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

Re:Republicans 5-4

[boobsea]

It was many of your "Democrats" in the Supreme Court who recently found the anti-free speech parts of the campaign finance laws to be perfectly constitutional

To the Supreme Court?

[Supp0rtLinux]

Related, I've had a similar beef with our local California law system. I just haven't had the guts to pursue it in court. The issue is the carpool (HOV) lanes on our freeways. *All* of the taxpayers pay to make and improve our roads. That means that me, the single guy, pays taxes that fund the creation and maintenance of our carpool lanes. Yet, because I'm single and I work alone and therefore have no one to commute with, I cannot use the lanes. Yet visitors from Canada and Mexico, Oregon and Washington (and other states) that don't pay for the roads can use them. The carpool lanes are the only thing my taxes pay for that I'm not permitted to use. If I had kids, they could use the public school system. If I go camping, I can use our parks. If I want to read, I can go to my library. All of these are services my taxes help pay for. But if I want to use the carpool lane, I cannot, and can even be fined for doing so. Personally, I think this is discrimination of those of us that are socially challenged, and therefore unwed.

EPIC and EFF

[bruthasj]

Dear EPIC and EFF:

Please stick to your respective domains--namely, the Internet--for enforcing our rights. Otherwise, your gonna spread yourself so thin you'll render yourselves irrelevant quite soon.

Thank you,

Concerned Netizen

Re:How can they do that?

[thirdrock]

... "criminals never learn". I couldn't believe it, somebody was actually said that criminals lack the ability to learn from their mistakes.

Actually, many criminals do learn. The time spent in prison is used to learn how to be much more effective criminals.

It seemed to echo the whole American policy of simply locking people away instead of bothering to rehabilitate them.

You are starting with the premise that criminality is some kind of injury or disease that can be rehabilitated.

What if, given the environment you live in, criminal behaviour is the obvious evolutionary choice. That is, the lowest risk behaviour for the greatest return? Or, simply tribal behaviour?

Changing environment and social setting may cure criminal behaviour. Or at least change it to the more acceptable kind that you can get away with if you are a white person, ie. securities fraud or corruption.