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

Wear the yellow star

[ObviousGuy]

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Anonymous Coward]

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

for people to pay the fuck attention!

V

Re:Wear the yellow star

[gray code]

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

If you watch the video, the cop made no attempt to even verify that a fight/crime had occurred before he demanded ID and arrested Hiibel. I think that's really the crux of the debate.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Tiro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[NanoGator]

"But I guess anonymity is something to be feared and trampled on."

What? Anonymous posting is a huge burden on Slashdot because 99.9% of what you anonymous chickenshits post is inflammatory garbage. The fact that a.) The threshold is even there and b.) That it's only ONE point above anonymous is not a sign that being anonymous is something to be feared, but rather something that is accepted. Only on Slashdot could the allowance of anonymous posting be turned into some attempt to keep the little people down.

Incidently, you're still anonymous even if you register a nickname. Nobody has any NFI who you are, nickname or not. In light of that fact alone, I don't see how anybody could mod what you said as insightful.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[forgetful]

A few years ago I was stopped by a "drug interdiction team" while coming off the desert after a week long camping trip. My young son and nephew were with me and we were detained for an hour while they brought out a little shaggy dog to sniff the tires. I was polite, but really pissed. The cops Mutt and Jeffed us the whole time. This was fairly common for a year or so until a couple was detained for four hours. They filed a $40 million civil suit, and I haven't seen one of these roadblocks since. There was never a public report of the outcome of the suit, so I assume the couple won something. I've had many friends who were cops and deputies, but there is no excuse for constitutional violations; more so if the immediate public safety is not at risk.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[qtp]

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

He wasn't driving, and nowhere in the charges against him is he accused of having been drunk.

and then has the gall to take this to the Supreme Court.

That's the court you want your case to go to when your Fourth Amendment rights are being violated.

And why is this on Slashdot?

Because search and seizure is a serious topic for geeks old enough to remember the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Re: Wear the yellow star

[bezuwork's friend]

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

Of course you are allowed to ask this. That doesn't mean anyone has to comply. Just don't impersonate a police officer when you ask, now that'd be illegal.

A police officer is able to legally ask anything that an ordinary citizen can ask. The thing I don't like is that because police officers have a visual authority and act and use a voice which conveys that they have the authority to ask what they ask, they get alot of people to comply with their requests to the detriment of the people when the police don't have the legal authority to enforce compliance.

The repeat offenders, the dangerous criminals, are not the ones likely to get caught like this. The ones who get caught are likely the younger ones, the high schoolers out drinking and such.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Mr. Slippery]

The cowboy was moderately animated, moved around a bit, and refused to show his ID. I can see how the cop would definitely have his guard up.

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

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

It's not and they don't. Police can detain a citizen only when there are specific and articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and can make an arrest only based on probable cause. "I don't want to show you my papers, and I don't want to talk to you" is basis for neither.

If you are planning on civil disobedience...

Civil disobedience means breaking the law. It does not include standing up for your legal rights. The only law breaking going on here was the actions of the police.

In the video, Hiibel states: "i'm being cooperative"...but many people will look at his body language and decide that he really wasn't.

Body language is not probable cause for arrest.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[instarx]

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

No. The police officer did NOT have the right to ask his name. His name had no bearing on determining if a crime had been committed or even if there was probable cause. How is it better for your Constitutional rights to have the police demand your identity by voice rather than by paper? The whole point is that you do not have to identify yourself to the police simply because they want to know who you are.

Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID

Suspicious? How can giving or not giving you name be suspicious? Is "Donald Duck" a suspicious name - or is what Mr. Hiibel answered ("Why?") suspicious enough?

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Oddly_Drac]

"Hiibel's wife isn't going to help either, she went off in the video, like a screeching hag. And nobody had touched her yet!"

Daughter. At least have the decency to deal with facts rather than assumptions.

She was a seventeen year old girl watching her father get cuffed for an argument that she was having with him. It's bound to be a little stressful, and you have to wonder whether a heavily armed man really needs to sit on a girl to 'restrain her'.

"I can see how the cop would definitely have his guard up."

That's because he was prepared to make an arrest before he was prepared to find out what the situation was. Start confrontational, no matter how polite, and things will remain confrontational, especially where one party is armed and twitchy because they don't know if the other party is armed. Fear isn't a good thing to take into any discussion.

Instead of smiling and trying to find out what the situation was, he did that ludicrously polite demanding that has more in common with a four year old than a trained officer of the law. After being told once that he couldn't see ID is when a decision should be made, but he should have made at least some effort to see if a crime had actually been committed.

Firstly, the statutes tend to deal with innocence before guilt. Secondly, a dangerous precedence is being set up by 'resisting arrest' being the only reason that someone should be arrested.

The main problem is that events like these only serve to reduce the faith that people have in the body that is supposed to be protecting them, and trying to whitewash the incident or dodge the culpability only makes matters worse.

Re:What is there to hide?

[Borealis]

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.

Re:What is there to hide?

[tsunamifirestorm]

just because the innocent have nothing to hide, means that there is no reason for giving up our rights of privacy.

Welcome to the Police State

[madMingusMax]

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

Did I just wake up in 1950s Communist Russia?

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

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[djmurdoch]

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

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

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[fermion]

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

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

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

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Viggo Fait]

Did you even watch the video? Read the transcript? The daughter didn't call the police. He got a report of a domestic disturbance from someone who saw them. *She* actually punched him!

You could arrest him for suspicion of whatever you want, but if you don't have probable cause of a crime, it would be thrown out. It also doesn't matter if this guy *is* a whatever. He doesn't have to identify himself. That's the nice thing about the Constitution. We have the right to talk and the right to shut up. We can use either right any time we want! Unless they have a warrant or probable cause, you really don't have to comply with any of their requests.

You are right on one thing Tony. Giving your ID isn't a big deal until you don't want to. If the police want to do something they don't have a specific right to do, it would be my advice not to allow them to do it. Things snowball real quick. Maybe you haven't done anything illegal. Maybe they'll find something that can be interpreted that it is. And you let them have it because, it's no big deal. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You also have the right to be a *private* citizen. Private is much the same as *anonymity*, no?

BTW, if he was a rapist/murderer/whatever and this gets thrown out of court, I'm pretty sure they can't hold him. "Fruit of the poison tree". He was obtained illegaly. People have gotten away with worse stuff for stupider reasons though.

Re:What is there to hide?

[asklepius]

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.

Not papers, just a name

[bentini]

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

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

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

Re:Not papers, just a name

[onewing]

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

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

Re:What is there to hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, you lose them.

Re:why ?

[nomadic]

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".

Re:Just don't get it

[GigsVT]

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

Drawing the line.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The EFF?

[JoeBaldwin]

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.

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

[G4from128k]

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

Re:What is there to hide?

[Will242]

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...

Please board the train for relocation

[Gothmolly]

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

Re:How can they do that?

[Tassach]

the guy always ends up being guilty of something

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

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

Because we let them.

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

Re:Just don't get it

[SparafucileMan]

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?

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[fishbowl]

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

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

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

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

Re:why ?

[iminplaya]

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.

Re:Just don't get it

[at_kernel_99]

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

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

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

If there was "no way", then they wouldn't hear it.

[Kelmenson]

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.

Re:why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:why ?

[jcr]

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

No Checkpoints??

[rueger]

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?

Re:No Checkpoints??

[fishbowl]

"Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?"

Unfortunately you are correct. There's a gray area between rights and privileges. The people who interrogate you at the airport are not police, do not have police powers, and pretty much are not able to do anything except decide whether to let you enter the private property which is the terminal or the aircraft. They can also notify the police if they suspect you of a crime, which is not any sort of exclusive privilege that they have, and you do not.

Yes, the whole system is that way because federal agencies require it. The theory is, those federal agencies have created regulations under public review and scrutiny, and that the people who make decisions in those agencies are in their position of authority because they were appointed by people you elected. And yes, the people at the airport terminal happen to have a real quick way to get the attention of the police, who happen to be on site. But you are NOT passing a checkpoint that is actually operated by a police agency. Not yet anyway.

Government operates with the consent of the governed. By not voting, you voice your consent...

Re:How can they do that?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

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

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

Re:why ?

[rcw-home]

There's nothing wrong with asking an officer to show their badge and give you their name. They'll happily share that information.

Happily, that is, until you call them an asshole.

Re:How can they do that?

[jcr]

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

Duh!

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

-jcr

Re:How can they do that?

[morkeld]

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

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

The US is different

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:The US is different

[Rick Zeman]

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.

Eh? I'd submit that it's your Social Security Card/number. How many attempts are there to make that into the de facto standard for ID? You can make it to a ripe age without a passport, but try doing anything without an SSN.

Re:Probable Cause?

[nodwick]

I wasn't aware that " parking off the road" was probable cause to "investigate an investigation".

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

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

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

Re:it's called refusing a resonable request.

[Loki_1929]

"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.

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

[iminplaya]

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

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

[LoveMuscle]

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..

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[Eric Smith]

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

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

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

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

Devil's Advocate...

[Whyte]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[sabat]

I think you're not thinking this through.

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

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

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

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

Re:I don't get it, what is the problem here ?

[malchus842]

Ben Frankling got it exactly right:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Truer words have never been spoken.

If I have a choice of totalitarian government or terrorists, I'll take my chances with the terrorists any day.

Re:why ?

[cujo_1111]

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.

Re:Probable Cause?

[HBI]

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

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

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

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

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

[soft_guy]

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.

Try being black!

[Juise]

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.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

[rindeee]

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

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[sangreal66]

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.

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

[circusnews]

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

[metalhed77]

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.

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

[RodgerDodger]

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

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

Re:why ?

[bluGill]

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.

Where it all leads

[phr1]

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

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

--Margaret Atwood
The Handmaid's Tale

waste of time

[segment]

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

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

Re:Did you notice?

[daveschroeder]

What constitutes probable cause?

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

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

The man is immediately belligerent.

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

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

Re:Just don't get it

[UVABlows]

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.

Re:Uh.

[fishbowl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: a possible solution to the problem

[gaijin99]

1)Try to have as little to do with them as possible
2)Be polite when you do have to deal with them
3)Get to know them, and let them get to know you, in polite, friendly situations

That's the essence of the problem though. I know that's the way it *is* but that isn't the way it *should*be*. We should not be afraid of the police. The sight of a police officer should be a welcome one, not one that makes us nervous.

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.

For What it's Worth

[Shakrai]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:What would everyone prefer a policeman to do?

[andreMA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:RTF Web page, please.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

/sarcasm

So I can just make an anonymous phone call to the effect of "I saw a guy with this description hit a girl with that description in a truck of another description" when some dumbfuck cuts me off, and when he, having done nothing of the sort, questions the situation he gets the shit beat out of him and his skank girlfriend gets cuffed and stuffed too?

sweet. /!sarcasm

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

[TKinias]

scripsit nursedave:

I was hoping the SS would take him out back

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

Yes, this is news for nerds.

[StarKruzr]

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.

Re:RTF Web page, please.

[QuickSilver_999]

Thanks for the sarcasm tags.

An anonymous phone call isn't much... and if you make it from the cell phone while driving, it's not that anonymous, since enhanced 911 tells me whose cell phone it is and where it was when the call was made.

And yes, that may be precisely what may happen if he acts in a violent manner towards an officer. However, if he acts reasonably, he's most likely out nothing more than the time it took to pull over and talk to the cop. Unfortunately the cops have to investigate and take these things seriously, because the first time they don't, then everyone screams about how they're not doing their jobs.

Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around. These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop, every domestic abuse call, every bar fight, etc. If they act in any way to protect themselves and others they're considered Nazi's. If they don't, they're considered incompetent when someone dies on their watch. People waste their time by doing just the kind of trick you've described, and laugh about it. People treat them like dog crap all the time. And still they go out, put on a uniform and take a risk of getting shot. And often it's for 8 bucks an hour and no benefits.

Do I respect all cops? No. There are several in my local precinct that I could definitely do without. There are a bunch on the street that are uptight overdeveloped steroid popping pricks. And they all get tarred with the same brush. But there's also the guy that dives in front of a moving train to save a suicider, breaking several ribs in the process, all for 8 bucks an hour and no medical insurance. Don't believe me? On that one I can even name a name.

Now, when your GF/Wife/Mother/Sister/"domestic partner"/family friend/etc. has an abusive incident, and the cops don't do a damn thing about it, remember what has been posted here today, because incidents like this just cause more cops to look the other way. It's usually easier, and you don't have to testify in Washington DC.

Oh, and I would DEFINITELY make that call from a payphone. False reports to law enforcement is a crime, at least here in Pennsylvania.

Re:RTF Web page, please.

[instarx]

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.

As a police officer

[Tiny Rhino]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:As a police officer

[fuzzybunny]

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

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

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

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

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

And YES some cops have a sense of humor.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:As a police officer

[Queuetue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That brown shirt fits you well.

[Onan]

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

Trying to find a charge, any charge, on which to "get" someone is one of the more horrifying types of abuse of power around. Deciding that someone is a generally bad person and searching for crimes they might have committed is exactly backward.

People are defined as societally problematic only by the effects of crimes they've committed, not the other way around. If you have to work at trumping up some charges, then they simply don't need to be punished, however much you may dislike them.

This becomes even more problematic because it's virtually impossible to not be enacting at least some tiny infraction at any moment, especially while driving. So people aren't really punished according to their detrimental effects on society, but on the capricious decisions of whatever law enforcement official happens to be nearby at the moment. Driving one mph over the speed limit? Tire treads too worn? Driving recklessly, disturbing the peace, or doing anything else that's defined by officer's discretion? Then your world is in the hands of the temporary feudal lord who happens by.

I think the only solution to this would be removing officer discretion from the enforcement process. Enforcement officials should be legally required to punish every single infraction of every law, however minor.

What's that you say, they could never realistically do that? Then the laws are flawed. If an act is so ubiquitous that you can't keep up with punishing people for it, then it shouldn't be illegal.

True colors

[Vexinator]

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

We all know it's easy for cops to trump up charges. Thanks for clarifying where you stand on that issue.

First you seperate them. This he did. Then you question them. This he attempted. Unfortunately, he was not able to leave the father due to his combative and aggressive state.

I've watched the footage, and you are spin-doctoring it. First off, they were already seperated. Hiibel was outside the vehicle and moved to the tailgate when the officers pulled up. Mimi was in the truck. He did not approach the officers in anything close to a threatening manner. He was obviously agitated but arguing with a loved one tends to do that to a person.

The bare bones fact is the officers made mistake after mistake.

Face it, the officers were acting like blowhards. First off, the officer should have repeated what he was there for. Second, he should have been forthcoming in why he wanted the ID (I'm going to need your ID so I can do a routine background check on you while my partner speaks with the young lady in the truck.) Third, he should have been forthcoming in why he was asking Hiibel to move where he was directing (Sir, I'd feel safer if we put some distance between us and the road while we talk.)

Asking an officer relevant questions, especially a request for clarification of the current situation, is every persons right.