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."

Comments

Putting a stop to this now.

[Anonymous Coward]

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:What is there to hide?

[fishbowl]

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.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[AyeFly]

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"

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

[strech]

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.

thank you John Asscroft!

[segment]

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

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

Re:Drawing the line.

[hammock]

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."

ACLU membership (and some advice)

[sdedeo]

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.'

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:Not papers, just a name

[John Gilmore]

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).

The Cato amicus brief says best what's wrong here

[John Gilmore]

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.

RTF Web page, please.

[Osty]

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.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Katharine]

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.

Better yet, watch the video

[JoeNotCharles]

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:Wear the yellow star

[Fjandr]

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

[Stephen Maturin]

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.