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

[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

[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?

[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: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".

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.

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 ?

[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: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: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..

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.

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: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: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: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

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.