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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
torrent of hi-quality quicktime movie
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."
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)
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
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 :-(
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
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.