Slashdot Mirror
Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court
Pemdas writes "On March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case involving an arrest for lack of producing ID on the demand of a police officer. Dudley Hiibel was parked off the road, and was asked 11 times to show ID to the police officer, who gave the justification of 'investigating an investigation.' Finally, he was arrested, and eventually convicted of delaying a police officer,' and fined $250. The incident occurred in Humboldt County, Nevada; Mr. Hiibel's side of the story includes a good section on Terry stops, and has a video of the incident for download. The parallels to the previously covered Gilmore v. Ashcroft case are striking, and the ruling will be an interesting precedent on the issue of requiring ID's. The ACLU, EPIC, and EFF, among others, have filed Amicus briefs in the case."
Why is this being reporting ? There's no way the Supreme Court will allow the officer to get away with this. It would create a horrible precedent: citizens would be obliged to take instruction from people they can't authenticate.
I love to watch COPS. I know, I'm a horrible exampe of white trash. But I just can't resist. I see things like this happen on COPS all the time - no really, watch it and you'll see. And I always wonder, "How the *hell* can they do that?!"
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.
This seems like as good a time as any to ask - how CAN they do that?
I was coming home from a party in LA thrown by CRAPTV (the folks who brought us 'Orgasmo') and I made the mistake of getting a ride from a fellow party goer who was slightly tipsy. The cops stopped her after she made a right turn from the left lane. At the time, all I had was a Hawaii state ID. The cops couldn't find me in the computer system, so they said, "Well, legally, we can hold you for up to three days while we try to find out who you are." I was in a cell for eight hours. Finally they came in and said, "We found you. You're free to go." No apology, of course. Welcome to Kalifornia, may we see your papers?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I wasn't aware that "parking off the road" was probable cause to "investigate an investigation". Surely this is a free country and so long as he wasn't trespassing, parking on the side of the road isn't a crime? I see truck drivers do it all the time. Are they required to show ID? Not to mention, its not just the $250 fine or the invasion of privacy that's at issue. There's also the impound fees, the potential bail/bond fees and lost interest on funds that could be sitting in a bank account, not to mention possible lost time at work, etc. This is what is known as a cop having nothing better to do with his time.
I had a similar issue arise recently in which I was stopped while driving to a shooting range and suspected of possibly having a stolen vehicle. I was searched and the gun I was taking to the range was found and confiscated (I live in California where just owning a gun is typically considered a crime). Thankfully, I showed proof of legal ownership of my truck *before* the search which removed the probably cause (not that transporting a gun was a crime anyway). The judge realized this and dismissed the case. But again, its an example of cop on a power trip. Once you refuse to cooperate, they act like the judges themselves instead of just the peace officers they're supposed to be.
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
Several years ago, I ended up working late on some Microsoft catastrophe at work. By the time I got home at 1am, I was too keyed up to sleep, so I went for a walk. This is in a suburban-rural area, typical small town neighborhood. While walking around, a police cruiser pulls up, the window rolled down, and the spotlight went in my face. The conversation went something like:
Cop: Hey pal, whats going on?
Me: Nothing, just out for a walk.
Cop: Kind of late for that.
Me: Well I just got home from work and I'm still really awake.
Cop: Got any ID?
Me: Um sure..whats going on? (fumbled for wallet, gave license)
Cop: (mutters into radio with my info)
Me: Is there some problem, has there been a crime reported?
Cop: Um yes, we've had reports of someone walking around.
At this point, a truck LOADED with lawn furniture, to the point where it's mounded up in the back, with ropes holding it in, drives by. Driver and passenger of said truck watch carefully. Eventually, I was released, after being asked if I was wanted for anything. Had I been old (was 24 at the time), or walking a dog, or female, I'm sure none of that would have happened.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Some of the comments on K5 were very good, especially the ones by people who RTFA and watched the friendly video. Despite my own right-sided tendencies, I don't side with this guy. He'd been drinking, he'd been arguing, he was rude to the cop (which shouldn't be illegal, but is certainly stupid), and generally isn't a good guy. There are insinuations that the subtitles in the video don't actually agree with what people are actually saying, which makes his position appear weaker.
I hope not carrying ID, or not giving it out w/out good reason, stays legal, but I also hope that drunk, obnoxious jerks get regulated on.
Long story short: Last year a newbie Sheriff's deputy arrested me for "failure to I.D." I was walking back from the store early in the morning, and a cop who I'd already had an incident with demanded my I.D. I'm fairly well-versed in Texas law on the matter, and I knew I was right.
Anyway, I plead not guilty and the deputy didn't show up at trial. I'm currently in the process of having the arrest record expunged.
The bottom line on this is: Constitutionally, every search or siezure must be reasonable, which the courts have decided means that reasonable suspicion must exist. If you're just walking down the street (like I was), and you don't match the description of a person wanted for a crime, and you're not committing a crime, there's no reason you should be compelled to identify yourself. Period.
OK, I have not read the article so can't comment on this case (the site's /.'d :(). Why do so many people get worked up when a cop asks for you id?
Case in point, which has been getting a lot of coverage in FL recently. A man was shot and killed by police because they thought he was a fugitive, it turns out he wasn't the man they where after - he was a law abiding citizen. Reason he was shot: he ran from the police when they tried to pull him over, when they finally caught up to him he reached for something in his pocket that the office thought was a gun (turned out it wasn'). I'm sorry the guy's dead, but if he'd just stopped and showed his ID he'd have been sent on his way and two families lives wouldn't be ruined.
Yes, it's an extreme example I know but you see my point. Just show your id, if you've nothing to hide why worry?
Forgive me for generalizing, but most police that I've met or known personally have a common personality trait. Namely, they love their own authority, and they love to wield it. Anything you do that questions their authority provokes a canned response: time to harass you, arrest you, or otherwise ensure you know they're the one with the power.
This is just an observation; you may find it true or not. It might even help you to understand the motivation behind what they do, and if it does help you, you're one up on them.
Again, I apologize for the generalization. I'm sure it's not true for all police, but it's true for all the police with whom I've interacted.
The American government is using the 911 pretext to bring in a national ID card with your fingerprint and eyecan embedded in it. They are trying to make this happen by forcing all passport holders who come to America to either have fingerprints and eyescans in their passports or face being fingerprinted and eyescanned at an American Airport.
Since all of the the people in the world are having to have fingerprints and eyescans to enter the USA, other countries will use the same biometric technology to control who comes into their countries. If you do not have a biometric passport, you will eventually be scanned say, when you enter Canada or the United Kingdom or any other country.
This means that Americans will either have to have biometric passports issued by their own government (meaning that the government routinely fingerprints and eyescans innocent citizens) or, Americans will be fingerprinted and eyescanned when they travel to other peoples countries.
Paper based passports are going to become a thing of the past; all passports will be reduced to a machine readable card. Once this happens, your drivers licence can be your passport AND your drivers licence at the same time. This means that your fingerprints, taken by the governemt so that you can travel, will be available to the police when they ask you for your drivers licence.
This case is crucially important to the rights of American citizens. If Mr. Hiibel loses this case in the Supreme Court, it means that any policeman can ask for your ID, which will eventually mean that he can demand that you put your thumb into a portable fingerprint reader - on a whim. If he wins the case, the police will not be able to ask to see your ID, and the deployment of the national biometric ID system will be at the very least, delayed at best it will be destroyed completely before it starts.
If you want to read the reasons why ID cards are a non starter, try this.
And read this about the man who single handedly brought down the British ID Card system.
I hope he wins, because this will be a win for the entire Amercan public, and it will also be a clear sign to all other countries in the world that claim they are free democracies; ID cards violate your rights. They are bad for democracy, and should be shunned.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
They impose the state's will and protect it's existence. Occasionally, this coincides with protecting me. There's a strong difference. Regardless of the morality/ethics of the particular laws, they are imposed via the threat of force, and the police are the tool used to impose that force-the gap between the LAPD, the KGB and the Gestapo is one of accountability, not philosophy.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you-because otherwise your citizenship is meaningless.
Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
First off to everyone here asking "why didn't he just show is ID?" I have lived in Urban areas and I have lived in small country towns. Being a caucasian male in his mid-twenties I have never had a problem with law enforcement in the urban areas that I have lived. However in the small towns with the small police departments where there is little more to do than harass the local teen and early twenties population I have had nothing but problems. I have never been officially arrested. Nor do I have or deserve any criminal record. But I have been pulled over, searched, taken in and otherwise annoyed by these small town constables more than I can remember. One day in my late teens early twenties I finally had enough. I had been routinely pulled over and had both my vehicle and person searched at least once a week for several months. I decided I wasn't going to do it anymore as none of the stops ever resulted in more than a ticket for a burnt out taillight. I decided to start refusing the search request. I began to tell the officers that since they have no probable cause to enter my vehicle that the most they could do was a plain sight search. And if they wanted anymore than that to get a dog or a warrant (keep in mind that if they do opt for the dog, which they have in my case a few times, that you should ask them to declare how the dog alerts prior to them letting the dog loose on the car.) This will piss a cop off so be ready for the backlash. I had to do this a few times and sit and wait for them to get a k-9 unit to respond but eventually they began to leave me alone as it took to much time for them. Having gave that background I can complete understand why this man refused the police officers request. The officer had little of no resonable and probable cause to make this request.
Yes, there are times when giving your ID is required, I had a breakdown and when the local police arrived, and asked for ID, I showed it. Why? Because I had been driving my car, and last I checked, my state law requires that I carry my license when I'm driving, and surrender it to a police officer who asks. That's one of the prices of driving - you have to follow the regulations surrounding the license you've been granted.
As an aside, the request for the license was for the contact report, which our local police are required to file anytime they talk to someone in an official capacity. Had the situation been different (ie not vehicle related), simply giving my name and address would have sufficed.
The ordinance that requires these contact reports was put in place to keep the police in check. And it's a good one.
Birth certificate or naturalization papers. Don't have one, and you don't have proof of citizenship. Not a good sign if for any strange reason INS wants to talk to you.
SIG: HUP
My first year of college, the room I was renting didn't have a kitchen, microwave, etc. As a result, I often walked across campus to use the UC's microwave. Often this happened after dark, and I was getting my ID run by UPD 2-3 times a month. This didn't seem like that big a deal at first, but by the end of the semester it had gotten to be a very time conuming hassle. I'm an average, mostly law abiding citizen, and i don't think I should have to put up with this sort of thing. I think that if more people would have had a similiar experience, they would take civil rights more seriouly. Unfortunately, most people assume that an officer wouldn't be asking for ID in the first place if the perp wasn't guilty of something...
I have personally been assaulted by a gang of criminals while an armed, on duty cop watched and did nothing. Then, after I had been held down and kicked by the group, more cops arrived and accused ME of causing trouble.
I have been walking down the street in NYC with a friend and, since he is black, had 3 cops throw him against a wall and stick a billy club in his kidneys, call him 'nigger' repeatedly, and toss him to the sidewalk, all on his way home from work, at his taxpaying, law abiding job.
I have been riding in a car in Beverly Hills and pulled over and asked to show ID because the driver was black.
I don't hate all cops, my brother-in-law is a State Trooper, but I don't trust cops. I obey the law. I hate people who break the law, and I hate punk-ass chumps who get jobs as cops because they have been weak, pussies their whole lives and being a cop makes them feel like a big bad ass.
So why don't you check that 'virtually all people' crap and read up a bit yourself, dillweed.
Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds?
Garbage men work for the man. The janitor at city hall works for the man.
The second you put on a badge you are the man. Your personal identity ceases. You are the government in all its might and power incarnate, and with all the restrictions that apply to government power.
An officer approaches his job with this realization and with respect for what it entails, and accepts the responsibility and the risks to his very life is an object worthy of respect, even a certain amount of reverence. Such officers should be held as our most valued citizens.
Honestly, meaning no personal disrespect officer, but a man who thinks of police duty as a job, like working at McDonald's, should really find another line of work, and there is no shame in doing so.
KFG
Funny my lawyer didn't use the to get me off when I was arrested outside a bar asleep (read passed out) in the driver's seat. I guess the judge didn't know about that either when he convicted me.
No national ID. Cops can beat the crap out of you if they lay hands on you, but you can also *run away* from them. Normal tom-dick-harry cops dont carry guns and your life is not in immediate danger. Infact this was a favourite passtime for several people I knew. There is a whole game that kids play that evolved from this concept of running away from a cop - its called "thief-police" kind of on the lines of "cowboys and Indians" minus the weapons. Its kinda kool if you can give a finger to a police and get away with it. them halfwits dont deserve any better either... americans are halfwits too.. why do you have to give guns to every police guy? give them batons and knuckle dusters and ask them to manage with that.
After watching the video..I kind of sympathize with this guy..you can tell he truly believes in his right "not to be fucked with"...by anyone.
The cop was fairly reasonable and polite. 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.
It's a difficult line to draw. Both arguments seem reasonable. That's why it's "on the line".
Note: If you are planning on civil disobedience, disobey, and if at all possible, stay calm and state your case...then go to jail. Hiibel could have done a better job, if his goal was to make a point.
Hiibel is hoping the video will clear him. I've got to be candid and say that it's "borderline". 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. 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!
Interactions with the police are not social situations. When the cop pulls you over he doesn't start by introducing himself and asking after your health; when he takes your driver's license he doesn't say "thank you" and you don't say "you're welcome."
Cops are inelible to receive common courtesy because cops do not give common courtesy. Police officers happily and routinely lie to you in their investigations; they are under no obligation to tell you anything, let alone the truth. In contrast, making a false statement to the police (any false statement) is a crime you can do time for.
It's not anything like a symmetric situation. Put it another way: the cop's only possible interactions with you are either hassling you for a bit and then letting you go, or aresting you and making your life shit. Why should you do anything to make life any easier for him? In general, when a cop asks you a question, he's only looking for information he might be able to use against you later. "Do you know what the speed limit was?" is a loaded question; if you get it wrong he can nail you with it, but if you get it right, there's no benefit to you. Best bet is to supply as little information as possible.
He had no right to ask for ID. What he could have done is asked the guy what his name was, first! Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID. That's what is meant by being secure in one's person and PAPERS.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The court will decide this:
1. He doesn't have to show his ID.
2. An officer can still detain him.
The end result is that he won't be charged the $250, however an officer will still be able to detain you for a limited amount of time w/o charges given due cause.
I think I have a moderately good defense of privacy: the foundation of our criminal code is based on external acts, that is acts against another person or entity. The proof for an external act would then be public material, or material provided ("made public") by the harmed party. Therefore, privacy is a restriction on the encroachment of law: if you can't be shown to be doing it, you can't be convicted of it. Thus privacy is a good thing can be derived from the idea that "if you didn't harm another, it's not a crime"
Another way to say all this is: If you didn't hurt anyone, you didn't commit a crime. If you did commit a crime, the person hurt (or a person witnessing or affected) would come forward with evidence: you don't have to prove you didn't do it. Privacy is your right to an accuser.
Many of the problems we've had in recent years with the law have been 1) "victimless crimes" or "societying-wronging" (drugs are the classic example), and 2) where the state is the accuser.
Both of these are in part because there is no concrete person wronged, so it's difficult to defend yourself. Even worse is when the state is the accuser, because the state is An Authority: what they say is true. Very hard to prove otherwise, and the individual clerks process so much information each day that things are just assumed to be true because they're written: no one remembers writing them.
These fears are often dismissed as being kafka-esque, but anyone who has ever delt with a large corporation that has a "it's written so it must be true" problem can understand what the problem is. Now imagine where the result is not paying an extra $100, but having 5 years of your life taken away. High stakes. And beaurocracies don't get any better when they're played at those stakes.
That's a basic defense of privacy. I'm still struggling with the "ihre papieren, bitte" (sic?).
On a side note to this discussion i saw something wholly disturbing at a rest stop today : "Support out troops abroad and at home" it was a poster soliciting donations for the NYPD benevolent assoc. Frankly i am going to have nightmares for the rest of my life because of that. Civil law enforcement are not 'troops' and equating them as such really has the nauseating feeling of the blurring lines of the civilian and military. I am very much afraid that it may be way to late to turn away from the eventual police state.
Keep these points in mind,
* ceding more power to the govt causes it/them to want more (for reference please see the abuses of power at the FBI under JE hoover and the reforms that were put in place after his reign.)
* the criminalization of civil matters (look at the actions of the RIAA MPAA, and the use of not only federal resources, but their own legally allowed goons to threaten and harass)
* Govt influence is being bought and sold by big money (see again RIAA/MPAA and Senator Disney (Hollings)
* The rather insane need by certain govt officials to amend the constitution to limit the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry (where as the document lays out the restrictions of the powers of the govt.)
* The drive of some to also remove the miranda warning as to put people into a coercive situation with law enforcement and deprive them of at least the cognizance of their rights.
* People being held without charges and without counsel.
There are a lot of people that benefit from having these powers to arbitrarily make inconvenient people go away temporally or permanently, and even a well meaning leader may not be able to reverse the course.
A few years ago my GF was driving to her home from my house at about midnight. She got pulled over, for no reason, but only after the officer had followed her for five or six blocks and she was on a side street. He kept her there for about twenty minutes then issued her a ticket for running a red light. The whole time she had a strong impression that he was checking her out physically.
Furious, she decided she'll contest the ticket. She drew diagrams and wrote up her recollection of the events to show that that 1) there's no red light at that location and 2) even if there were the officer couldn't have seen it from his position.
She presented her evidence and was confident the ticket would get dismised, but when the officer told his side of the story he lied. Everything that came out of his mouth was untrue, from what side of the street he'd been driving on to how long he followed her, where he pulled her over, how long he detained her and most importantly he lied about the very existence of the traffic light.
Of course the judge ruled that the ticket was valid and she had to pay the fine, but I was just amazed that a professional law enforcement officer would perjure himself over a fucking traffic ticket. It also made me think, that if he'd lie over a ticket he'd sure as hell lie over more important matters.
A good response to a police request for you to do something is "are you asking me or telling me to do X". Make them commit. If they are "asking" then decline. If they are "telling" then do it but let them know that you do not consent to it.
Being polite and relaxed is excellent advice. It is also incredibly hard. The psychological pressure of being stopped by the police is tremendous even if you are innocent and even if you know what your rights are.
The single best advice is "shut your mouth". Give them your name and address only. Everything else, even "I'm going to church to wash the feet of the poor" can be somehow used against you. Silence can't.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
If you fit the description of a suspect and are in the vicinity of a crime, I'm with you. But consider this:
"Those who desire to give up freedom, in order to gain security, shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one." --Thomas Jefferson
Are you any safer now than you were before 09/11/2001? Does it bother you than John Ashcroft is using chemical weapons laws to go after meth lab operators? Yes they should be in jail but that is in no way the spirit of THAT law. That's why TJ was absolutely right.
Back when I was a teenager, I was protesting somewhere (where and for what issue is irrelevant), and I had the cops called on me by people on the other side of the issue, who claimed that I was violating a perimeter injunction that the people who called the cops knew full well I wasn't named on. There was absolutely no way that I was going to allow my name to be placed on a police report just for exercising my First Ammendment rights (not to mention the whole unlawful search and seizure thing), but I had to go around and around with them reminding them of the Constitution before they decided to leave me alone and go. They even threatened me that they could arrest me and then I'd have to tell them who I was, but I think they finally gave up when they saw that just because I was 14 didn't mean they could intimidated me. If they had arrested me, there would have already been a Supreme Court case by now because I would have sued.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
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.
Actually if his ID confirmed that he shared the same address as the alleged victim of battery/assault, then the crime could be upgraded to domestic violence battery/assault which carries harsher penalties (even though the crime didn't take place in their shared residence).
I doubt that the cop had that on his mind though. His actions were unconstitutional but they weren't entirely unreasonable. In law school, I defended women accused of domestic violence battery because they defended themselves in a fight with their boyfriend/husband and the cop just arrested everyone in sight instead of trying to figure out what happened.
It's not a matter of looking like anything... it's a mindset, and attitude; you have it all the way. I'm not talking about attitude on the cop's part... I'm talking about the "F*ck the police" attitude that people who view the police as their enemy typically exhibit.
Funny, 'cause I've never had trouble from a cop. I dress nicely, shave every day, and speak politely to police officers. I'm telling you: I *do* slip under the radar. I can control my attitude just fine, thank you.
There is no legal difference between "regular citizens" and "some kind of scofflaw". You have to treat them both the same.
vs.
Nooo... there is a substantial legal difference.
Then we're not talking about the same thing. Let me put it this way: most acquaintance rapists, white collar criminals, upper class drug dealers, etc. will never be accused of their crime. They will treat police officers with the utmost respect. They may not even consider the police to be their enemy. They would be, to you, a "regular citizen."
Someone with an attitude, darker complexion, lower class diction, and an eighth of weed in their pocket has good cause to fear a uniformed officer. Especially if he's walking around in that upper class drug dealer's neighborhood. Agreed?
You're referring to drugs, of course. Here's the thing: if you're a regular citizen who's smoking a bit of weed...
No, you're missing my point. Consider the larger class of Crimes Rich White Men Commit. My crime (felony, I believe) is intellectual property theft. But please, ignore that for a second. I'm just trying to say that many people who have committed my kind of crime do not hold a grudge against police officers. I believe my anti-cop sentiment to be at least somewhat based on evidence, and I'm just saying that I don't want you to write it off due to my criminal behavior.
I don't know what cops you're used to dealing with, but that's never been part of any department I've been involved with.
A friend of mine trained to become an officer for the SFPD. He was on the job for a few months, but he quit because he couldn't stand what it was doing to his opinion of humankind. And because he couldn't bust the people that he felt deserved it. And because it was too corrupt. They had to let go a few people on drug busts because they couldn't keep the evidence locker from getting robbed by employees. WTF does that tell you?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Suppose you're a police officer. Every day of your life is filled with danger; not only on the job, but also at home, from vengeful and spiteful people like the ones here who lurk and unfortunately, sometimes post. Then, the day comes when you pull someone over who may have been on one end of a domestic dispute. You ask for an ID, but he doesn't give it to you. In your "perfect utopia," the suspect wouldn't have to give an officer an ID, so you let him go. Later that night, you're at home, watching the news and the top story is a double family homicide. As it turns out, the suspect you let go had murdered a family earlier that day and had an APB out. Unfortunately, without seeing his ID, you didn't know and he got away.
Do you know what an APB / BOLO is? What it includes? How it's sent out?
If you do, you'll be aware that an APB / BOLO will generally have more information than just a name. In fact, they don't usually have names. It'll be something more like:
"Be on the lookout for a middle aged white male, approx 5'9, weight approx. 200 lbs, last seen driving a late model blue sedan, travelling north on NC-58 near the South Carolina line. Suspect is wanted for questioning related to a double murder in SC, and is to be considered armed and dangerous", or something to that effect.
Now if your hypothetical cop pulls over a late model blue sedan being driven by someone of that description, and he won't show ID, I'd think you're into the area of "probably cause" for an arrest.
Some time later, after he got away, he went out and mudered another innocent family. Damn, how I wish I could live in your "utopia." It sure does seem a lot safer.
A couple of comments on that:
Life is dangerous. Do it long enough, you die. That's a fact of life. Living in a very free country may be slightly more dangerous than living in a more tightly controlled country. That's a trade-off. We in the U.S. generally prefer liberty and freedom over perceived safety.
I say "perceived" safety because giving in to more of a "police-state" type environment doesn't *necessarily* make things any safer. What if the guy in your scenario had a fake ID which identified him as some upstanding, law abiding citizen from far across the country, and the cop let him go? He still commits your hypothetical double murder. Face it, cops exist primarily as a deterrent to crime, and to investigate crimes after they happen. In general, cops do not routinely interrupt crimes in progress, and prevent double murders, except by blind luck.
Then there's the issue of safety as a personal responsiblity. If I was the husband / father in the innocent murdered family you describe above, wouldn't I have a responsiblity to have locks on my doors and windows, and make sure they're locked at night? Would I not have a responsiblity to have an alarm system to alert me if my house is broken into while we sleep? Would I not have a responsibility to own a firearm or other weapon for self-defense, and take action to protect my family if need be? And if I'm not home, should my wife and/or kids not be trained in using such a weapon as well?
The question is, who is fundamentally more responsible for my family's safety, me or the government? I would argue that the answer to that question is quite obviously "me."
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held:
The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 . The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [443 U.S. 47, 48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. Pp. 50-53.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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.
I agree. However, to become a cop you accept a higher level of responsibility. If you're a citizen, and you kill someone in self defense, there aren't any problems. If you're an officer, people immediately question whether deadly force was required, and whether the officer followed every procedure properly from the start, and whether the officer had neglected trainning that may have ended the situation peacefully.
Is it a double standard? Yes, of course, as it should be. We are empowering these armed individuals, with our own tax dollars, to enforce the law against ourselves. They better follow procedure. They better be well trained and alert. We hold surgeons to a different standard because we need to trust them. When they violate that trust, that's a serious problem. Citizens can go about their lives normally and all we ask in a self defense case is "did they THINK their life was in danger and did they THINK that the only way to avoid it was to use deadly force?". That doesn't cut it with cops, sorry. People can make mistakes, surgeons and lawyers and cops CAN'T.
These high law enforcement standards we hold are more valuable than the supposed reduced crime you might get from unaccountable officers.
Oh, and nobody can waste an officer's time. They can only waste taxpayer money. The officer is being paid, so as far as he's concerened, he's working no matter how many delays he's faced with.
Asking for ID should be perfectly legal and fine, just like it's legal to ask if you can search someone's house. But when they refuse, take a hike unless you've got probable cause. There better be some real CHARGES.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
3. You do not have to show them identification if you don't want to. This does not apply if you are in your car and driving, and are pulled over: then you must produce Driver's ID. If you are a cyclist, like me, you have to have some kind of ID if you a cycling on the road, but it does not have to be a Driver's license.
Watching this video, this guy is making a lot of mistakes. Look, I don't like dealing with the police, but if your real intent is to be left alone to exercise your freedoms (and not to just cause trouble), you are well advised to:
I'm not entirely sure about this, and it may vary from state to state.
In West Virginia, driving without a driver's license in your posession is a misdemeanor. However, you will not be charged if you can produce the license in court.
Note that the man was *not* actually driving the vehicle (and was, in fact, outside of the vehicle) when the officer came by. The vehicle could have been driven by the man's daughter, by someone else if the truck broke down and someone went for help, or God knows what. I'm not sure whether there might be case law in the area clarifying whether an officer can ask for a driver's license from the person who seems likely to be driving the truck, but I don't think that it's as clear cut as you think it is. There was no point where the officer could clearly establish that the man had been operating the vehicle.
Furthermore, the officer asked specifically for some kind of ID. He did not ask to see a driver's license. I'm not sure whether this is an issue, and it does come off as a bit nitpicky, but it might be a legal issue.
The man asked whether he was being arrested, and if so, why. If the officer intended to arrest him, he needed to give him the reason he was being arrested, and chose not to do so. If you are right, that the man was being arrested under suspicion of driving without a license, then the officer should have told him so.
I have to say that my guess is that the officer doesn't often run across people who refuse to give him their license, and probably acted inappropriately, since it's not like training in what to do in such a case is necessary very often.
I'm (personally) willing to give policemen some leeway for violating procedure if they're in a situation where it's difficult for them to make a clear judgement call. Perhaps they think someone is shooting at them, and they yell "Freeze" instead of "Freeze, Police!". That's not great, but at least you have someone operating in fight-or-flight with a split second to make a decision. The sheriff had no reason to think that the man was a danger, and had all the time in the world to make his decision. He didn't follow procedure.
I'm not a police officer, but I think the first thing I would have done is separate the man and the girl, and second make sure that the girl is okay. If the man asks why he's being asked for identification, there is absolutely no legal reason that I can think of for the officer to refuse to say that he's investigating possible domestic violence or battery.
Police officers are human too. They have bad days, just like me. They make mistakes, and I don't think that they can be held to a perfect standard. However, if they make mistakes, then they (well, the state) needs to take the consequences of its actions. In this case, that means not getting the $250 fine. Such is life. Perhaps, in the future, the officer will be more forthcoming if the man asks what the officer is doing.
I agree that the man should not have gotten upset, but he probably didn't have a couple of days to plan exactly what he was going to do, and he was clearly already upset when the officer came along -- he managed to make himself calm for the beginning, and only got upset when the officer violated procedure.
May we never see th
I have a friend who was driving home from college and was pulled over after dark by an unmarked car. She rolled her window a crack and asked to see the guy's badge, since it was pretty obvious she was a woman travelling alone and wanted to be safe. The guy refused to show it to her and kept trying to get her to roll down her window the rest of the way. When she continued to refuse unless he showed his badge, he took off. She shouldn't have pulled over, but at least she didn't open her window or who knows what would have happened.
Always, always, always be careful.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
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.
No, not exactly. You simply tell them politely and reasonably that "No. I don't feel that you have a right to demand that and I'm not going to give it to you. I feel it would be a violation of my rights." Like you, the video is slashdotted for me as well, but there's very rarely any need to be anything but polite to an officer of the law. Most often they're simply doing their job or attemping to do it in the way they see best. Becoming abusive and difficult makes things hard on everyone and makes it seem much more like you're going to be a dick to them for no other reason than you hate cops. This is often enough to cause someone to suspect that you may be up to something. If nothing else a great deal of people will then be complete assholes to you in response. In this case, the cop has the authority and you are more likely than not going to end up getting fucked over a lot more than he will.You need it to go for a drive round the block. It's the standard ID shown at bars and clubs.
I've spent a lot of time in the states, and every time I leave the house, I had to make sure I kept my passport on me, as I seemed to be asked for it a hell of a lot. Picking up a 40 at 10am on a tuesday? "Got any ID?". Going for a drink at the bar down the road? "Got any ID?" Buy something at Vons with my credit card? "Got any ID?" Get stopped driving to Carl's Jr for a double bacon western cheeseburger meal? "License and registration, please". You're expected to prove your identity in the US more than anywhere else I've ever been.
I live in London (England), and I don't have to carry anything on me. Driving, drinking, buying stuff, whatever. I don't have to show anything. Ever. You don't need to have anything on you when you drive, as they (quite rightly) presume you innocent.
Americans seem to think the amount of ID-carrying they go through is the "bare minimum", as that's what they've been told. It is, however, half-way up the fascist ladder. You don't realise unless you leave the US and go somewhere else.
You're new around here, eh?
That was possibly one of the most intelligent responses and posts in general that I've read on slashdot in a while.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Mr. Hiibel seems to think that the police had no right or business to investigate the fight between him and his daughter. However, because the police received a call from a witness, the police were duty bound to investigate. How our the police supposed to investigate a crime when they are not even allowed to obtain the identify the culprit?!
Mr. Hiibel also seems to think that if he loses, police will be able to ask for the ID of any person they come across. But that isn't true ether. When he loses, police will have the right to ask for the identify of those they are investigating, IF they have a reasonable suspicion to investigate. Which in this case, the police clearly did.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I missed a payment on a $100 fine right before christmas,1998, so they took my I.D. (AKA Driver's License) I got really aggravated 'cause I didn't even actually speed, and the police officer lied about it. She was eventually jumped and beaten by 6 hillbilly's. I don't know them. (They all live outside of town, I was on my way camping.) Anyways.
About a month later I was pulled over by a cop who jumped in her car as I drove by, turned her lights on and chased me down. I was in a Camaro, everything was legal except me. She just did not like young men in camaros. She is famous for this in my town and has earned the name "ROBOB***CH". When I was pulled over, MY PAPERS WERE NOT KOSHER AS I HAD NOT PAID MY PROTECTION MONEY!!. Bang -- no license for a year just as if I was a drunk driver...
What's a man to do who has to get to work...
I drove until July 4 2003 continuously without a license. That's roughly 4 1/2 years. What's great is that twice on July 4 I got pulled over and asked for my papers. Both because of driving a 1970 pimped out caddy downtown.
On July 4, 2003 Robob***ch again pulled me over.
She did not remember me after the five year interval. You know how it is... so many lives ruined she can't even keep track of them. I drove by her at 10:00 in the morning in my Caddy. She was at a red light as I went through the green light at an intersection. Saw the car, the young man, the two women, and tailed me for 6 blocks looking for a reason to pull me over. I gave her none. She flipped the lights on and pulled me over Next she approached on the left, pulled a GUN on us and told me to give my driver's license and registration. I told her not until she told me why I was being pulled over. She had no reason, so she told me to step out of the car, put her gun away. Then she took me to the back of the car to talk some sense into me. I told her that she was a disgrace to the force for pulling me over on Independence day for no reasong and asking me for papers like a NAZI. This really got her mad. She told me she pulled us over for an inspection violation. I had the car inspected 2 days before, and showed her the date on the sticker. I would not tell her my name. The car was not in my name. I kept the police there for 4 hours. Neither of my women ratted me out, although Robob***ch screamed maniacally at one until she cried. Several more cops came, including the seargent.
Eventually I told them who I was 4 maybe 5 hours later.
This caused quite the aggravation in the law enforcement community. They had a sting operation for me. Next time I was out driving the caddy, they followed me, called up 6 cops for backup, served me with all my warrants, through me in a paddy wagon and took me to the magistrate. Since I would not give them my home address they labelled me as homeless, and indigent. My trial consisted of one guy in a dark room, me, and one police officer. I was never read my miranda rights, or given access to a lawyer. I was sentenced to 30 days in jail for failure to pay protection money.
I used my one phone call to tell someone to bring money down and pay the fines. I had the money all along, but I don't let people take my money easy.
Welcome to america
The statute of limitation has not run out on appeal yet for my trial if anyone at EFF or ACLU reads this and you want to appeal my case.I am a police officer in the State of Georgia, in DeKalb County. You said "The police officer did NOT have the right to ask his name," and also "The whole point is that you do not have to identify yourself to the police simply because they want to know who you are."
/do/ have the right to ask the name and information of any person in any public place (the roadway is considered a public place) at any time, for any reason. We don't need probable cause. We don't even need reasonable suspicion. You can like this or not, but the law has been upheld.
I don't know about the particulars of this case, however, I will tell you that in the State of Georgia, we
The definition of public place, according to Georgia State Law is:
(15) 'Public place' means any place where the conduct involved may reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than members of the actors family or household.
Furthermore, specifically in regards to a driver's license, the law says this:
(b) Every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. A refusal to comply with such demand not only shall constitute a violation of this subsection but shall also give rise to a presumption of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and of Code Section 40-5-20.
This applies to not only drivers, but also passengers of motor vehicles. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court. I know this because it was on our recent legal update. It also applies to pedestrians.
Asking for ID is not a violation of the fourth amendment, or any search and seizure laws. You do not have the right to refuse to show a police officer your ID. You have the right to refuse to allow them to search you, your vehicle, your home, etc. without probably cause, that is certain.
Again, I don't know the specifics of this case, or what state this person was traveling in, though I'm reasonably certain most states have similar laws.
However, I would make very sure that in your state (or country, etc.) that you know the specifics of the law, because in my county, if you refuse to show me your ID, I will take you to jail. I have done it twice so far in my career, and both times the conviction was upheld.
A passing oxcart (up here, we call cops "beefs", hence the appropriate name for police cruisers) didn't lose any of it.
Naturally, being assholes, they didn't care that the slut nearly killed me, all they did was the dent on the door of her holy sacred minivan. So they start giving me shit, and, first things first, they asked me for ID.
Since there is no official "ID cards" up here nor any requirement to carry some, I simply hand over a business card. While the other beef keyed-in stuff in their terminal, the beef starts giving me shit for kicking the van, saying that this is vandalism.
I said back, angrily, that the fucking slut nearly killed me. I then said, "let me hop aboard along with you, and let's go after the fucking slut so you can ticket her".
Now, that they would have to ticket someone for nearly running-down a pedestrian was too much for them. The cop handed me back my business card, said "be careful next time", and they left (probably their blood donut level was too low).
Assholes.
While that's true, I must say that in general cops have a lot tougher job that people give them credit for. They don't know these people, their character, their history, or whether they have any weapons. They risk coming into a situation with a "domestic dispute" trying to help and being enemies of both sides.
When I was in the Marines, we had an indoor firing simulator that included training for MP's, which included some "shoot/no-shoot" scenarios, where you're covering your partner in some situation; and in half of the scenarios, someone pulls a gun and shoots you. Shoot too soon, or too late, and you fail the scenario.
The scary thing was, just about anyone in the scene could do it, and for any reason. You pull a woman over for speeding, and she starts digging around in her purse, and pulls out a gun. You're breaking up a fight and your partner is wrestling one of the guys in the fight on the ground; his girlfriend says, "Stop it, leave him alone" in a really girly, weak way; then pulls a gun out of her purse and shoots him.
I haven't seen the video, but I can understand why his daugher was tackled when she got out of the car, and why if he was acting upset (as is natural, if he was upset enough at his daughter to ask to get out of the car) the policeman would be afraid.
Behavior of the police officer(s) aside, the guy didn't have anything against him, and shouldn't have had to show his ID. The charge should be dropped.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
None of which has anything to do with demands for ID papers. No one said "I saw Dudley Hiibel being naughty".
First, he wasn't asked for his name. Only for his papers. Second, yes, you do, though refusal to give your name can be grounds for suspicion - but not, by itself, probable cause for arrest. But you can always say "I don't want to talk to you. Unless you are detaining me or arresting me, I'm going to leave now," and be perfectly within your legal rights. Third, since the cops in this case weren't looking for any person by name, neither giving a name nor showing ID could have any effect on reasonable suspicion or probable cause in this case.
It saddens and amazes me that you thinks that insisting on your civil liberties being recognized is just a "political statement". And I'd say standing up for right and freedom is one of the most important things you can do and demonstrate for your kids.
It has nothing to do with which State you're in. It's a fundamental principle of American law.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It also made me think, that if he'd lie over a ticket he'd sure as hell lie over more important matters.
Bingo! Remember that if you are ever sitting on a jury. If someone testifies, there are 3 possibilities:
They are telling the truth.
They think they are telling the truth, but are wrong (unobservant, incompetent, prejudiced)
They are lying out their asses
When you are on the jury, you have every right to say "this evidence is not credible" and ignore it. A not-guilty verdict is absolute and cannot be reversed by anyone. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I watched a trial in traffic court for a speeding ticket. The defendant brought photos that showed that there was no posted speed limit sign. The judge refused to look at the photos. He told the cop (the prosecution witness) to view the photos and tell him if the sign is on the road or not. The cop said that the speed limit sign existed but wasn't on the photo because it was "just off the edge". Guilty.
In the traffic light case, she should have brought in 3 witnesses to testify that "I drive there every day and there is no light there". Also supply photos as backup to the witnesses. The witnesses also can rebut the cop when he says "these photos really show I'm right". You have to convince the judge that "my witnesses are more credible than the cop witness", which is a MIGHTY tall order since most judges think that cops shit ice cream.
Oh, I wasn't implying that's what you meant. I should have been more explicit in my wording: there are a lot worse things out there than Bush. I do understand your sentiment though. What we have is a never-ending parade of self-indulgent babies who wish nothing more than to promote themselves and their petty agendas, to hell with everyone else.
Yes, there was a revolution in the 30's, and the revolutionaries won. FDR helped the revolutionaries win. He helped to permanently install socialism in the United States.
However, that wasn't actually what I was talking about. I was talking about his actions during the war. He signed EO9066 and EO9102, removing the rights of 120,000 Americans, stripping them of their property and dignity, and incarcerating them without due process for 4 years.
He forced 10,110,114 American men into involuntary servitude, stripping them of more rights than the 12,000 affected by EO9066. Many of them were ordered to their deaths against their will, the ultimate betrayal of individual rights.
FDR was also complicit in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, based on now-declassified documents pertaining to the breaking of the Japanese military code. They knew in advance.
He transformed the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of ones' labor into a privilege to be granted or revoked by the government by creating a tax on the privilege of being employed, and the privilege of employing (neither of which are privileges, but absolute rights). When the Supreme Court laid the smack down on him, he extorted their complicity by threatening to destroy the integrity of the Judicial Branch by flooding the Court with partisans.
He removed the United States from a monetary standard backed by tangible wealth to one backed by nothing more than faith. After all, paper is worth what people believe it is, and nothing more.
FDR did not believe in Constitutional checks and balances - he tried to destroy and was prepared to defy the Supreme Court and Congress.
FDR signed legislation in order to fix prices and insulate people from the consequences of defaulting on contracts (ie the consequences of their actions as outlined clearly in contracts they agreed to).
Personally, I can't think of one good thing that FDR accomplished, but I can see a lot of people who are worse-off as a result. Just look at the abject failure of Social Security. Not only did it strip everyone of the right to work and enjoy all the fruits of their labors, but it has made generations of older people dependent on it, instead of having a family safety net. The family is busy paying taxes to fund the exact cost of Social Security at the current moment and so have nothing left to help support their elders and keep a family life together. All the surplus is spent on $1000.00 hammers and $800.00 toilet seats, or on renovating government offices to install a new spa or gym.
No, FDR wasn't a great president. He was the scum of the earth, and was only interested in acting along the same lines as his contemporaries Stalin and Churchill: an arrogant, power-hungry populist who had more ego and power than he had sense.
The only wartime president worth a damn in the entire history of the United States was Washington, and even he had his faults. At least he also had intelligence and principles, and was a reluctant leader. Those are the best.