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."
Slowly, slowly, we slide down this long road. Don't close your eyes, you'll miss the whole thing.
I have been pwned because my
If you're a cop, why harass somebody for no good reason? There's no reason to abuse your authority by forcing somebody to give you id if there's no real reason to investigate them.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
just because the innocent have nothing to hide, means that there is no reason for giving up our rights of privacy.
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?!?!"
Don't be a zoa (zealous overbearing ass), be happy!
I agree that you shouldn't be stubborn in front of a cop, but that doesn't mean that cops can do whatever they want. The officer needs a reason to find out your identity, etc. They can't pull you over on the highway for nothing, why can they ask for ID for no reason if you are just hanging out on the side of the road. Sounds a little scary to me.
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?
That's the answer to the guy who trotted out the "if you have nothing to hide" line.
They can do it because no one fights back.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, you lose them.
The Supreme Court has over the past two decades become far more accepting of searches, thanks primarily to the court's shift to the right, and the perceived threat of the "drug epidemic".
Have you ever asked a blind man to describe what "red" look like?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If you have nothing to hide, show your damn license.
1. What's your name?
2. Can I see some ID?
3. What is your reason for being here?
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
Where shall we draw the line, if not at #1 or #2?
I mean, heck, if you've got nothing to hide, and teh ID check came up clean, just let the cop look in your trunk and find nothing wrong. You may as well just let him have a quick look in your pockets, also, because he'll find nothing wrong unless you have something to hide. If the officer is conducting an investigation and you have nothing to hide, then there's no reason to not let him look in your garage at home, either, unless you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to not let him look at the contents of your hard drive either, since he'll find nothing wrong.
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.
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
If I'm parked somewhere doing no wrong in the US, I don't need to prove who I am. Now, if this were Soviet Russia 20 years ago, occupied Germany 60 years ago, etc. Sure. But I'm trying to remember what the diference there is...
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Did y'all read the article?
What everyone here seems to be missing is the fact that the officer was responding to a report (eg, some other citizen called the police) of domestic violence after seeing this guy argue with his daughter in the truck, and in fact, there had already been a physical exchange between the guy and his daughter.
Then, once additional officers arrive and the arrest is in progress the daugher tries to *phsyically force her way* past one of the cops. I just can't feel for the supposed "victims" in this case even after having read only their side of the story...
Yeah well, Panama, like pretty much everyplace else in SA, you pretty much are expected to do anything that a man in uniform with a gun orders you to do.
You don't see anything so horrible with that system because you are willing to live under it. One more day. Someday, somewhere, the reason you don't want to identify yourself to an authority figure will not be as obvious to you as "illegal immigrant" or "escaped felon."
It's happened before, in other parts of the world, where unthinkable things would be done to you simply because your papers indicated you were of the wrong ethnic group to be in this part of town after dark... So that's not the case in Panama today, but why are you so willing to give them the tools they need to oppress your people when they choose to?
When people aren't concerned about their liberties before it's too late, when it's too late, well, it's too late.
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.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
That is funny...
Well, I'm not a criminal, but I'm concerned about this issue. I don't have the time if a cop decides I need to stop and display ID at his whim. I have things to do, I'm not committing any crimes, don't waste my time with your insecurities and need to push your authority on someone (which in most cases is what it's really about).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Actually, its not that they're willing to live under it. It's just that Panama has a habit of getting invaded by the United States, who always supports the military, who are the ones with the guns, who run the country. I mean christ, ever heard of the PANAMA CANAL?
"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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I think you read that backwards it was the citizen who would not show his ID to the cop, not vice versa.
Yes, but this brings up another point. If a u.s. citezen asks a cop to show id in order to verify that he/she is a legitimate policeman, shouldn't the cop have to show id? There are a few fakes out there. This brings up another question. Is there such a thing as self defense against a cop? It seems that the police have been given pretty much unlimited authority when it comes to people in their cars, judging from recent court rulings.
What?
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.
The very fact that the Supreme Court has decided to hear it, means that the Court thinks there are legitimate questions that need to be answered. The court is quite happy to just refuse to hear cases that it feels don't need to be heard.
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.
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
There's no way the Supreme Court will allow the officer to get away with this.
I think you dramatically underestimate Antonin Scalia. He's written some very stupid opinions.
In such a situation, show him an American Bar Association membership card. Doesn't matter if it's fake, he'll generally leave you alone.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?
Three Squirrels
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?
Happily, that is, until you call them an asshole.
What makes you assume he was drunk? If anything the cop should have been sensitive to the fact that he was already under stress from fighting with his wife. That is the COPS fault. You don't walk into a domestic situation like that and just start barking orders at someone who is already on an emotional rampage. Men under stress can snap, the cop could have gotten a lot more than he asked for, for being such a dick.
TK
One way of working within the system to get an _unconstitutional_ law changed is to challenge it in the courts. The courts are an important and integral check in the system. In order to have a test case for a law, someone needs to be tried for breaking it.
Of course, there is the danger that the law will be upheld, however many times people had to take the risk of breaking a law to allow a challenge. This is how the laws prohibiting condom sales in the US were struck down.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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
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.
"Driving an automobile"
His daughter had been driving, not him.
"since this guy was parked IN a car"
Actually, he was standing outside, leaning up against it when the police arrived.
"Also, according the the laws (at least in my state), if you FAIL to produce an ID, as requested by an officer, then you may be arrested for "failing to obey a resonable request by an officer""
Then you must have been the only one not either laughing or offended when seeing movies depicting Soviet troops demanding that civilians "show me your papers!".
"We have laws for a reason, and when someone doesn't like one, they whinnnnneeeeee and complain instead of using the system to get the law changed."
He is currently challenging the constitutionality of the law at the Supreme Court. How is this not working within the system?
" I don't like a lot of the laws on the books, but I'm not going to break them, I'm going to work within the system to get them changed, leagally."
Then you must really hate the entire civil rights movement, which engaged in mass civil disobedience protests.
What would you have this man do if he didn't have any ID? What if he didn't drive, didn't have a bank account, didn't have any bills sent to his house, and didn't get a state ID? There are indeed many who do not want the government tracking their every move, and thus choose to live a simpler life. That, at least for the time being, is their right. You and John Ashcroft may indeed one day get bar codes tatooed on every newborn's skull, but for now, there's nothing wrong with living outside the 'world'.
Tell you what, even though this is slashdot, if you're going to put together such a longwinded and self-righteous post, how about reading at least PART of the article? Otherwise, your post will, as this one does, simply ooze ignorance.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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.
What?
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..
Because it is too easy to lose it or have it taken away. In the South of the U.S. before the (U.S.) Civil War, free blacks (freedmen) were given papers to prove that they were not slaves. They were still second class citizens, though, and if they forgot their papers one day and someone asked, it was off to the plantation you go.
In the U.S., most people revere very highly "innocent until proven guilty" (except for the military) and that is what this case appears to be about. I'm not sure the exact letter of the law is, however, because in essence, we do have a national ID (Social Security Number). But I don't think that anywhere one is required to carry ID everywhere as that would seem morally wrong to me.
Could someone enlighten me some too?
So not being able to air a political attack ad on radio or TV 60 (or is it 30 ?) days before an election is not anti-free-speech?
Even worse is the fact that news outlets are exempt from this law, and its not like news outlets are exactly fair or balances in their reporting.
I'm sorry, but political speech is one of the most important rights we have, and even that is being chipped away.
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.
"when someone doesn't like one, they whinnnnneeeeee and complain instead of using the system to get the law changed."
It seems to me that Mr. Hiibel *is* using the system to get the law changed; he's using the Contitutional system of checks and balances. If you remember your Jr. High civics classes, there are (in the US) three braches of government specifically so that one or another can't get too powerful. Mr. Hiibel is simply using the Judical branch's power to attempt to check and balance thejudicial branch.
I just read through all these replies and its completely obvious no one has read the article. Even at k5 a bunch of dumbasses just starting ranting about their rights, author included. the blurbs are sensationalist and try to make it sound as if were in a police state. this took place in 2000 and the guy had it coming. he was reported to the cops, at which point the cops approached him. i could completely understan id he had been walking his dog and the cop came up and tackled him or arrested him becuase he was in "the same place at the same time", but this is none of those. an intoxicated dumbass mouthed off to a cop because he was pissed and the cop finally had enough. under these circumstances the guy is lucky he got off with a 250 dollar fine. 4 years later, the supreme court is going to use this as an excuse to say cops can demand id when they approach with the suspicion or report that you committed a crime.
had he been sitting on his porch minding his own business, id be outraged. ive been approached by cops and detained, cuffed, becuase i was walking at night. they give you some bullshit excuse, and becuase of that excuse, they are allowed to stop you. its not right, but the police are going to be believed over some random person. maybe we should be more outraged that cops can get by with making up excuses and "bending" police reports. just becuase you get arrested for something doesnt mean that the cop had probable cause or any justification to approach you in the first place.
Sounds like Ed "If they aren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects" Meese.
In America, we are not supposed to be subject to random police action. Sure, the courts have permitted some, but the courts are wrong in those cases. Unless the police have probable cause that I am party to some illegal act (either as suspect or witness), or am involved in some activity which necessitates police(*) surveilance (eg getting on an airplane), then the the police(*) have no right to interfere with my business in any way! If I don't want to talk to them, I shouldn't have to. Period. And that in and of itself is not and should not be cause for them to arrest, detain or otherwise interfere with whatever it is I'm doing.
The US isn't supposed to be a police state, John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act notwithstanding.
(*) In this case, police does not mean police force, but police authority, which includes any government agent such as security screeners, etc.
The Supreme Court can rule it un-constitutional and have the law stricken. Which is the only acceptable answer, and is what any sane person wants. Also, it is the most likely outcome, I think. There is no way they are going to let this stand, even with the shift to the right.
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.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
...you will be assimilated.
Just kidding.
Doesn't matter how rude or belligerent or whatever you are to a cop -- it ain't illegal. Some cop comes up to you and demands ID, or even asks your name, you should be able to tell him "What's it to ya, ya lousy screw?" and flip him off, if you want, without repercussion.
It's a cop's job to deal with every kind of situation. If you're so thin-skinned that some meanie insulting you or being rude to you causes you to alter your behavior in any way, you shouldn't be a cop.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
You can't use the public schools either, you're too old.
You can't exceed the speed limit.
You can't run red lights.
You can't use the carpool lane by yourself because of the incredible number of individual commuters.
You can't drive without a license.
You can't be president until you're 35.
You can't run your own TV station, your taxes subsidize huge networks.
You can't fly a Harrier jet, even though you helped buy them.
You can't live in a gov't building, even though it belongs "to the people".
If I have a choice of totalitarian government or terrorists, I'll take my chances with the terrorists any day.
and then decide... the original link is a fairly slanted version of what happened (if it wasn't already dead you could check it... feel free to verify it when their site comes back up). I tried another link and found this site to be much more complete.
In short, the police officer got a call for a potential domestic violence or assault, attempted to question the man at the location who fit the description of the individual reportedly involved, and was met with a totally uncooperative attitude.
Let me tell you how a cop views this: virtually all of the people who hate cops have had prior run-ins with them... ie. they are some kind of scofflaw, or associate with such folks. When a cop gets a "f*ck you pig" attitude, his guard instantly goes up, and so do his antennae... you've stupidly just made yourself his adversary. The police officer in this case had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed... and when confronted with a possible suspect who was potentially violent, possibly intoxicated, and wouldn't even give his name, that officer had to act, so he detained the man.
What should he have done? Ignored the possible reported crime and just let him go? "Awww shucks, citizen... if you're not going to tell me your name then I guess I can't arrest you." Nobody gives their real name when arrested... we find out later who they are via fingerprints and witnesses.
Maybe it's my prior law enforcement background talking, but I really don't see the problem here. The law doesn't exist to hassle regular citizens... the officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and if he does, then he can detain to ascertain identity. An officer can ask you for your identity just walking down the street... but if you've done nothing wrong, you can say "no thank you" and keep walking. If he then physically pounces on you, that's being detained or arrested, and he'd better have grounds. If he doesn't, feel free to own him in court... I would.
Sheesh... as long as he's polite and just doing his job, what's wrong with telling a proactive police officer your name? There's something called common courtesy, and police officers should be eligible to receive it. Why is a cop ineligible? Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds? If you're innocent and a cop asks you your name, you could be an ass about it, insult the cop, smirk, and saunter away... but what would that prove? That you can be a smart-ass? Great... I'm sure your mother would be proud.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Location: Australia
When my wife was working night shift, on her way home one night an unmarked police car tried to pull her over, light on the roof with sirens going. She refused to pull over because she could not verify the car was legit.
She kept on driving until a marked cop car turned up as well. She pulled over and they asked why she didn't stop. She said she thought they were crazy axe murderers or something like that and it was accepted. They gave her a random breath test and went on their way.
They weren't happy about having to bring in a marked car, but if you cannot verify the identity of the person trying to pull you over, you have every right not to stop.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
(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.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Sometimes it's easy to forget that the fact this has made it all the way to the US Supreme Court is that EVERY OTHER COURT along the way AGREED that it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to be able to identify persons, especially when the reason the officer came in the first place was a response to a domestic violence call! So you mean to tell me that the police officer has no right to ask for identification from any party when dispatched to a possible domestic violence situation? Somewhere along the line this guy got lucky because all of liberal groups have picked up his flag and milking it for all it's worth.
Get a grip, people. It's not "papers, please". Do you honestly believe that if someone calls in a domestic violence call to 911 to a particular location, when there is in fact in an argument between family members (and the story even admits there was at least one punch thrown; it doesn't matter how weak it was or wasn't), that no one there should have to *identify themselves* at all to the responding police officer(s), under any conditions?
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.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
The past is just the present only older -me-
Show us your papers and you get to spend the night at home.
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.
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.
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?
Or, he could first try and talk to the people involved. Figure out what's going on. If you read the story it seems that mr. hiibel did nothing wrong. Even if they had enough prior evidence to arrest mr. hiibel they are extremely difficult to deal with. He repeatedly asks them what he's being arrested for with and is repeatedly given the run around. I find it disturbing that the cops just walk up and handcuff him and his daughter for excercising their rights. At the very least they could have spoken to him (without obtaining his ID) and his daughter and sorted out the situation. This is a case of sloppy policework and power hungry or impatient officers.
Photos.
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.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Oh really? I;m going to have to start asking for badge IDs as a matter of course. False arrest and harrassment charges are rather easy for a good lawyer to win. Cops may not like it, but they must give you those IDs when you ask.
IF the cop is less than polite make sure you get that id and file a complaint. Psychology studies have shown that cops are in a position of power that is very easy to abuse, you need to remind them that you are watching.
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
For anyone who truly believes you have a fighting chance
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.
MoFscker
No, the officer actually said he was "investigating an investigation." You can see it and read it here.
==
D: Because I'm investigating an investigation
==
It's interesting how your memory rewrote what you watched.
--Dan
talking works in the appropriate setting... but sometimes you need to get control of the situation quickly, particularly if there's potential violence involved.
I vividly remember one dashboard camera video of a traffic stop that resulted in a huge shootout, but began as a young man standing up for "his rights." The driver is out of the vehicle and off to the side of the road, talking with the officer. He's repeatedly telling the officer that he doesn't want to be frisked, or placed in the police cruiser, because he doesn't want to be "violated like that." The officer was very polite, and tried to explain everything to the young man... but that's not the scary part. The scary part is that on the tape you can see the young man's brother still in the vehicle, out of view of the officer, putting on body armor, retrieving weapons... time is not always on your side.
Conceptually it's similar to what we do with dynamic entries in SWAT; we move in rapidly, take total control, and overwhelm any resistance before they have a chance to think, plan, or regroup. I've not seen the video in this particular case, but I suspect the cop wanted to control as many variables as he could, and that means all parties involved, including the daughter. Additionally, the officer had no way of truly verifying their relationship... could have been pimp/prostitute, prostitute/john... even husband/wife. You'd be surprised how many wives of abusive husbands attack the cops, particularly when it becomes clear their old man is going to jail.
There is such a thing as taking "stand by your man" too far.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Ok. Convenient that in the synopsis, K5 and /. left out the "we heard you guys were fighting". If a law enforcement officer suspects criminal activity, you should shift into "yes sir, no sir" mode, if you turn into Mr. Asshole, then they will put you on the ground and hogtie you. Would you people have us live in Anarchy? If this were a simple case of "let me see your papers" it would be different. RTFA, make your own conclusions, don't get fed this tripe. IIRC, 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. Bottom line, cop thinks these two were beating each other up, told them so, then asked for ID, cowboy turns into cowboy from hell , cop puts him on ground and hogties him. Why the legal system would put up with this garbage is beyond my comprehension, when there is real corruption, like the Texas officers who made up evidence to put poor Black and Latino innocents in jail, then collected a percentage of the money based on the street value of the "drugs". That completely floored me when that came out. Read Here
I hate sigs.
This is not insightful. A legitimate question is being responded to with a failed analogy. This is FUD. If the answer to his question is so obvious, please enlightem him as opposed to trying to make fun of him.
<high-level position here>
<name of stupid small company here>
Sorry for being off topic, but I just felt like sharing.
Quite the contrary. Your not the slightest bit off topic.
Your story hilights whe happens when you give law enforcment officers complete disgression.
Police harrasment, assult and battery by a law enforcment office, denial of your right to a lawer.
I don't actually exist.
Rember these words "officer am I under arrest, am I free to leave." usally the answer is no, get out of here.
Here's how to keep from being arrested, cooperate with the cops, be polite, kiss ass, but give NO useful information, absoluteley nothing, tell as much of the truth as is harmless b.s. but no more.
be nice, but make it clear that you don't have anything to say, and that you'd like to carry on with your buisness unless you're under arrest.
rember johnny tight lips "who says I got a mother."
Well art is art isn't it, but then again water is water; and east is east; and west is west; and if you take cranberries
Actually, "reasonable suspicion" is the only way they get to stop you at all.
From there they try to get to "probable cause" which gets you arrested.
Fortunately, in a free country we are not required to assist in the process; and we have the right "to be left alone."
It's real simple. If you aren't interested in talking to the cop he can either arrest you or let you walk away.
That's as it should be.
Actually, since this has gone to the federal Supreme Court, it will take precedence over state laws. That California law will become void. Of course, whether California actually decides to obey that is a good question, since now its cities are apparently allowed to function as rogue, anarchic states (re: San Francisco).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The word you're looking for is fascism
Sorry to be a pedant
Krill
Okay, so now that he has been arrested for not providing identification:
And then
Ummm... yeah... let's see... Officer says "let me see your I.D.", if you refuse he can detain you on reasonable suspicion, and now that you are lawfully detained the public interest is served by forcing you to identify yourself... *HOW* is it again that one is expected to be free from arbitrary interference with law officers?
Sounds like they can arbitrarily get your ID legally to me.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
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.
Even before USA PATRIOT we knew that if a police officer simply didn't like us they could mess our lives up, after USA PATRIOT its even worse of course. It is a problem, and it must be fixed. I rather like Brin's proposal in "The Transparent Society": make every cop wear a webcam at all times while he is on duty [FOOTNOTE]. Get lots of cameras in the hands of everybody so no cop ever feels that he is unrecorded. If I was a cop I wouldn't like this, and frankly I don't like that its necessary. I'm quite sure that the number of bad cops is quite low, but they do exist and as citizens of a free country we must be assured at all times that the police are not out of control.
The other thing we must do is to recognize that making the police's job easy is not always the best course of action. It would be much easier if the police had DNA records for every citizen, as well as finger prints, retinal prints, body profile, etc. It would make their jobs easier if they didn't have to get warrents, if they could arrest anyone at any time for anything. The point is that they have a hard job and unfortunately it isn't always in our best interest to make it easier.
.
FOOTNOTE: Naturally we'd have to make exceptions for police officers preparing for raids and the like; but I want their webcams simply time shifted so that the feed isn't released until after the raid, not simply turned off for that duration. Allowing the powerful to operate in secrecy is simply a bad idea. We must make the police accountable, thus answering the old question: "Who will watch the watchers?" We all will.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
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) -- but he's obviously in the wrong here. The Police Officer was just trying to do his job.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Is Slashdot shifting its focus from computer gadgets and networks and Linux to nothing more than a political commentary board? How is this story 'News for Nerds'?
Sure, it may be 'Stuff that matters', but there's a lot of other non-tech stuff that matters that doesn't make it onto Slashdot because it's not news for nerds. What makes this (decidedly anti-Ashcroft) story special? What does this have to do with "nerd stuff"?
This particular story reeks of an editor foisting a political viewpoint on an audience guaranteed to work themselves into a frothy lather over it (isn't that called trolling?). It belongs on a Political site, not Slashdot.
Oh and yes, I did reply to this thread so that it would actually be read. The parent troll was modded down appropriately. Thanks for reading this.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
A better solution is just to ignore the police officer completely. By saying "no" you are asserting your intentions and this constitutes an act. By not responding to the officer you are giving him the burdon of action.
...
... ...
Case in point; one time my car was being illegally towed (the driver hadn't finished connecting my car to his, which is the law here in Eugene OR), when he refused to release my vehicle, I responded by entering my vehicle and locking the doors. Of course it's illegal to tow a car with someone in it, so the driver had to call in the police (yes I'm serious). At first two officers came and asked me to come out... I ignored their request and instead stated my reasons why my car was being illegally towed. Then they asked if I had ID and I presented it. Then they asked me to come out, but this time I ignored them. They said that I didn't come out they were going to break the window and pull me out and arrest me for resisting an officer. "Sounds a little excessive." I said, and that shut him up.
Not knowing what to do, they called in two more police officers so now there is 4. These next two cops pretty much do the same as the first officer, ask me to come out and I ignore them, just staring straight ahead.
Now they call two more officers, so there's six total, and they all get a chance at trying to get me out of my car, and they all get the same treatment.
Well they can't figure it what to do, so they decide to call the sergent, for a total of... 7 police officers.
So the sergent is obviously going to have the final say so I start talking, and when he asks for me to get out of the car, I simply say that I can talk to him just the same sitting in my seat, and that with my car on a tow hitch and 7 officers surrounding me he has my full assurances that I'm not going to try and run away. So he tells me that he's going to have his officers break the window and pull me out.
ME: For what?
HIM: for resisting arrest
ME: what am I being arrested for?
HIM: interfering with a police investigation
ME: how can there be an investigation if no crime has been commited?
HIM: You are resisting a lawful order given by a peace officer, which is a felony
ME: Why do you need me out of the car to talk to me when I can as easly talk to you right now?
on and on... it went like this for about 5 mins, but never did I tell him "no". Everytime he askes me to step out I always respond with "but why is that necessary...". Very sticky situation for him, I'm not disobeying yet I'm not obeying at the same time. Finally it comes down to this.
HIM: are you going to come out of the car?
ME:
HIM: this is your last chance to get out or I'm going to have my officer break in and pull you out.
And then I drop the bombshell.
ME: Officer, I want to inform you that this conversation is being recorded, and anything you say or do could be used against you in a civil court of law. (HA! I just read him his rights!)
HIM: It's illegal to record without informing the person. I could have you arrested for...
ME: I have legitimate belief that my car is illegally being towed and if the driver disagrees then he should take it up in civil court. I don't believe that this situation warrents the use of police or the excessive use of force, and I don't believe that your order for me to step out of this car is warrented or lawful, given the fact that I am in a vehicle that is immobile, and that there are 7 officers surrounding me.
HIM: If you don't step out of this car right now, then I am going to arrest you and you are going to have a felony, and you are going to spend time in jail. Do you want to spend time in jail? I'm trying to help you, but you are making this difficult. Do you want a felony because you simply didn't want to pay the truck driver the fee?
ME:
HIM: now please step out of the vehicle
ME:
And then he just stands there, then goes into his patrol ca
This is the same Supreme court that about 6 months ago ruled that it's OK for a police officer to arrest you for ANY REASON.
Texas case, seatbelt violation, ticketable ONLY offense, took the woman to jail, sent her child to CPS, impounded car etc. Didn't like her attitude.
All perfectly legal.
Expect your notice to show up for mandatory retinal scan any day.
I've always been a Republican, but I'm carefully constructing my tinfoil hat now.
I'm going to vote, and I'm arming myself, while I still can, because I don't trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them either, but for different resons.
"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. "
Never say no to a search. You say no that means you are trying to hide something; which means they have probable cause.
The correct responce would go something similar to this.
Officer: Do you have anything illegal in your car?
Driver: No.
Officer: I am going to go ahead and search your car.
or if they are nice
Officer: Is it ok if I search your car?
Driver: You may search my car officer as soon as you tell me your probable cause.
If someone else has a better statement please let me know. As far as I can see, saying yes as long as they tell you why is the best route to go.
/sarcasm
/!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.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
scripsit nursedave:
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...
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Many geeks are extremely concerned with matters of privacy and due process. Witness (for example) the EFF, which is dedicated wholly to the protection of Internet privacy.
It may not relate to the internet, but every geek has a vested interest in not allowing privacy and due process to slip.
+++ATH0
Your best bet is to get over it, it happens
How is that your best bet? If you just accept it things will never change. I for one cannot accept injustice, and stop and nothing to correct situations, even if it takes years, or a lifetime. Everytime you swallow something like this, a little piece of your soul dies.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
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.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
No, Dove didn't. A phone call means he needs to investigate. He did not investigate. He did not even check on the supposed victim, nor did the other thug, er, trooper, he didn't even talk to her. Hiidel was arrested for not showing ID. Well sorry bucko, that's not something you can be arrested for.
What Deputy Dawg and his gang of bullies did was prove once again why we need the Bill of Rights, and more police oversight. Those three morons escalated what should have been a legitimate investigation into a pointless, needless confrontation. Idiots like that should not be cops.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
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.
It would be negligent to forget the media's roal in the downward spiral that we have witnessed since WWII. (And maybe even before that, but I don't want to split hairs here.)
After reading up a bit on how the diamond market has been allowed to pull such a mass marketing lie over the American public it's pretty clear that the powers that be have no desire to see truth in marketing. Now just think about that, if they don't really care that we have been lied to about something as simple as some silly stone that has an inflated value for the greater glory of some very few why would they have the 1st care about how the media spins things to fit whatever purposes that serves them best.
Freedom of the press was once viewed as a cornerstone as part of our freedoms. They would watch out for any sort of acts that might impune upon this country but as of right now they spin whatever the powers that be want them to and don't really look out for the people, except when it might make them a buck.
Of course the Internet has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan and they are doing all that they can to squelch it, but thats a whole other story.
For now, for right now, Joe 6 pack and Jessica box'o'wine gets her news at 11 from CNN/FOX/Local whatever and they dictate what "the world is". They view themselves as "informed" because they have watched the news every day and hell if you try to argue with them about it, what kind of creds can you stack up to Dan Rather? I mean hell, he is part of that Great Generation that Won the War. (Nevermind all the other nasty stuff they did. Those things don't make good books.)
Anyway, I've rambeled on enough about how much the media disgusts me. If you have a clue you allready know this, if you are on the fence well look into it, if you think that I'm some raving loony go back to watching FOX News as there is no saving you now.
(PS. What is the anwser to the problem that exists right now with such things as the lies in the diamond market? Why a constant and unrelenting flogging of the FACTS on every news station 24/7 until even the dimmist of fools understand why those silly rocks have no real value. If we could do even that little thing imo we would be on the road back to honesty in our media but I hold no real hope of ever seeing that in my lifetime.)
This is a good point. But in Brown V. Texas the court found that the "the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion". In the Dudley case the officers were responding to a "domestic violence report" which gave them "reasonable suspicion".
If the court finds for Dudley the precendent will be that police responding to reports of domestic violence will be prohibited from temporarily detaining the suspect or checking his ID.
I may be wrong but I don't think Dudley will win. Maybe in the 60's he would have had a chance, but with today's court it's unlikey.
I was rather disturbed at my first read of Mr. Hiibel's website, but after watching the video, I realized there was a lot more to this story.
JoeNotCharles really kicks home the key point--Mr. Hiibel was not just simply sitting on the road minding his own business. The officers were inspecting a report, granted they should have informed Mr. Hiibel of their investigation more clearly when he asked them what they were investigating (they did ask him if he was fighting, but Mr. Hiibel avoided furthering the conversation). End of story.
"The truth suffers from too much analysis"
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
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.
You seem to be blissfully unaware that many if not most of the cases that set precedents recognizing or upholding our Constitutional rights involve unsavory, even despicable defendants and usually serious, sometimes unspeakably horrible crimes. Look up Miranda for an example. It's the nature of the system. People whose rights have not been violated have nothing to take to court or on appeal, and most of those who find themselves at the receiving end of abuses do so as a side effect of their proclivity to interact negatively with authority. Also, it's easier and safer for anyone in authority to abuse someone in an inferior, indefensible position, such as a bad actor. The good guys tend to have little contact with authority and, when they do, tend to conduct themselves in ways that do less to invite abuse and more to communicate that abuse may well engender consequences. It's entirely logical that many of the criminal cases that rise to the Supreme Court involve distasteful people and matters.
"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."
A cowardly populace won't do it either.
We won't even do so much as vote, or write letters to our *local* politicians. So we damned sure aren't going to lay our lives down to draw the line between right and wrong in government. Not in this generation, and probably not in the lifetime of anyone here today, if ever.
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.
"Be afraid to die until you have won some victory for humanity" -Horace Mann
Probable cause is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is interested in this case.
The other, probably more important aspect is the right of a person to refuse to incriminate themselves. From the policeman's perspective, being able to check a person's history is a great way to tell whether the person is a threat to their safety. Unfortunately, the act of identifying someone can also make it more likely that the officer will suspect them of a crime, and the 5th ammendment gives us the right to remain silent in a situation where what we say may incriminate us.
--Owen--
The problem here is, the guy was legally parked on the side of the road (read: not blocking traffic). The truck was off, he was out of it and at the passenger window talking to his wife. The cop used the excuse of there being the report of them having a fight. All the cop had to do was put the guy in the cruiser, talk to the wife and see what was up.
At what point did the US turn into Nazi Germany, where the police have the authority to demand identification? How long before anyone's walking down the street, looks "suspicious" (based on the cops' belief) and has the right to "see your papers"?
Equating what happened to this guy with an armed intruder is apples to oranges - he wasn't doing anything wrong. There was no show of aggression on his part, the wife wasn't in any obvious and immediate danger.
Personally, I hope Hiibel wins and sues the cop and county.
Yes, police have the authority to enforce the laws. What law was Hiibel breaking by refusing to show ID?
And, BTW, I saw the video when this was posted to Madville a couple of days ago. The cop says he's "conducting an investigation" not "investigating an investigation" - at least, I didn't hear him say that and don't recall reading that in the captions that were added.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Anyone can ask you for ID, but you are not under any obligation to supply it.
Well, the bigger point is, you are never under any general obligation to even carry an ID. Sure, you have to carry your license to drive, but only in connection with that specific activity. Recall that the daughter was the one driving.
It used to be that in some states, Ohio one, e.g.,--and I don't know whether this was by statute or by court decision--you actually had a grace period of a day or two to produce your license if you were pulled over without it being on your person. I don't know if that has since changed, but when I was a teenager, I was pulled over on two separate occassions without my wallet. Neither time did I get a ticket (of course the officer did ask for my name and checked it out in his car's computer).
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about 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.
Well said.
But even the ability of a public citizen to fail to supply an identification will become moot before long.
Cops will access to networks of fixed and mobile videocameras linked to headquarters with facial recognition software that will return an audio feed to them telling exactly who you are, where you've been recently recently, if you have any record, etc.
So even if the SCOTUS is screwy enough to rule against this guy's right to not supply an ID, the ruling either way will be practically meaningless within a decade.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
There's several issues being muddlesd together here. Do you have to give a cop your ID? ... You're probably within your rights to not volunteer that information.
Does any cop have a right to take whatever steps he has to to figure out who you are? Most certainly YES, otherwise every criminal could just walk around without ID and just walk away from any cop that asks him for ID.
In the Cowboy's case, it might have helped if the cop had said, "Ok, you can refuse to show me ID, but then you'll be standing here until we can find somebody to ID you, or until we fingerprint you and wait for the results. " That bit of simple explanation of the Cowboy's options may have helped the Cowboy mull over the consequences and thereby resolve the impasse.
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
I have no doubt that your interpretation of Georgia law is correct, but the officer in this case acted legally under Nevada law as well. The point of this case is the argument that such laws are unconstitutional. The aclu brief argues that while officers have the right to ask for identification, people cannot be compelled to reply to their inquiries without probable cause.
I bet you're right though, the laws in most states are probably similar and will all be affected by the result of this case.
The commonly-accepted number is 6 million Jews, 2 million others. That's 1 other killed for every three Jews killed; hardly a few.
The Holocaust Museum in Washington is nicely balanced, I thought.
> Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around.
:) (pig is meant to describe him personally, not cops -- most I have met are very nice people)
For good reason. The only time people interact with them is when the cop decides he feels they might have done something wrong. Everyone knows cops are disliked before they become one, so they should damn well know what to expect.
> These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop
Bullshit. 90% of the Police force have never been in a truly dangerous situation (ie risk of losing their life), but act like it is whenever they pull someone over. I got pulled over for expired license plate tags (the details are extremely questionable, but we'll assume for now that I was 100% guilty of it). It's 4:00PM on an interstate, bright sunshine -- TWO police officers creep up to my car, both with their hands on their guns. One walks (very slowly) to my drivers-side door, while the other is trying to sneek a peek through my back, passenger window, assuming I have drugs or something -- what I have in my car is none of his fucking business. He was a dick about everything, even though I explained, rationally, the situation to him. He did not speak with a decent tone, he spoke down to me, assuming I was a dirty fucking criminal. What's the fucking point of that, if not intimidation?
He was so rude & such an asshole, that had I not ripped up the ticket, I'd have found out who he was, where he lived, & egged his fucking pig house.
im sorry you think someone wants you killed.most adult males have been hassled by some cop who put on a uniform and gun and immediately has become a power hungry bully, unfortunately for us citizens,the good cops like your self ,do not help get rid of the morons that are in our police departments,crooked judges and crooked lawyers.the minute all good policemen stand up for common good of the public and uphold the laws,all the laws, and follow the constitution,then that will be the time all law abiding americans will once again trust policemen.