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 didn't this guy just show his ID ? Was he a criminal ? How are we supposed to fight the war on terror if people have attitudes like this ? The cop was just doing his job. If this guy wasn't breaking the law why was he so scared of identifying himself ? No smoke without fire.
When are people going to get it through their thick skulls. Driving an automobile (since this guy was parked IN a car) is considered a PRIVLEDGE, not a right. If you read the driving manual for any state, it will have in it (paraphrasing) "driving is a privledge granted by the department of revenue of (insert your own state). This priveledge can be revoked at such time by the director of revenue. Also, according the the laws (at least in my state), if you FAIL to produce an ID, as requested by an officer, then you may be arrested for "failing to obey a resonable request by an officer" We have laws for a reason, and when someone doesn't like one, they whinnnnneeeeee and complain instead of using the system to get the law changed. I don't like a lot of the laws on the books, but I'm not going to break them, I'm going to work within the system to get them changed, leagally.
Boy, this is one of the saddest posts I have ever seen.
It's their job to identify you, not vice versa.
It is your job to comply with the requests of the police officer. In most states, and evidently the one in question, it is an arrestable offense to refuse to give your name to a police officer. He refused and he was arrested.
and from the moment I'm not free to leave, you're going to know nothing about me except the name and phone number of my attorney.
No. From the moment you're not free to leave you're only going to give the name and phone number of your attorney. Once they arrest your ass for obstruction, they will search you and find the wallet with that ID you refused to hand over in the first place; you know, the one that could have saved you arrest had you truly not been the person they were looking for.
Remember the whole presumption of innocence doctrine?
You are presumed innocent. That does not mean you are presumed not to be the person they're looking for unless they can prove differently. The one link I can get to right now provides no information, but obviously the police officer had some sort of information on the man--maybe a description, maybe a license plate, maybe somebody pointed right at him and said "that's him." Fitting a description provides the officer with reasonable suspicion, and reasonable suspicion is justification enough to ask for the presentation of identification.
If they don't have an idea who you are, they have no business accusing you of being the person they suspect.
They had an idea of who he was. They walked right up to him. They simply asked for his ID to ensure he was who they thought to SAVE AN INCONVEINIENCE for the person in case they were wrong. What a crime. If he wasn't who they were looking for, they would have tipped their hat, apologized for wasting the man's time and been on their way. If he WAS who they were looking for, he would still be presumed innocent of the crimes he is accused of. He would likely be arrested and brought before a court to determine his guilt or innocence. Arrest does not mean guilt.
I don't think you'd be happy living in a military dictatorship.
What the hell kind of bullshit is that? Nowhere did the word "military" or "dictatorship" enter into anything. And you do realize that slippery slope crap is a logic error, right? Unless you have evidence that allowing one thing will allow the other, then you're just a fool spouting off without any sense of reality. Then again you did post as AC, so I shouldn't be surprised that you are.
So its illegal to not have an ID on you now?
Remember Sam Donaldson? I have no problems with a reporter asking critical questions of the President; but this asshole was so rude to Reagan that I was hoping the SS would take him out back and teach him the same manners my daddy taught me, using the same methods. Then he could stand up all he wanted during those conferences. Wouldn't have a choice, really.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Wow. Our country IS going down the shitter: people are quoting Michael Moore.
"Why should I have ID?"
I dunno, Jethro, maybe because you just admitted you were operating a motor vehicle?
Having been present at a great many arrests of this sort (I'm a paramedic), I can tell you - this guy asked to be arrested not because he believes in the Constitution, but because he wanted to inflict emotional trauma on the woman by getting himself arrested. Notice how it worked - as soon as the cuffs went on, she started crying. Her reactions are pretty standard for the early stages of battered woman syndrome, and Jethro obviously has had some experience manipulating women's emotions.
For the record: There's no 4th amendment violation here: They didn't ask to search him, they simply asked for ID. If dumbass had ponied up his license they wouldn't have found the knife. Like I said, he was too busy manipulating the woman.
You're not in Russia, but you DO remind me of a bumper sticker from the 60's. America: Love it or leave it. Better you get out now, before they require ID just to leave the country.
"Sure, it may be 'Stuff that matters', but there's a lot of other non-tech stuff that matters that doesn't make it onto Slashdot because it's not news for nerds. What makes this (decidedly anti-Ashcroft) story special?"
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Am I only one who watched the video, and thinks this guy was drunk on his ass? I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI, and then has the gall to take this to the Supreme Court. And why is this on Slashdot?
Why are you on slashdot?
Most of us are of the progressive group of individuals that enjoy individual rights and freedoms.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
> Did you even think about what you were actually laughing at, or are you too stupid/ill-informed to even know??
I agree, as my grandfather died at a concentration camp... He fell out of a tower.