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."
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.
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
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.
And asking a cop for his badge number is a GOOD way to find yourself with the stainless bracelets on. Even obviously LOOKING at his badge number if he's in a bad mood.
About the ONLY time you get them to give it willingly is when they have just HELPED you, and you've said thank you, and tell them you'd like to write a thank you letter for their files
BTW - if you local PD has citizens councel, show up, be polite, listen, and say hello. Aka, become known to the cops as "a good guy". Like it or not, once your local beat cops get to know you, you have less hassles - you don't get the evil eye. You get a nod. Just human nature - it's not supposed to play a role, but it DOES
Other things, if you don't feel like doing that? Join you local community board, or SOME social organization. The guys who run the charity parade, etc. The cops get to know these people - so do the local business men, and the local pols. THEN when you call you local Pol with a position on some bill, your not just "Joe Schmoe", your "Jim on the Parade committee"
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
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
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!
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.