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: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.