguishes America as a free country is the absense of checkpoints and "papers please" where your very existence is presumed to be a crime until YOU demonstrate that you have a right to exist and that you are free to go.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The police office was responding to a possible domestic violence situation.
This was covered much more in depth on kuro5hin.org days ago!
Even the ACLU says to you have to show ID when stopped in a car. (read here) 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.)
Specifically, the contract on being granted my Drivers License (or CA ID) is that I submit it upon demand by a "peace officer".
Now, that's completely different from being required to carry it at all (Save, of course, while driving). But if I DO have it, I believe I'm required to surrender it.
I don't know what restrictions surround something like a Passport.
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"
Sig- http://www.dreamhost.com/rewards.cgi?ayefly
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...:)
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.
to Flex Your Rights as an American. Know what to do in a situation such as this. Remeber there are checks and balances and they work both ways. I think this precendent (being set by the policeman) is a bad one, and it could run us down a very slippery slope.
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
Don't worry though the USA PATRIOT ACT's will take care of all your problems.
MoFscker
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!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
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.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
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.
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'.
Um, I did mention why I was stopped and why I was searched. If you read my post, I said they had a suspicion I was driving a stolen vehicle (the reason is that I had a new vehicle with no plates so they pulled me over thinking my truck might be stolen). I showed them the temporary registration and bill of purchase. They read both, *then* asked me to exit the vehicle and searched me and my truck. They found the gun that was being legally transported in a unloaded, locked gun box. The police report said as much, which is why the judge dismissed the case after reading over the police report.
torrent of hi-quality quicktime movie
Instead of getting all self righteous and commenting on what was happening, why don't you read the article before commenting on it. If you have to "guess" about what the cop was doing, don't comment it just adds to the noise here on slashdot, like we need more mindless noise. If it is unavailable and you can't read the article, wait a while, someone will have it mirrored shortly I'm sure, that is just as sure a thing on /. as the hippies going on about security and liberty.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
The article specifically states that the man was standing outside of the parked car, leaning into a window, talking to his daughter. No driver's license needed for that, I don't think.
And in fact the website indicates that she WAS driving, and was in the drivers seat.
If you are in your car, you need proof of license and proof of insurance, that's just the way it is.
1. What's your name?
It's on my license
2. Can I see some ID?
Yes here is my drivers license
3. What is your reason for being here?
I prefer not to discuss that with you
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
I do not consent to a search of the vehicles storage compartments
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
I do not consent to a search of my person
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
I do not consent to a search of my dwelling
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
I do not consent to a search of my personal computer
Remember also "Can I leave now?" "Am I under arrest?" "Why am I being detained?" and "I do not wish to speak with you now."
"Your papers please" comes to Ohio
I was a bit more concerned when they pulled the girl out of the truck and onto the ground and cuffed her. That seemed totally unnecessary. The view isn't clear, but wasn't she a teenager?
Watch more carefully; she forced the door open on the truck and started running towards her father (and the other officer in the midst of handcuffing, i.e. weapon in holster exposed and hands busy). That's action enough for a deputy to tackle her rightfully.
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.'
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.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
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)
Dennis Kucinich www.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!
EOM
Don't recall which case, but the supreem court has ruled that cops do not have to protect you. Case came out when one man broke into a house where 3 women lived, trapped them all in a bedroom, and was raping them. One women (under the bed?) managed to call the police. When they came to the door he answered, and said "no, everything is alright. No, you cannot search without a warrent." (or words to that effect) After the police left he went back to the rape.
A commonly cited case when gun control people bring up the police.
Expanding on the above (and noting that IANAL, I just took a class on the Supreme Court here at the university)
The Supreme Court is a court of limited appelate jurisdiction* so cases rarely start there and thus they generally hear appeals from other courts. The "limited" part means that they decide if they want to hear any case. They are only obligated to hear cases over which they have original jurisdiction (which is defined in the Constitution, and which is narrow enough that it almost never happens).
To be considered by the court, four of the nine justices must decide that they want to hear the case. There are several reasons why a judge may want to hear (or why they may NOT want to hear) any given case. I forget the exact statistics, but they only hear something like one in one hundred cases. I remember some figure of less than 10,000 cases being appealed to them and a figure of something on the order of 100 actually being heard by them. They can rule either by just reading all the material supplied by both sides and then ruling on it, or they may do the rulings after having oral arguements from both sides. In oral arguements, they ask lots of hard questions and can interject or go on a rant at any time whatsoever. The Chief Justice (currently Rhenquest) is charged with keeping them on task (some of them have a habit of just talking to each other during the arguements, others are more engaged...) The judges aren't very constrained, but the lawyers for both sides are very much on their toes. God help you if you don't have a ready answer; they're not there just to have you restate what you said in all your briefs...
Sometimes, the justices want to hear a case to affirm some precident. This isn't all that common--there just usually isn't any reason to hear something just to affirm it (though this does happen for various reasons). Statistically (and this is part of what my university course was on!), they intend to reverse or vacate any case they hear. When they reverse it, they decide in favor of the person who lost the last round in the court system. When they vacate a ruling, they send it back to the previous judge with instructions about what that judge should not have done. Usually, it doesn't direct the judge to come to any particular conclusion, but it tells the judge how they may or may not arrive at their conclusions (e.g. directing them to ignore/take into account certain evidence, etc.).
There are also reasons why they may not want to hear any given case. Perhaps some justice is afraid that "their side" will "lose" and set a bad precident.
When I say "their side" I should qualify that. If you do the statistics (as my prof did both in class and in the book he wrote, which was a class text), some justices tend to agree with each other more often than the others, whereas others are nearly polar opposites (agreeing in only something like 20% of the cases). Dividing the Supreme Court into "liberal" and "conservative" will get you a fair correlation, but it doesn't really represent a sharp distinction concerning their judgements. The justices certainly have their own political views, but they're not slaves to them and everything depends on the respective merits of the case--you can't just sit back and figure that the five of nine "conservative" justices will win you your case. There are several "swing" justices, in any event, who will muck up any predictions you try to make about any particular case. The statistics just aren't the whole story.
So this is a wild tangent, I know, but if you're wondering, this should have given you a better insight into how the Supreme Court makes decisions. I know that it comprises much of what I learned in that class...
* The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction--usually only over things like treaties the US has signed. Original jurisdiction means that they get to hear a case before and instead of any other court, by the way. Generally, they get cases ap
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.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
If some cop wants your ID, do you have to give it to them? As far as I know, the answer is "no." I suspect this is what the supremes are going to be talking about.
If they want to arrest your ass, then they should arrest your ass. If they're not going to arrest your ass, then they should leave you well enough alone.
Did you know that you can say "no" if the police ask you if they can do something? Probably not - and the cops will jump all over you if you do that. But it's your right not to consent to a search.
From the transcript on the video page, 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 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, 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).
Just one note if you are part of the 0.0001% of Americans who occasionally travel abroad: Most other countries have laws requiring you to show ID to law officers. And in most places (Europe, for example) they can hold you for a few days until you produce some.
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.
Cato Institute's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada. 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, which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel.
>Nice! Consider that stolen for use in my sig. ;)
And when you do use it remember to attribute it to Ed Howdershelt and not the grandparent poster. The quote is in kernel hacker Gene Haskett's sig, where it is happily and properly referenced.
In Pensacola, FL, a 4 hour course was required before you could get a permit/license. Drug/Alcohol use were the primary topics of the course, but also mentioned was that it was an unwritten agreement (or something to that affect) that you need to carry your ID on you at all times, and present it when asked to.
Checking to see if there is the same in other states (as well as if there is provided documentation in handbooks, etc) would be very beneficial.
Personally, refusing to identify yourself is a rather silly thing to do, and creates an atagonistic relationship between the police & public (which is not how it is supposed to be).
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.
The cop had probable suspicion to investigate the claim that Hiibel and his daughter had been fighting, but he:
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation? Sure, if he has probable cause that something illegal happened, he'll need to ID the person, but that can wait until he's taken back to the station. Probable suspicion is not enough to arrest a person, or even ask for an ID.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
EFF filed a brief because they believe in privacy and anonymity.
(Also, working with me has educated them on some issues around ubiquitous ID demands. Turns out that most of these ID demands are backed by big databases; the ID is used as a key to search them. E.g., a cop radios in your license number and they tell him things about you from the NCIC database. Or the cop uses the multi-state MATRIX web access from the laptop in the police car. Or the TSA's CAPPS-2 looks up your credit records to suspect you if you don't have any credit -- and cross-checks them against your ID when you show up at the airport.)
I have been pulled over/stopped by police 26 times (the vast majority before I was 18 in Arkansas which has a teen curfew, so I probably deserved it.)
In each of those cases I ALWAYS asked for (and received) identification and badge numbers from the police officers involved. It's only affected me in a positive way. When you ask for bade numbers and identification you are basically letting the police officer know 'I know your limits, and I'm going to hold you accountable.'
I've known several police officers in a social sense, and I've discussed this with all of them. They all, to a man (and one woman), have the same response. They don't begrudge a citizen looking out for themeselves, and asking for ID has the affect of raising THEIR awareness that they need to be careful.
The exception to this however is when people use bade requests as a delaying tactic or a method of not answering questions. As with most things in life, you need to know the right TIME to ask for this information.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
My cousin is a cop in a medium-sized city of the USA and he's let me read his "cop-only" books about how to conduct car searches. The one thing they all stress is how to get people to give you permission to search their cars. It's all about asking things like "you don't have anything to hide, do you?" or "You mind if I just look in the front seat there?" (because once you allow a search, you can't restrict where in the car they can look).
If a cop asks if he or she can search your car, you say "no." If they tell you that it'll just take a second, you say "no." Keep saying no. The only way they can search that car is to arrest you and to impound it, and (a) this involves a lot of paperwork which they're not gonna want to do just to hassle you, and (b) if they don't find anything and fail to have probable cause for the bust you can sue the department.
Finally, get rid ofditch the Phish sticker. That's just stupid. Yeah, it's not fair and technically it's profiling, but y'know what? Profiling is done for a reason. People with Phish or Grateful Stickers are more likely to have pot on board. Slip under the radar and you're less likely to have to deal with a traffic stop at all.
The California law that claimed to require people to produce ID was declared unconstitutional by both the Ninth Circuit and by the Supreme Court. That case was Kolender v. Lawson. Edward Lawson is a black man in dreadlocks who was stopped and/or arrested more than 20 times for walking around in neighborhoods where the cops didn't like to see black guys. Eventually he filed cases against these cops and won. The cops appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The Ninth Circuit said it violated his Fourth Amendment rights and was too vague. The Supremes merely said it was too vague, and didn't inquire further -- which is why they needed to take the Hiibel case.
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.
What?
A couple of publicized cases have come down in the last couple years. One said police who find drugs by squeezing soft luggage on busses or trains cannot open the bags. One said infrared on houses for pot lights is an illegal search. So its really a case by case basis thing.
However one thing you must realize is that bad searches happen all the time, because local jurisdictions [captains, the public, DAs] want drug criminals prosecuted because it scores points with the soccer moms.
What they do is perform an illegal search on an ignorant person they suspect, but have no probable cause for. They sometimes find something, and then lie about their rational when they have to justify themselves in court: Your honor, I was talking to this gentleman on the street when the bag just fell out of his pocket .
This doesn't fly in federal courts--judges there will tell you to fuck off, and don't show your face in here again--but state judges buy it because they aren't so removed from the democratic process. The problem is that there are too many incentives in the system for everyone involved to get more prosecutions.
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 the amicus brief the EFF filed in support of Mr. Hiibel.
The ACLU has 'quick cards' for this kind of things. ACLU.org has them. By the way, the answer to both of those questions of yours are, No. You don't have to consent to search of your car, ever. If they have 'probable cause' then the will still search it, but then they don't need your consent. In fact if you give it then, they have even more rights when searching. So NEVER give consent. And you can talk to the cops outside your house, if they want to talk. They can't come in unless you invite them (or you don't complain when they walk in) or they have a search warrant for that exact location or an arrest warrant for someone on the premises.
christ, none of you retards read anything, do you. She's 17 and seeing her dad arrested- rather upsetting, I think.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement. There are a number of good reasons for this.
There are no good reasons for this, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown V. Texas that a Texas law of this nature violated the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Oh stop with the histrionics. What happened was a violation but it really isn't Nazi Germany here yet. Slashdrones are so silly.
-Detention of citizens without trial or recourse to courts or lawyers
-Detention of citizens without charge for unlimited time
-Secret detentions (the US now has its own "disappeards")
-Declaring people "enemy combatants" and allowing them neither Constitutional protections NOR rights as prisoners of war.
-Torture of enemy combatants (as defined by international law)
-Local police undercover agents infiltrating lawful political opposition groups under the auspices of the Joint Terrorism Task Force
-The ruling party seriously suggesting that the Constitution might need to be suspended after 9/11
No, it isn't "really" Nazi Germany, but it is getting far too close for my comfort.
First off to everyone here asking "why didn't he just show is ID?"
Because it's a right that, if not defended, can slip away. As demonstrated by the people saying this, it already has to some degree.
If the only people that refuse to show an ID *are* criminals, than refusal to show ID becomes extremely suspicious in and of itself.
For the people saying "If you've done nothing wrong, why not just comply?" -- this is *exactly* the mantra that Orwell used to justify everything in his state. It works well. If you're doing nothing wrong, then why should you object to being monitored by state-controlled cameras in your house or any of the other elements of a police state?
May we never see th
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.
This is a movie of the incident in question.
http://tracker.apt202.net/no_id_arrest_LARGE.mov.Please keep your downloads open. Thanks!
Anyone with any contact to the webmaster please tell them to provide that link if they would like.
Sorry pal, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how useful a hypo kit could be to a hijacker, like you said, "most people can't even feel it go in."
I think the grandparent is overstating things a bit here: The pain is minimal, but it's unusual to not notice it entirely, and it's almost impossible to give an insulin injection to an uncooperative patient -- the needles are thin enough that any sort of violent movement will break them.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Yes, and the people who they "ask" are not required to respond. As Shakespeare said in Henry IV:
You are confusing a request with a demand. A cop is free to request anything at any point, with a few exceptions. (And people who have never had good advice from a lawyer are likely to do as they request -- to the peoples' own detriment.) But what a cop can demand is limited by the Constitution. A "request" followed by an arrest if you do not comply is a "demand".
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 and open letter from Privacy International 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 :-(
Let's add to this that police officers generall have the attitude that they are above the law.
most of the time they are breaking the law themselves in the police car by not obeying traffic laws, and then they break it wildly after work knowing they wont even get pulled over for smoking the tires through a red light if they are in their own turf. (I know 3 cops, yes this is absolutely true... an officer will get written up for writing a ticket to another officer by the union and the station)
the police need to be held to a higher standard... officer crumb was caught speeding? FIRED. officer dan acted in a non professional manner? FIRED.
I'm sick of the cops being populated by the power trip asshats and guys that are generally jerks. police academies need to be re-opened, you should be REQUIRED to prove that you are worthy of being a cop.
unbfortunately today, all it takes is a little college education and a red neck. and in michigan now, no college is needed anymore in several cities....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I saw a fascinating video clip on one of the US cop camera shows we get over here in the UK. IIRC a couple of state troopers had pulled a car over, alleging that it was committing some minor traffic violation. The driver, who happened to be a senior officer with a neighbouring force, clearly stated that he disagreed. During the following "discussions" he also identified himself as another police officer, and acknowledged that he was armed. He kept his composure pretty well considering, simply denying the charge and requesting that a supervising officer attend the scene.
The state troopers became more and more agitated, muttering things about "He's got a gun" and "Call for back-up" every couple of seconds. Eventually, they sprayed the guy who was pulled over, and managed to restrain him; he didn't actually threaten them verbally, draw his weapon, or otherwise give any indication of impending violence or resistance, mind, just disagreed with the charge and asked for a supervisor to attend, and then sat on a fence at the side of the road waiting.
It's all on tape from the arresting cops' car, but I'd love to know how it turned out; looks to me like two over-ego'd cops picked on the wrong guy, then got aggressive and wrongfully arrested him. They were pretty lucky the reasonable senior officer didn't decide to exercise his legal rights, probably resulting in a firefight (which, given the apparent incompetence of the arresting cops in negotiation, and the rather pathetic skills in unarmed restraint and use of spray that they demonstrated, probably wouldn't have turned out well for them, I'm thinking). The senior guy probably figured it wasn't worth the risk to all concerned, but I hope everyone got what they deserved out of that incident.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
-- Cicero
If you read the brief the Solicitor General filed with the USSC, you'll see that the arresting deputy noted his suspicions that Hiibel was drunk.
/.'ers who think this is a slipper slope, come on! Yeah, the Nazis did a LOT of nasty things to a LOT of people. You are attempting to make a connection between what happened here and a Nazi soldier breaking into someone's house at 2:30am demanding to see papers. It's just not there, folks.
I agree with whoever posted that the officer should have first asked the guy's name, and not gone into a confrontation over the ID unless he had suspicion that he was lying.
OK, the officer started off acting irresponsibly. You don't approach drunks antagonistically. You approach them gently so they think there isn't a threat. Then you lead them through.
But this suit is nuts. The guy screwed up in refusing to offer his ID, even as the officer was wrong in his actions.
But, this should be a CIVIL case in a local court over the way the police assaulted the daughter, not a case over whether or not it's reasonable for the officer to have asked for some kind of identification in order to assess whether or not there was any kind of elevated danger presented by this guy.
The web site makes him out to be some nice old fart just having a simple argument with his daughter. They don't mention the suspicion of drinking.
And for those
Yes, there's a lot of injustice in the world. Personally, I think both police officers should be fired with prejudice for the way they handled things. But my reading of this indicates Hiibels screwed up, too, and he's far from the innocent country bumpkin the website seems to make him.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
A simplified example: TEXT
A full (working) example:Stuff the link stuff.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I realize I may be feeding the troll, but this is something definitely worth knowing:
4. Would giving the cop the finger, making pig noises, and speaking in intimate terms about his mother, constitute a crime as well?
Actually, I already know the answer to this. Cops are treated as Special Citizens in our republic. While it is legal to tease, insult, or be disrespectful of a regular citizen, to do so to a POLICE OFFICER is a serious, serious crime.
ACTUALLY, this is not at all a crime. See the following summaries of two court cases which have upheld your right to verbally abuse a police officer as part of your constitutionally protected speech: (originally seen on the smoking gun some time ago in regards to this case.)
4. A juvenile telling a police officer "fuck you" was held to be constitutionally protected speech. R.I.T. v. State, 675 So.2d 97 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995) (conviction for disorderly conduct overturned). The R.I.T. court reasoned that police officers are specially trained to deal with vulgarities and situations when others may be verbally abusive towards them, and thus "fuck you" was not likely to provoke a violent response.
5. A juvenile calling a police officer a "fucking pig, fuckin' kangaroo" and telling the officer "fuck you" during a traffic contact was found to be constitutionally protected speech. State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980). Just like the R.I.T. court, Id., the John W. court also reasoned that police officers deal with these types of situations on an every day basis and therefore "fucking pig, fuckin' kangaroo and fuck you" were not likely to invoke a violent response.
My Sig is Sauer.
driver's license / motor vehicles
/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.
I don't know the specifics of this case, or what state this person was traveling in
He wasn't traveling, he was standing. Everything you wrote about driver's licenses and motor vehicles is off-point.
I am a police officer in the State of Georgia, in DeKalb County... in the State of Georgia, we
Well, that Georgia law is most likely about to be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court usualy doesn't waste time accepting an appeal just let a lower ruling stand.
in my county, if you refuse to show me your ID, I will take you to jail. I have done it twice so far in my career
Then you oughtta pay attention to this case. If the Supreme Court acts on this appeal you may just get slapped with a lawsuit the next time you haul in someone merely for declining you ID request.
Not answering questions is not a crime.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
If an officer uses force on a person without cause, not only does the department suspend, if not terminate, us, but you also have the right to sue us in state and federal court. The county will not raise a finger in our defense in said courts if we have violated policy. Kicking the crap out of someone just for verbal abuse isn't worth my spending the rest of my life in a federal prison, making your family wealthy. (difficult as it may be to make anyone wealthy on an officer's salary).
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 allowed the officers to "'bootstrap the authority to arrest on less than probable cause.'"[10] The court determined that the woman's interest in her personal security outweighed the "'mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest.'"[11]
More directly on point, the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board[12] addressed the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3), the very statute at issue here. In Carey, a casino patron brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a Nevada Gaming Control Board agent for violating his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.[13] The agent was called to a hotel to investigate Carey and another man, who were both suspected by hotel employees of cheating.[14] The agent caused the men to be detained, identified himself, indicated he was investigating gaming law violations, read them their Miranda rights and conducted a pat-down search of both detainees.[15] During the Terry investigation, the agent determined there was no probable cause to arrest the men for gaming violations.[16] However, when the agent asked the men to identify themselves, Carey refused, and he was arrested pursuant to NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190.[17] On appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop, and also probable cause to arrest Carey
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. A certified peace officer has the right to ask you to display your ID when you are in any public place within that officer's jurisdiction. I don't have the right to ask you any question that I want, nor do you have to answer any question that I ask you. The only thing you are legally obligated to provide is your identification (or, lacking that, your name and date of birth). I certainly never stated that the police have the right to know everything. You have the right to refuse consent to search and even if you originally give consent, you can revoke that consent at any time during the search.