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."
Slowly, slowly, we slide down this long road. Don't close your eyes, you'll miss the whole thing.
I have been pwned because my
Imagine my surprise when the site of the article is papersplease.org.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
'investigating an investigation.'
...it was Internal Affairs that "investigated investigations". Oh well...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you're a cop, why harass somebody for no good reason? There's no reason to abuse your authority by forcing somebody to give you id if there's no real reason to investigate them.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
just because the innocent have nothing to hide, means that there is no reason for giving up our rights of privacy.
Produce your papers, comrade.
Always carry your papers, comrade.
Do not question us, comrade; that, of course, is our job.
Did I just wake up in 1950s Communist Russia?
I quote Michael Moore: "Dude, where the hell did my country go?!?!"
Don't be a zoa (zealous overbearing ass), be happy!
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
No doubt there will be posters who are want to argue the facts in the case, to argue the internet does'nt tell boths sides of the story. But to pre-empt them: it doesn't matter! The case is going before the Supreme court because the courts based their rulings on a state law that requires ID to be shown when requested by an officer. None of that other stuff matters a wit; it was after all only a $250 fine anyway.
Thus this case really is about whether or not it is legal to require people to show ID.
I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case.
I agree that you shouldn't be stubborn in front of a cop, but that doesn't mean that cops can do whatever they want. The officer needs a reason to find out your identity, etc. They can't pull you over on the highway for nothing, why can they ask for ID for no reason if you are just hanging out on the side of the road. Sounds a little scary to me.
Apparently it's been arrested.
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
I live in Panama (in Central America, not FL) and here, like in most other places in Latin America, you have a Cedula, basically a national ID. When a law enforcement agent asks you for your ID, you show it to them. If you don't it means that A) you don't have one because you're an illegal immigrant or B) you're a convicted felon and have escaped from prison...or something to that extent.
I fail to see what's so horrible about this system. I'm not trolling, I really don't see it. Comments are most welcome.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
According to courts, you don't have a reasonable expectation to not have to give your name, because you use it all the time. You probably do, however, have a reasonable expectation of not having to rattle off any ID number that's private.
What's so wrong about giving a cop your name if you give it to everyone else?
He HAS a good reason. The BEST reason. He is defending his (and your, and my) rights. Defense of your rights and fundamental freedoms is the ONLY thing worth killing or dying for.
Everything else is trivial.
One of the few things that distinguishes America as a free country is the absense of checkpoints and "papers please" where your very existence is presumed to be a crime until YOU demonstrate that you have a right to exist and that you are free to go.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Yes, but who will investigate the investigators' investigators?
Ask me about The Shocker!
It would create a horrible precedent: citizens would be obliged to take instruction from people they can't authenticate.
I think you read that backwards it was the citizen who would not show his ID to the cop, not vice versa.
The police office was responding to a possible domestic violence situation.
This was covered much more in depth on kuro5hin.org days ago!
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.
Can someone post a mirror, or a direct link to the story so we can use the Google cache? The mother's /.ed already.
www.fuckacop.com exists.
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, you lose them.
I think it is really sad that none of the lower courts that heard this case overturned it.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The Supreme Court has over the past two decades become far more accepting of searches, thanks primarily to the court's shift to the right, and the perceived threat of the "drug epidemic".
Even the ACLU says to you have to show ID when stopped in a car. (read here) It is irrelevent whether or not you are parked. (You can get a dui for sitting in the driver seat of a parked car with the engine off.)
If you have nothing to hide, show your damn license.
1. What's your name?
2. Can I see some ID?
3. What is your reason for being here?
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
Where shall we draw the line, if not at #1 or #2?
I mean, heck, if you've got nothing to hide, and teh ID check came up clean, just let the cop look in your trunk and find nothing wrong. You may as well just let him have a quick look in your pockets, also, because he'll find nothing wrong unless you have something to hide. If the officer is conducting an investigation and you have nothing to hide, then there's no reason to not let him look in your garage at home, either, unless you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to not let him look at the contents of your hard drive either, since he'll find nothing wrong.
While it's nice to have them on his side, why would the EFF want to be in this case? I thought their brief was *electronic* rights.
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution. One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video. On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them Welcome to Humboldt County. Papers, Please. No? You're Under Arrest.
and thus brain shall rule us!
I've been asked for ID before from a cop for no particular reason. Being afraid of being arrested if I don't comply, I hand over my ID. Some day when I don't care about having a record, I'll say "how about YOU show ME some ID, asshole?"
In Soviet Russia.....nevermind.
If I'm parked somewhere doing no wrong in the US, I don't need to prove who I am. Now, if this were Soviet Russia 20 years ago, occupied Germany 60 years ago, etc. Sure. But I'm trying to remember what the diference there is...
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. No one sees the COPS footage were the innocent person was abused, found to be innocent, and then let go -- that would not make good TV.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Did y'all read the article?
What everyone here seems to be missing is the fact that the officer was responding to a report (eg, some other citizen called the police) of domestic violence after seeing this guy argue with his daughter in the truck, and in fact, there had already been a physical exchange between the guy and his daughter.
Then, once additional officers arrive and the arrest is in progress the daugher tries to *phsyically force her way* past one of the cops. I just can't feel for the supposed "victims" in this case even after having read only their side of the story...
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.
Specifically, the contract on being granted my Drivers License (or CA ID) is that I submit it upon demand by a "peace officer".
Now, that's completely different from being required to carry it at all (Save, of course, while driving). But if I DO have it, I believe I'm required to surrender it.
I don't know what restrictions surround something like a Passport.
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.
And when masses of people were herded onto trains for 'relocation', or into ghettos, because the State told them to do so, they were just obeying too. You don't see whats so horrible about it because you've been brought up in a State where this level of massification is accepted. I'm not trolling either, its just something thats very important to a people who (until recently) did not expect this sort of behavior from their police.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Though it's an interesting point, the fact that he was in his car on the side of the road. The only way you can get into a car on the side of the road is if you drove that car(most likely), so in order to drive the car you must have a license. The cop is morally responsible to make sure that someone who doesn't have a license(a repeat drunk drive for example) isn't on the road, so maybe the question is what powers do the police have to police the road to make sure everyone is safe versus the right for people to maintain their privacy? I wish there was an easy answer to that, on one hand you don't want a police state, but on the other hand, you don't want 15 year olds cruising down the road in their mom's station wagon.
I'd like to hear what other people think on this topic.
Looks like I read it backwards. Still got modded up to 5 though
and I talk about this subject with some frequency. Judging from the feedback I get, most people just don't get it or don't care. Most believe that if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem. I've been searching for a more elegant way to rebut this other than saying its just dead wrong but have yet to come up with it.
People equate the "papers please" line to movies about Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia but I think we are closer than most of us would admit.
btw, if you've got a good way to rebut this that doesn't include fuck or asshole, I'm all ears biatches...:)
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?
That is funny...
Well, I'm not a criminal, but I'm concerned about this issue. I don't have the time if a cop decides I need to stop and display ID at his whim. I have things to do, I'm not committing any crimes, don't waste my time with your insecurities and need to push your authority on someone (which in most cases is what it's really about).
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
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 site goes on about the cop saying he was "investigating an investigation" and implies the cop gave no reason for it or anything.
Which is overstating.
The cop never said he was "investigating an investigation" from watching the video. He did, however, say to the man as soon as he got there something along the lines "I'm investigating reports of a fight between you two" indicating the man and the woman in the car.
And the person asked for ID was fairly belligerent. He kept on asking the officer to arrest him.
The charge isn't specifically a law that makes it illegal to present ID, I think (though I'm not sure), it's a charge of obstructing a peace officer. Which may be from aforesaid law, but I didn't see that when I looked before.
to Flex Your Rights as an American. Know what to do in a situation such as this. Remeber there are checks and balances and they work both ways. I think this precendent (being set by the policeman) is a bad one, and it could run us down a very slippery slope.
In 1952, the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act mandated 3 million non-citizens to carry ID cards and threatened 11 million naturalized citizens with deportation if they were charged with being communists. A bus drivers' union official was grabbed from the bargaining table where he was successfully negotiating a wage increase and shorter hours and held at Ellis Island, New York for deportation to Canada. Harry Bridges, for decades the leader of the San Francisco Longshoremen, was harassed with repeated deportation efforts. source
Don't worry though the USA PATRIOT ACT's will take care of all your problems.
MoFscker
Mimi Hiibel was hauled-off to juvenile detention and charged with resisting arrest. In court, her father asked the judge a simple question: what charge was Mimi arrested for resisting? The case was dismissed. This is true; at least in California, you cannot be arrested for the sole charge of "resisting arrest". The amazing thing is that they actually had to have a court case to set a precedent to establish this as part of California state law! By the way, you are also legally allowed to resist arrest if you beleive the officer intends to harm you in an unlawful manner -- but just try arguing THAT one in court!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Here is a link to a google cache of the summary.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Or it might have went like this:
Cop: Hey boy, whats going on?
Me: Nothi....
Cop's begin beating you
The officer clearly stated right away that he was investigating a call about a fight between Mr. Hiibel and the woman in the video. He asked to see his ID to get his name and to make sure this was the guy. How else was the officer supposed to gather information on the suspect? Last I checked, mind-reading was not a core class at the Police Academy.
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.
I think you read that backwards it was the citizen who would not show his ID to the cop, not vice versa.
Yes, but this brings up another point. If a u.s. citezen asks a cop to show id in order to verify that he/she is a legitimate policeman, shouldn't the cop have to show id? There are a few fakes out there. This brings up another question. Is there such a thing as self defense against a cop? It seems that the police have been given pretty much unlimited authority when it comes to people in their cars, judging from recent court rulings.
What?
http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html
Of much interest:
"A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck."
So it would seem he was not 'accosted at random'.
The very fact that the Supreme Court has decided to hear it, means that the Court thinks there are legitimate questions that need to be answered. The court is quite happy to just refuse to hear cases that it feels don't need to be heard.
I understand that everyone wants their right to exist peacefully without being harassed. However, there are occaisional occurances of wanted individuals being caught simply because their car broke down. Let's be honest: If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them. Anyone must be able to deduce that it is not unreasonable to expect that at some point, they may be questioned by an officer... so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise. Do we really want law enforcement to just start turning a blind eye to any car they see occupied that has a passenger inside? It seems to me that refusing to give one's name or ID is very unhelpful and almost antagonistic. People are always observing that Police don't spend enough time stopping real serious crimes, but when individuals like this person refuse to be helpful, it takes that officer's time away that he could have spent on a serious crime. The point is the officer was just doing what he felt was the right thing for him to do and it is possible he ended up getting angry, but being angry over someone who's wasting your time and the gov't's time isn't so abnormal a reaction, is it? Would we really be better off if we made it illegal for an officer to expect someone to give them their name? I don't see how. If someone has a better idea on how the police should react when a person refuses to identify themselves, I would be keen to listen.
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
I wouldn't be too upset if Bush were killed.
KNOCK! KNOCK!
It's the Feds!!
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
There's no way the Supreme Court will allow the officer to get away with this.
I think you dramatically underestimate Antonin Scalia. He's written some very stupid opinions.
In such a situation, show him an American Bar Association membership card. Doesn't matter if it's fake, he'll generally leave you alone.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
One of the few things that distinguishes America as a free country is the absense of checkpoints and "papers please" where your very existence is presumed to be a crime until YOU demonstrate that you have a right to exist and that you are free to go.
Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?
Three Squirrels
Happily, that is, until you call them an asshole.
Reading through the posts citing communist states and national IDs, I can't help but think there's a significant amount of misunderstanding.
The facts of the case will not be argued over whether someone must carry ID at all times, nor will it set precedent to that effect.
Yes, the charge of "delaying an officer" is stupid. I'm also quite aware of the fact that denying ID should not be made probable cause. But..
Remember, the guy was in a car. While a car parked off the side of the road isn't all that suspicious, you do require a license to drive -- and to carry that license with you at all times while driving -- and it's unlikely the guy will argue, "yeah, I walked over to my car and sat in it".
What is wrong with just allowing the police to just check ID and strip search us for being outside our homes?
Fight Spammers!
One way of working within the system to get an _unconstitutional_ law changed is to challenge it in the courts. The courts are an important and integral check in the system. In order to have a test case for a law, someone needs to be tried for breaking it.
Of course, there is the danger that the law will be upheld, however many times people had to take the risk of breaking a law to allow a challenge. This is how the laws prohibiting condom sales in the US were struck down.
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
btw, if you've got a good way to rebut this that doesn't include fuck or asshole, I'm all ears biatches...:)
Listen here, you jerkoff, if dumb sunsabitches like you are willing to get your ass kicked by a bunch of steroid freak sheriff's deputies, go right ahead. As for me, I'll just run like a raped ape.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
For better or worse. We don't HAVE a national ID. There is no card that identifies you as a US citizen. Closest thing is a passport, and that is an optional travel document.
The reason is that we feel it is a privacy and freedom issue. Why should the police have a right to demand we show proof of identity? That means if I ever want to leave my house, I'd better have my ID with me or I can get in trouble. That seems to many Americans to be very Big Brother-ish (as in fomr 1984 by Orwell) or Soviet Russia-ish.
There is also the simple fact that since we don't have one national ID, they have less of a claim.
"Driving an automobile"
His daughter had been driving, not him.
"since this guy was parked IN a car"
Actually, he was standing outside, leaning up against it when the police arrived.
"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""
Then you must have been the only one not either laughing or offended when seeing movies depicting Soviet troops demanding that civilians "show me your papers!".
"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."
He is currently challenging the constitutionality of the law at the Supreme Court. How is this not working within the system?
" 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."
Then you must really hate the entire civil rights movement, which engaged in mass civil disobedience protests.
What would you have this man do if he didn't have any ID? What if he didn't drive, didn't have a bank account, didn't have any bills sent to his house, and didn't get a state ID? There are indeed many who do not want the government tracking their every move, and thus choose to live a simpler life. That, at least for the time being, is their right. You and John Ashcroft may indeed one day get bar codes tatooed on every newborn's skull, but for now, there's nothing wrong with living outside the 'world'.
Tell you what, even though this is slashdot, if you're going to put together such a longwinded and self-righteous post, how about reading at least PART of the article? Otherwise, your post will, as this one does, simply ooze ignorance.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
If the program were to show that, they would no longer be invited to film the action. Just like you never see critical reporters in white house press conferences.
What?
If a u.s. citezen asks a cop to show id in order to verify that he/she is a legitimate policeman, shouldn't the cop have to show id?
yes, and they have to.
So not being able to air a political attack ad on radio or TV 60 (or is it 30 ?) days before an election is not anti-free-speech?
Even worse is the fact that news outlets are exempt from this law, and its not like news outlets are exactly fair or balances in their reporting.
I'm sorry, but political speech is one of the most important rights we have, and even that is being chipped away.
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
Ummm, he was not sitting in his truck. He was standing beside it, on the PASSENGER'S side. Not in it. Nope, not in it.... his daughter was in it - until the police let her get out, and then put her to the ground, cuffed her and sat on her. Just the facts, ma'am, quoth Sergeant Joe Friday, LAPD
Crazy Al's House of Intertubes - where we make up in volume what we lose per bit...
If somoene identifies themselves as a cop and you ask them to show id to prove it then yes they do have to provide it. With uniformed cops the badge is considered id, but you can still ask them for a picture id if you arent confident. It is this way for safety reasons and they only reason i know about it is because there was a fake cop pulling over people in Orlando and the police department recommended you ask for id.
torrent of hi-quality quicktime movie
Well, this is an obvious point, I guess - I just wan't thinking.
But now it makes me think: How many people are starting to think these kinds of violations are okay because of shows like this where they occur in *every single episode* and the guy *always ends up being guilty*...?
I mean, I know half the time when I watch the show - and admittedly, I'm a moron - I find myself thinking, "Well, that sucked... but he was guilty after all..."
From all the episodes of cops I've watched, every one claims they're innocent. Who the hell is this guy that he's better than the millions of people who get detained, cooperate, and go on their merry way? I've not seen the video yet (it's suffering the slashdot effect), but unless he was truly harrassed, he was in the wrong.
Fine, except he wasn't driving the vehicle, and he was outside the vehicle at the time the officer rolled up. Nevertheless, all a cop has to do is make up probable cause that you might be guilty of something, and they can demand ID. I got stopped twice for jogging at night in Inglewood, CA.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
"when someone doesn't like one, they whinnnnneeeeee and complain instead of using the system to get the law changed."
It seems to me that Mr. Hiibel *is* using the system to get the law changed; he's using the Contitutional system of checks and balances. If you remember your Jr. High civics classes, there are (in the US) three braches of government specifically so that one or another can't get too powerful. Mr. Hiibel is simply using the Judical branch's power to attempt to check and balance thejudicial branch.
He had probable cause -- a domestic violence call.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I just read through all these replies and its completely obvious no one has read the article. Even at k5 a bunch of dumbasses just starting ranting about their rights, author included. the blurbs are sensationalist and try to make it sound as if were in a police state. this took place in 2000 and the guy had it coming. he was reported to the cops, at which point the cops approached him. i could completely understan id he had been walking his dog and the cop came up and tackled him or arrested him becuase he was in "the same place at the same time", but this is none of those. an intoxicated dumbass mouthed off to a cop because he was pissed and the cop finally had enough. under these circumstances the guy is lucky he got off with a 250 dollar fine. 4 years later, the supreme court is going to use this as an excuse to say cops can demand id when they approach with the suspicion or report that you committed a crime.
had he been sitting on his porch minding his own business, id be outraged. ive been approached by cops and detained, cuffed, becuase i was walking at night. they give you some bullshit excuse, and becuase of that excuse, they are allowed to stop you. its not right, but the police are going to be believed over some random person. maybe we should be more outraged that cops can get by with making up excuses and "bending" police reports. just becuase you get arrested for something doesnt mean that the cop had probable cause or any justification to approach you in the first place.
Sounds like Ed "If they aren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects" Meese.
In America, we are not supposed to be subject to random police action. Sure, the courts have permitted some, but the courts are wrong in those cases. Unless the police have probable cause that I am party to some illegal act (either as suspect or witness), or am involved in some activity which necessitates police(*) surveilance (eg getting on an airplane), then the the police(*) have no right to interfere with my business in any way! If I don't want to talk to them, I shouldn't have to. Period. And that in and of itself is not and should not be cause for them to arrest, detain or otherwise interfere with whatever it is I'm doing.
The US isn't supposed to be a police state, John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act notwithstanding.
(*) In this case, police does not mean police force, but police authority, which includes any government agent such as security screeners, etc.
your first sentence was still somewhat interesting. the supreme court will not let the cop get away with asking for ID for no reason.
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
Instead of getting all self righteous and commenting on what was happening, why don't you read the article before commenting on it. If you have to "guess" about what the cop was doing, don't comment it just adds to the noise here on slashdot, like we need more mindless noise. If it is unavailable and you can't read the article, wait a while, someone will have it mirrored shortly I'm sure, that is just as sure a thing on /. as the hippies going on about security and liberty.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
I honestly don't see police requirement of ID as the problem here. Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement. There are a number of good reasons for this.
First, it allows law enforcement to QUICKLY know if you are the person they are looking for. If you look similar to a wanted felon, and the police stop you. How are they to know you are not the felon unless you identify yourself somehow? If you don't ID yourself, they have to take you to the police station and put you in a line-up or find some other man-hour intensive task to find out who you are.
Secondly, every time that your ID is run through the FBI's CIC, a record is added to your file that says that this specific law enforcement branch checked your identification at such and such a physical location. There may be a legitimate privacy issue that I can not perceive, but primarily this has become a legitimate tool for law enforcement investigations. It allows law enforcement to do "offline" checks to see what stops were made in an area. Its especially useful in serial offender situations where often a blanket police action may have contact with the serial offender in the area of a crime, but at the time they didn't know he is the cause. But after three different officers in three different police agencies stop the same person in the area of crimes with similar MO's, they can narrow their investigation. This has been used successfully and legally to all of our benefit in the past.
That being said, police don't need probable cause to stop someone, they need reasonable suspician. A lot of times, police define reasonable suspician as something they call Just Don't Look Right (JDLR). It might not be the most reasoned way to do police work, but a well intentioned police officer can use this to his advantage to elimitate social chaos in his community.
I haven't examined this particular case in any kind of detail yet, but it sounds like the "individual" conduct of the police officer is what should be investigated. Not whether or not law enforcement needs to have the right to require you to ID yourself.
Law enforcement in the U.S. is mostly localized. As such, community input into policing policies is very strong today. You as a ciitizen need to decide if you want your police given the tools they need to ensure that felons are not walking the street. Taking this away from will definitely make it a major burden to perform this service for us.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
...you will be assimilated.
Just kidding.
Doesn't matter how rude or belligerent or whatever you are to a cop -- it ain't illegal. Some cop comes up to you and demands ID, or even asks your name, you should be able to tell him "What's it to ya, ya lousy screw?" and flip him off, if you want, without repercussion.
It's a cop's job to deal with every kind of situation. If you're so thin-skinned that some meanie insulting you or being rude to you causes you to alter your behavior in any way, you shouldn't be a cop.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
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.
Because if you don't stand up for your rights, your rights tend to get trampled.
Money is not speech. I guess you're for shouting fire in a theater since that is infringing on your rights.
Why is it Republicans always want a smaller government until someone does something they don't like. The "outrage" over Janet Jackson's boob has everyone in a fit, however why can the government stop her "freedom of expression"? Same concept, different view on your part I'd imagine.
Republicans are hypocrites, every last one of them.
And yay, soon he gets to decide about his hunting buddy Cheney. Because It is not nessisary for him to recuse himself.
Buddy politics in our highest court is tonz of fun.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
For the record regardless of whatever cigar toting Clinton did, can you change what you had for lunch yesterday? I think not. Fact remains Asscroft is the one in power now, and the one who is looking to pass all these kooked out laws, not Clinton. So put your petty political party to the side and shoot from the hip with facts, or at least with something worth substance.
You're right maybe I should educate myself maybe I wouldn't make so many typos and remember to include links to sources of my information so trollers don't get all pissy in their underoos. Point well taken thank you.MoFscker
What did I say about money? Did you read anything I said at all?
I am talking about political advertisements. Please get off your "money is not speech" rant. I dont even know what the hell Janet's tit has to do with this either.
If the officer was specifically asking for ID then he can go shove himself. This is the US you're not required by any law to have ID. It's nice to have if you want something like a bank account etc.. but its not the law to have one.
However, if the officer was asking for the man's driver's license, which is plausible since he was sitting in a car parked or no, in Virginia at least and I assume every other state it says on the license that you must turn over your license upon the request of an officer.
If the officer was using the wrong words and asked for ID that doesn't have to exist then he can shove himself and you can all continue ranting.
Oh, and if you have an ID issued by the DMV, at least in Virginia, it too states clearly that you must surrender it to an officer on request.
-
If I have a choice of totalitarian government or terrorists, I'll take my chances with the terrorists any day.
Well, here they are...
It turns out, the reason the cops were called was because a neighbor called the cops *on him*! So people are going to fucking say that the cop, once called, had no right to have ANYONE identify themselves?!
---
Welcome to Humboldt County. Papers, Please.
No? You're Under Arrest.
On the evening of the 21st of May, 2000, Dudley Hiibel stepped out of his red 1988 GMC pick-up truck and lit a cigarette. The pick-up was parked on the side of Grass Valley Road, a rural stretch of asphalt that leads out of the mining town of Winnemucca into the rural cattle ranching area where Dudley lives and farms.
The pick-up had been driven by Dudley's 17 year-old daughter Mimi, with whom Dudley had been having an argument over a boy Dudley didn't approve of that she'd been seeing in town. Mimi got mad at her dad and punched him in the shoulder. They continued shouting at one another as they drove back to to the ranch, and Mimi eventually pulled over the truck after her dad said he wanted out.
That's what Dudley Hiibel was doing that May evening in 2000: standing on the side of Grass Valley Road smoking a cigarette, his elbow resting on the rolled-down passenger window, talking with his daughter.
Then the police arrived.
Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department came on the scene - siren a-wailing - in response to a domestic violence report. Someone saw Mimi arguing with her dad and thought it had come to blows. The witness said that he saw "a man with a black cowboy hat" who "slugged the female". Dove was there to investigate the report.
Everything that happened next is all on videotape... you be the judge.
If you think that the first thing Deputy Dove would do on the scene would be to make sure the 'slugged female' was all right, you would be wrong. Deputy Dove never asked or even looked at Mimi until she had been thrown to the ground face-first and handcuffed.
But that comes later in the story.
Rather than investigate the complaint, Deputy Dove (who has twice had evidence he collected suppressed by the court) instead began to demand Dudley Hiibel show his ID. Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley show 'his papers'. Dudley asked a simple question: why?
"Because I'm investigating", said Dove.
"Investigating what?" Dudley asked.
"I'm investigating an investigation" was Dove's non-reply.
Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley's ID. And when the Deputy decided Dudley wasn't "going to cooperate", he cuffed, then tossed him in the back of his patrol car.
And It Didn't Stop There
Meanwhile, Dudley's daughter was watching the encounter between her dad and the Law from the cab of the pick-up truck. You can hear her screaming "Nooo" as her father is being handcuffed.
Another policeman, a Nevada state trooper by the name of Merschel, was on the scene and was holding the door of the pick-up truck shut so that Mimi couldn't get out. Screaming, she finally forced the door open only to be thrown face down into the hard dirt by the side of the road by Trooper Merschel.
The video is almost too painful to watch at this point. A second trooper climbs on top of Mimi and he and Trooper Merschel brutally pin 17 year-old Mimi to the ground and slap on the cuffs.
With Dudley Hiibel arrested for refusing to show ID and his daughter Mimi beaten and in handcuffs, Deputy Lee Dove now comes over to talk to Mimi and 'investigate'.
The Aftermath
Dudley Hiibel was charged with Domestic Battery, Battery, Acts Which Constitute Domestic Violence, and Obstructing/Delaying A Peace Officer. As there was no battery or domestic violence involved, the only charge that was left was Delaying A Peace Officer. By refusing to show Deputy Lee Dove his ID, Dudley was fined $250.00 . He's appealling it all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
It is this very charge that is now coming before the U.S. Supreme Court on the 22nd of March. The question before the
and then decide... the original link is a fairly slanted version of what happened (if it wasn't already dead you could check it... feel free to verify it when their site comes back up). I tried another link and found this site to be much more complete.
In short, the police officer got a call for a potential domestic violence or assault, attempted to question the man at the location who fit the description of the individual reportedly involved, and was met with a totally uncooperative attitude.
Let me tell you how a cop views this: virtually all of the people who hate cops have had prior run-ins with them... ie. they are some kind of scofflaw, or associate with such folks. When a cop gets a "f*ck you pig" attitude, his guard instantly goes up, and so do his antennae... you've stupidly just made yourself his adversary. The police officer in this case had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed... and when confronted with a possible suspect who was potentially violent, possibly intoxicated, and wouldn't even give his name, that officer had to act, so he detained the man.
What should he have done? Ignored the possible reported crime and just let him go? "Awww shucks, citizen... if you're not going to tell me your name then I guess I can't arrest you." Nobody gives their real name when arrested... we find out later who they are via fingerprints and witnesses.
Maybe it's my prior law enforcement background talking, but I really don't see the problem here. The law doesn't exist to hassle regular citizens... the officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and if he does, then he can detain to ascertain identity. An officer can ask you for your identity just walking down the street... but if you've done nothing wrong, you can say "no thank you" and keep walking. If he then physically pounces on you, that's being detained or arrested, and he'd better have grounds. If he doesn't, feel free to own him in court... I would.
Sheesh... as long as he's polite and just doing his job, what's wrong with telling a proactive police officer your name? There's something called common courtesy, and police officers should be eligible to receive it. Why is a cop ineligible? Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds? If you're innocent and a cop asks you your name, you could be an ass about it, insult the cop, smirk, and saunter away... but what would that prove? That you can be a smart-ass? Great... I'm sure your mother would be proud.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
We get into my car and after securing our seatbelts, turining on the lights, etc. we take off. I exit the parking lot and a cop that was going the other way makes a U-turn. I say to my ex-gf "We are going to get pulled over in just a second." We stop at the 4 way stop (2 lanes in each direction) and since there is no traffic I start to cross the intersection. About that time some pedestrians across the intersection and on the opposite side of the road start to cross the street.
Not 2 seconds later I get pulled over (no surprise there). The officer comes to the car window and I ask him how he is doing, his response: "Apparently better than you are"...I was like "Oh shit, I'm getting a ticket for SOMETHING..."
Ten minutes later Officer cocksucker comes back and writes me a ticket for failure to yield the right of way to a pedestrian...WHAT A DICKHEAD!!! Like I was supposed to stop in the middle of the intersection and wait for these people to cross the street after I had already started moving BEFORE they tried to cross the street...
Needless to say I am contesting this ticket based on the law and The Corresponding RCW 46.61.235
This "Officer" was out to write a DUI, and I just happened to be the lucky person leaving the general area at the time...The INTERESTING part is that I am out at this club almost nightly and only drink (more than 1) when I am NOT driving...90% of the time I drink Diet Pepsi or Coffee (OK, so bar coffee is not generally Starbucks...but you get the idea...
This is clearly a case of a cop having NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN HARASS...THe most fucked part about this is, that I moved back to WA State just over a year ago from NJ...and I'll be goddamned if I haven't been pulled over more in a year back in here WA than I was in 5 years in NJ....
+(norad) if you rearrange the letters in mother in law, you get woman hitler
Location: Australia
When my wife was working night shift, on her way home one night an unmarked police car tried to pull her over, light on the roof with sirens going. She refused to pull over because she could not verify the car was legit.
She kept on driving until a marked cop car turned up as well. She pulled over and they asked why she didn't stop. She said she thought they were crazy axe murderers or something like that and it was accepted. They gave her a random breath test and went on their way.
They weren't happy about having to bring in a marked car, but if you cannot verify the identity of the person trying to pull you over, you have every right not to stop.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
Your an idiot, if you actually read into this, and do a google search on his name, you will see this law was already deamed unconstitutional. Now go away, you facist.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
Sometimes it's easy to forget that the fact this has made it all the way to the US Supreme Court is that EVERY OTHER COURT along the way AGREED that it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to be able to identify persons, especially when the reason the officer came in the first place was a response to a domestic violence call! So you mean to tell me that the police officer has no right to ask for identification from any party when dispatched to a possible domestic violence situation? Somewhere along the line this guy got lucky because all of liberal groups have picked up his flag and milking it for all it's worth.
Get a grip, people. It's not "papers, please". Do you honestly believe that if someone calls in a domestic violence call to 911 to a particular location, when there is in fact in an argument between family members (and the story even admits there was at least one punch thrown; it doesn't matter how weak it was or wasn't), that no one there should have to *identify themselves* at all to the responding police officer(s), under any conditions?
Um, are there still states where you can be incarcerated for cannabis possession? I thought it was a misdemeanor pretty much nation-wide now.
Only requirement for good karma: be pedantic as much and as often as possible.
It's so true though; we've all experienced these things, and it's frustrating. Shit just breaks, through a non-obvious user error, or a bad patch or incompatibility, or some exploit or virus, or just randomly for some inexplicable reason. And it takes hours to figure out the problem, let alone fix it, assuming it's fixable. There's a REASON there's such a stereotype against Microsoft software. A damn good reason.
Sure it would make good TV, but how much longer do you think that COPS would be allowed to stay on the air? No police would let them do ride alongs if they showed police abuse.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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'm amused by how shocked you all are. I'm black, and to make matters worst I've lived in Wisconsin most of my live. Milwaukee is a nice city with very few racial issues, but as soon as you step foot out of the city limits, it's a whole new world. These types of things have happened to me countless times. If there is a cop behind me and I am outside the city limits there is a 90% chance I will be pulled over. They will simply follow behind me until I make a little mistake, or I have left their jurisdiction.
I've been pulled over for going 3 mph over the speed limit, pulled over for "looking suspicious" (AKA being black in a white neighborhood), pulled over for "matching the description" (black male about 5' 10", isn't that like 70 of black men?), pulled over for "running a red light" (that was clearly still yellow after i cleared the intersection), the list goes on and on. Each time my car is searched, I'm searched, they find nothing and I go away without as much a warning because they know they had no reason to stop me in the first place.
Here's a good story...
My cousin and I were cementing the base of my aunts garage. I went in the house to get more cement. When I came back out I find two officers, with weapons drawn pointed at my cousin. Now to draw the proper mental picture my cousin is of course black, the officers are white, one is holding a shotgun, the other is holding his sidearm. My cousins hands are covered in cement, he has a bucket of cement at his side, and a spatchel (or whatever its called) in his hands. I say "what the heck is going on here?". Cop1 "we got a report of break ins in this area". Me "Are you blind? We live here, we have for 10 years! We're fixing the garage." cop2 "Sir put your hands up!" I put my hands up, this exchange goes on for 5 minutes. They get a radio call, and proceed to their car. I request the officers badge number to file a complaint. He slams the car door in my face and they drive away.
The sad thing is I have many more stories like this, and so does pretty much every black person I know. Maybe from now on I will start video taping myself everywhere I go.
The past is just the present only older -me-
That's not true. Read the White House conference transcripts. They rip Mclellan a new one daily.
"Your papers please" comes to Ohio
And it was the republican house & exec branch that made it possible.
and a few fingerprints.
No ID required.
See? Wasn't that easy?
No need to detain anyone.
to know your local and state laws.
Some states do not allow a traffic stop by unmarked vehicles, for precisely the reasons you articulated (my prior law enforcement service was in such a state... traffic stops were ONLY by marked units).
Some states do allow unmarked cars... but you're exactly right about the danger... lonely road, by yourself, female, etc... I wouldn't stop either. What I would do is call 911 on your cell phone, advise them where you are, that you have a questionable police car following you, and you want to verify that they're legit. If it's not for real, they'll be very interested... there's few things cops hate worse than fake cops.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Show us your papers and you get to spend the night at home.
Convict has escaped from some holding area. has enough time to change his appearance just enough. If you look like this person or yrou acting suspicious does a cop not have the right to ask who you are and to prove it. if now how are they to do thier job. Just because a cop asks for ID doesnt' mean he is trying to arrest you. Hey i'm a black man in LA and yes there have been times where i've felt unfairly picked out from a crowd. However i'm a law abiding citizen who pays taxes and likes the fact that the crime rate in my community isn't bad. Thus if a cop asks for ID i'll give it to him. No he doesnt' have to say please or thank you. It would be nice btu he doesnt' have to. I think an unfair comparison is being made to Natzi germany. This is simple a cop trying to do his job, seperate the bad from the good, based on teh general priniciples and premis of the consitution and law. and prosicute the guilty. People need to realize in teh real worl someone who is an evil child mulestore looks no different from a say yrou standard joe schoe. Half of police work is based on gut and instinct. If you see someone sitting at the side of the road for no apparant reason, it is within your means to evaluate that person. That may involve checking his ID and letting him know hey i'm a cop and i'm watching you. something as simple as that could diture a would be rapist. sorry for the grammer.
Actually they need reasonable suspician to stop and question you, not probable cause.
Probably cause to believe that a specific crime was committed and that you specifically committed it would be a level of certainty next to impossible to obtain without knowing specifically who you are anyway (ie identifing you in some way) in a lot of situations. Specifically when crimes are witnessed by citizens instead of the police (which is how it works most of the time). 2.2 police officers per 1000 citizens in this country makes it impossible for them to witness much if any crime on their beat.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
All I can say it is going to take a long time for the USA to get any respect from the world. I think maybe the US government should just ban the media already, so they can do their dirty work in private. God bless France and Canada
Dave - I think we mean the same things. I wasn't trying to be technical with "probable cause" but was trying to say that the officer needed some reasonable answer as to why he feels it is necessary to require me to speak with him if I don't feel like doing so.
I have never had a problem in the big cities. This is most probably because I am white. The police there have focused their efforts on hispanic and Af-Am people. If you want to hear about civil rights violations, how about the kid who was just shot and killed for walking on the roof of a housing project in NYC?
But when I go down to the beach in small town Long Island, I often run into cops. Either rent-a-cops who will watch me as I walk down a long, empty avenue, or the real police.
Here are your rights (as understood by the court up until now):
1. The police have a recognized right to try to stop and talk to you. (i.e., don't get all like "hey, you have no right to bother me. I ain't doing nuffing wrong.") Argue with it if you like, agitate to change the system, but don't bother to try to change it right there.
2. The police have a (generally) recognized right to ask you where you're going and where you're coming from. This is a bit fuzzier.
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:
1. NOT make any sudden movements, jump around, act agitated, or get nervous. Look, I know you want to exercise your rights, and if you're (like me) a white male who's never been in trouble with the law you are probably the most likely to succeed, but calm the hell down. If you can't calm down, you have lost. Bzzt. Sorry, Constitutional Crusader.
2. Do not elaborate. Repeat what you have said. Refuse to show your id. Expect the officer to play mind games.
3. Once you have repeated your refusal not to show your id, ask, very calmly, "am I free to go?" If the officer says, "no," ask "am I under arrest?" Repeat this question until you get a firm answer. If he says "no," then say "as I am not under arrest, I wish to go. Am I free to go?"
4. If questions of searching, "helping out" or otherwise obliging come up, repeat "I do not consent." This is robot time, people, don't get involved in a debate.
This is the ACLU 'Bust Card.'
It's the way it works. If you really care, give $100 to the ACLU. They work on these things, and they really have been effective in a huge number of national, state and local cases. They don't just cover the big ones.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Fight back is a good idea. You missed one important point: get their id. By law they must give you their badge ID. When they stop you for no reason all you need is a lawyer to file charges against them.
BTW, while technically they are not required to help you in getting that id, if you don't have a pen handy and they refuse to lend you their's, write a formal letter of complaint to the police chief. Might or might not result in anything, but it will go on his record. (In most areas you can and should check that record to make sure it is there)
I can almost hear Jello Biafra...I'm actually rather surprised that the LA police were all that interested in the ID of someone not directly involved in the comission of a crime.
Sing along now... the dead kennedy's are listening.
...
>>>
I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president
Carter power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school
California uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Now it is 1984
Knock knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool neice
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower...
DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will creak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
I think that the way the cops always go into a chickenshit screaming fit 'put your hands up! put your hands out where we can see them!' in their shrill panicky voice, escalates the situation. If there wasn't anything 'wrong' going on, there is by the time the dust settles.
It's chickenshit cop-panic-mentality at it's worst. It's surprising it gets on the air, but it always does.
---
Dennis Kucinich www.kucinich.us voted against the PATRIOT ACT in congress, and forcefully supports the elimination of it as well as it's related nonsense. He also supports repealing NAFTA and removing the US from the WTO, etc. Yeah, that's why he isn't going to win, but he makes a lot of great points. I wish he got more coverage! He's the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, who I have ever felt excited about- once I heard him talking about his platform on NPR I was in shock to hear a candidate who actually made some sense. just an FYI!
EOM
Don't recall which case, but the supreem court has ruled that cops do not have to protect you. Case came out when one man broke into a house where 3 women lived, trapped them all in a bedroom, and was raping them. One women (under the bed?) managed to call the police. When they came to the door he answered, and said "no, everything is alright. No, you cannot search without a warrent." (or words to that effect) After the police left he went back to the rape.
A commonly cited case when gun control people bring up the police.
Expanding on the above (and noting that IANAL, I just took a class on the Supreme Court here at the university)
The Supreme Court is a court of limited appelate jurisdiction* so cases rarely start there and thus they generally hear appeals from other courts. The "limited" part means that they decide if they want to hear any case. They are only obligated to hear cases over which they have original jurisdiction (which is defined in the Constitution, and which is narrow enough that it almost never happens).
To be considered by the court, four of the nine justices must decide that they want to hear the case. There are several reasons why a judge may want to hear (or why they may NOT want to hear) any given case. I forget the exact statistics, but they only hear something like one in one hundred cases. I remember some figure of less than 10,000 cases being appealed to them and a figure of something on the order of 100 actually being heard by them. They can rule either by just reading all the material supplied by both sides and then ruling on it, or they may do the rulings after having oral arguements from both sides. In oral arguements, they ask lots of hard questions and can interject or go on a rant at any time whatsoever. The Chief Justice (currently Rhenquest) is charged with keeping them on task (some of them have a habit of just talking to each other during the arguements, others are more engaged...) The judges aren't very constrained, but the lawyers for both sides are very much on their toes. God help you if you don't have a ready answer; they're not there just to have you restate what you said in all your briefs...
Sometimes, the justices want to hear a case to affirm some precident. This isn't all that common--there just usually isn't any reason to hear something just to affirm it (though this does happen for various reasons). Statistically (and this is part of what my university course was on!), they intend to reverse or vacate any case they hear. When they reverse it, they decide in favor of the person who lost the last round in the court system. When they vacate a ruling, they send it back to the previous judge with instructions about what that judge should not have done. Usually, it doesn't direct the judge to come to any particular conclusion, but it tells the judge how they may or may not arrive at their conclusions (e.g. directing them to ignore/take into account certain evidence, etc.).
There are also reasons why they may not want to hear any given case. Perhaps some justice is afraid that "their side" will "lose" and set a bad precident.
When I say "their side" I should qualify that. If you do the statistics (as my prof did both in class and in the book he wrote, which was a class text), some justices tend to agree with each other more often than the others, whereas others are nearly polar opposites (agreeing in only something like 20% of the cases). Dividing the Supreme Court into "liberal" and "conservative" will get you a fair correlation, but it doesn't really represent a sharp distinction concerning their judgements. The justices certainly have their own political views, but they're not slaves to them and everything depends on the respective merits of the case--you can't just sit back and figure that the five of nine "conservative" justices will win you your case. There are several "swing" justices, in any event, who will muck up any predictions you try to make about any particular case. The statistics just aren't the whole story.
So this is a wild tangent, I know, but if you're wondering, this should have given you a better insight into how the Supreme Court makes decisions. I know that it comprises much of what I learned in that class...
* The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction--usually only over things like treaties the US has signed. Original jurisdiction means that they get to hear a case before and instead of any other court, by the way. Generally, they get cases ap
I can't wait till I'm 60, then I can go on a furniture stealing spree!
It's interesting that so many people dislike this kind of intrusiveness, but they just love the fact that every year you're forced to give up a lot more information on your tax forms. I guess things are different when you benefit from them personally.
Or, he could first try and talk to the people involved. Figure out what's going on. If you read the story it seems that mr. hiibel did nothing wrong. Even if they had enough prior evidence to arrest mr. hiibel they are extremely difficult to deal with. He repeatedly asks them what he's being arrested for with and is repeatedly given the run around. I find it disturbing that the cops just walk up and handcuff him and his daughter for excercising their rights. At the very least they could have spoken to him (without obtaining his ID) and his daughter and sorted out the situation. This is a case of sloppy policework and power hungry or impatient officers.
Photos.
Actually, it'd make excellent TV, but not for COPS, which depends on keeping good relations with law enforcement agencies to be able to keep making shows.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
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...
Don't worry, that whole puberty thing will be over before you know it.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
One of the deputies (Bubba?) goes to arrest a guy, who then resists, saying "Why you arresting me?"
Bubba replies, "For resisting arrest!"
Of course, it's not quite the same thing, but WTF.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Of couse. I hate both parties, but it did get plenty of Democrat support in Congress too. It was a bi-partisan bill.
Oh really? I;m going to have to start asking for badge IDs as a matter of course. False arrest and harrassment charges are rather easy for a good lawyer to win. Cops may not like it, but they must give you those IDs when you ask.
IF the cop is less than polite make sure you get that id and file a complaint. Psychology studies have shown that cops are in a position of power that is very easy to abuse, you need to remind them that you are watching.
There are several independents in the middle of the Supreme Court who can swing either way.
They cannot properly be very well aligned with either party in my oppinion. That is, their oppinions do not necessarily align with those of whichever political party they might belong to, if any.
They don't all always let their political leanings affect their judgement, anyhow. There's an ideal (which is certainly not always adhered to) which says that they are not supposed to consider their own personal feelings or political beliefs, but only that which is considered to be proper jurisprudence....
Things continued in that state of suspended animation for weeks, although some things did happen. Newspapers were censored and some were closed down, for security reasons they said. The roadblocks began to appear, and Identipasses. Everyone approved of that, since it was obvious you couldn't be too careful."
--Margaret Atwood
The Handmaid's Tale
So I'm walking home from my high school, which is less than a mile's worth of walking. It was about 8 PM in a small town in the Midwest, and the cop/me conversation went kind of the same way yours did. Lots of spotlight shining, then a second cop walks up and asks the same questions that the first cop did. Lots of running their hands along the utility belt and holster area. Finally, they revealed that two guys about 6 feet tall in dark clothing had been reported breaking into cars, hence their reason for stopping me.
I was about 5'6 at the time, if that, and wearing a white t-shirt and these silly light-colored jeans. Before they let me go, after asking where I was headed ("home"), they asked for my name and my parents' names. I gave them my name & mentioned my parents as "Mayor and Mrs. $firstname $lastname" (which was true). I had no problem tattling to daddy when I got home, that's for sure. Small town politics rock. Dumb bastards.
Couple of years later, I was in college but visiting a friend back home. We had been hanging out with these sluts (yes, Beavis, sluts are like, cool and stuff) and we were driving one of them home in my buddy's car. It was pretty late at night, but we were all sober and my friend was driving at or slightly below the speed limit, because he's paranoid like that. He pulls over to park so the cop car that's been following us for several blocks can pass us by. Cop car pulls up, blocking the road, rolls down his window. Looks at us, spotlight-thingy shining right in our eyes. My friend rolls down the window, says "Can I help you?", and my friend responds quietly, politely, and very briefly to every question, offering no more information than the cop asks for. Cop never asked our names, but asked a lot of questions repeatedly, then drove off after he decided he'd hassled us enough.
I don't look like a criminal. I look like a pitiful little harmless dork. I also looked like a kid, however, and my experience tells me that in a cop's mind kid = easily hassled = less real law enforcement gets done, because that's sometimes dangerous and we don't like it = profit!
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
"What everyone here seems to be missing is the fact that the officer was responding to a report (eg, some other citizen called the police)"
Seriously. So what? Anyone can make a report. But there are people who are hired and trained to make the distinction of whether or not a crime has actually taken place, and we call them "the police." This is not a citizen's arrest, this is an arrest by an authorized agent of the state. It takes, or at least, it should take, more than a phone call to arrive at a determination of probable cause.
A bith certificate declare that a person with a given name was born to parents of vertian names on a certian date at a certian hostpial and is endorsed by a doctor and a registrar. It does not proved other information such as picture or vital stastics to identify a person. Further, it is state issued, not federally issued. Finally, it's not a card or something you carry around.
The reason it is proof of citizenship is because the siple act of being born here is enough to make you a citizen. That isn't true of all countries (France for example). It also isn't proof positive. You can be born in the US and later immigrate to another country. That doesn't invalidate your birth certificate, it is just a record of your birth.
Other nations DO have national ID cards which ARE proof of citizenship. My Certificate of Canadian Citizenship is just that. It provides my name, vital stastics (picture and description) and postiviely identifies me as a citizen of Canada. Some countries go quite a bit farther with their national IDs.
On one side we have the requirement to provide an ID any time a police officer requests it.
On the other side we have someone requiring the exclusion for investigaters.
So on one hand we have the police state where all people are identified.
On the other hand we have a socity where the police are themselfs exempt from certen laws.
And this is an improvment?
I just wanted to point this out.
Baby steps. If the defendent wins it opens the door to make law enforcment officers a privilaged class.
If the prasicution wins it opens the door to demanding identification of anyone any time any place for any reason.
I don't actually exist.
Do you know how hard it is to wage class warfare without people catching on?
And then... to have the indentured servants unable to work because of pot?
That simply won't do... too much energy has been expended to create those wage slaves.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
For anyone who truly believes you have a fighting chance
I would continue on, but alas most people don't understand the politics behind the legal system. Just look at the Martha scam... In case you're too blind to know the truth, she's on trial for going on television and stating "I didn't do anything" nothing more. What does the media and DoJ do? They overhype it to look as if Martha is on the same level as the Enron, Tyco mobsters. Give me a break. Your best bet is to get over it, it happens (legal shaftings) much more than you think I know firsthand.
MoFscker
A lot of the COPS car chases involve stolen vehicle checks/pursuits. But tell me: aren't a lot of these stolen vehicles Ford Escorts and early-80's vintage Buick Century's. Do the criminals ever learn to steal such stuff? Do the cops ever learn to engage in high-speed chases to recover such junk (which the suspects wreck anyway along with the sargeant's patrol car)?
Why oh why couldn't he just have said with a wave of his hand, "You don't need to see his identification..."
The police officer was dispached because of a 911 call for a possible domestic violence situation. I'm not sure if that meets the muster for legal "probable cause" (maybe it does, I really don't know), but that's common sense probable cause right there. And yes, I'm aware that legal muster is what's important, not what I think is common sense. But apparently every court up to his state's supreme court agrees with me, so far. Identifying the parties involved, be they suspects, witnesses, or what have you is critical, and one of the first things done in an investigation of any type. And it was an investigation of a possible crime, not just some officer randomly harassing people for their "papers". What if the guy had past domestic violence arrests and/or convictions, and here's ANOTHER call to 911 claiming that someone witnessed he just hit his daughter? And it's well known that many domestic violence victims lie to cover for the aggressor, so the reliability of anything she says is automatically suspect (not saying that any of this was the case here, but it's all too common). Identification is one of the most basic elements of an investigation for numerous, and I hope obvious, reasons.
talking works in the appropriate setting... but sometimes you need to get control of the situation quickly, particularly if there's potential violence involved.
I vividly remember one dashboard camera video of a traffic stop that resulted in a huge shootout, but began as a young man standing up for "his rights." The driver is out of the vehicle and off to the side of the road, talking with the officer. He's repeatedly telling the officer that he doesn't want to be frisked, or placed in the police cruiser, because he doesn't want to be "violated like that." The officer was very polite, and tried to explain everything to the young man... but that's not the scary part. The scary part is that on the tape you can see the young man's brother still in the vehicle, out of view of the officer, putting on body armor, retrieving weapons... time is not always on your side.
Conceptually it's similar to what we do with dynamic entries in SWAT; we move in rapidly, take total control, and overwhelm any resistance before they have a chance to think, plan, or regroup. I've not seen the video in this particular case, but I suspect the cop wanted to control as many variables as he could, and that means all parties involved, including the daughter. Additionally, the officer had no way of truly verifying their relationship... could have been pimp/prostitute, prostitute/john... even husband/wife. You'd be surprised how many wives of abusive husbands attack the cops, particularly when it becomes clear their old man is going to jail.
There is such a thing as taking "stand by your man" too far.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
If some cop wants your ID, do you have to give it to them? As far as I know, the answer is "no." I suspect this is what the supremes are going to be talking about.
If they want to arrest your ass, then they should arrest your ass. If they're not going to arrest your ass, then they should leave you well enough alone.
Did you know that you can say "no" if the police ask you if they can do something? Probably not - and the cops will jump all over you if you do that. But it's your right not to consent to a search.
I just have to wonder how different this conversation would be if the guy was a wanted killer. Here an older guy is in an altercation with a woman, an officer asks who he is 11 times and gets no reply more helpfull than f**k-off. If the cop says ok... I don't want any trouble here... and backs away, gets in his car, and leaves, then the woman gets beaten to death; he would have heck to pay if it turned out the guy was a wanted killer. For that matter, even if the guy was not wanted, and he killed the woman the cop would rightly have been at least fired for not getting a complete story and knowing who to look for. I understand we are heading down the slope to the national number stamped on our foreheads, but honestly; lets get real here...
In Soviet Russia, the police...um apparently operate the same way as those in Nevada.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
1. Read Juise's post above. Civil rights at this point in time is not about Thoreau-ish arguments about showing an ID nobody cares about. It matters, right now. Learn, be informed, join the ACLU.
2. I like Thoreau, and also care about the Thoreau-ish arguments about showing an ID nobody cares about. I think it's an important thing to increase the "time penalty" police suffer for randomly asking people for ID.
3. If you are going to do this sort of thing, expect your life to be more difficult. The police may decide that you are suspicious, and take you in for questioning. There is nothing you can do (I mean, what are you going to do? Throw a punch? Moron.) You may be fined. If you refuse to pay the fine, you may go to jail, or be "fined" by a lawyer who will try to defend you. Do not expect much sympathy from your town.
4. Thus: only do this if you are willing to take the heat. Think carefully, and ahead of time, whether the particular issue you care about is important enough to get you in trouble for. If you decide to exercise the full extent of your rights, your life will not be easier in the short-run. To me, the freedom to walk alone on the beach, or in the city among my fellow citizens, without having to answer to any authority is very important, and it is something I am willing to go through a lot for; but I have thought about it. It helps me stay calm in the cases when I am challenged for doing it.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Ok. Convenient that in the synopsis, K5 and /. left out the "we heard you guys were fighting". If a law enforcement officer suspects criminal activity, you should shift into "yes sir, no sir" mode, if you turn into Mr. Asshole, then they will put you on the ground and hogtie you. Would you people have us live in Anarchy? If this were a simple case of "let me see your papers" it would be different. RTFA, make your own conclusions, don't get fed this tripe. IIRC, when you are detained by a peace officer, you are under "custodial arrest", meaning you can't leave, but you are not under arrest either. Bottom line, cop thinks these two were beating each other up, told them so, then asked for ID, cowboy turns into cowboy from hell , cop puts him on ground and hogties him. Why the legal system would put up with this garbage is beyond my comprehension, when there is real corruption, like the Texas officers who made up evidence to put poor Black and Latino innocents in jail, then collected a percentage of the money based on the street value of the "drugs". That completely floored me when that came out. Read Here
I hate sigs.
That's what you need for a warrent. For a stop or informal questioning, they just need reasonable suspicion. That, as the name imples, means they just need to see you do something that could reasonably cause them to suspect you have commited or will commit a crime. They don't need any evidence, they don't need to believe that you did, just reasonably suspect you did.
Similar to the difference between trial and grand juries. A trial jury must find that the evidence shows you comitted a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning that there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the facts. A grand jury just needs to find that there is legally sufficient evidence (the law mandidates minimums to go to trial) and reasonable cause to believe. Doesn't mean they have to think you did it, just that they could reasonably believe that you did.
And it's a pretty interesting statement, if you think about it. The forms of ID that I know about that are issued by the US government are:
tax ID
social security #
passport
military ID
green card
But citizenship is usually established by a state document, like a birth certificate. Natural US citizens have no real document proving that they're a US citizen. A birth certificate doesn't have a picture (and the picture wouldn't do much good anyway), and a drivers license doesn't have any real "citizenship" kinds of vibes.
In fact, it's a combination of documents that shows citizenship. But no one document, except for maybe a passport, would prove you're a US citizen.
Pretty neat.
Trust me, they find something. At least around here, they get away with it. Heck, this is NYC. I've found (over 40+ years) the BEST way to deal with them is
1)Try to have as little to do with them as possible
2)Be polite when you do have to deal with them
3)Get to know them, and let them get to know you, in polite, friendly situations
Like it or not, they can make your life miserable. I don't LIKE it, but I deal with it
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I think the point is that a better response to the report was to maybe ask the daughter or the father what was going on, instead of requesting ID without either knowing what they were under suspicion for.
As to the daughter trying to push her way past an officer, I think it was a huge overreaction to push her to the ground, cuff her and charge her with resisting arrest when most likely she could have been much more gently restrained.
If a cop randomly asks me for ID and I don't know what he suspects me of, no way I'm giving it to him. I think it's entirely appropriate in this situation to demand to know why the officer needs to see ID.
Sorry for being off topic, but I just felt like sharing.
Quite the contrary. Your not the slightest bit off topic.
Your story hilights whe happens when you give law enforcment officers complete disgression.
Police harrasment, assult and battery by a law enforcment office, denial of your right to a lawer.
I don't actually exist.
I've seen someone threatened with arrest for asking for the badge number of a police officer. Just because most good officers have no qualms providing badge number/ID to prove their identity doesn't mean that others won't respond with threats.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Get used to it. It's not going to change anytime soon. The revolution is coming, though, and you WILL have to decide which side you are on. Be ready.
Cato Institute's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada. They point out that even if the cops have a warrant, they not only can't make you answer questions, but they are required to warn you that you have a right to remain silent. You are free to be silent at every other stage of an investigation or prosecution, from casual conversation with cops all the way through sentencing.
Cato also discovered that more than 20 states have laws like this on the books (it's in the appendix of their brief).
You can read any or all of the briefs in the case (including my own, which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel.
That's not the point, we have a constitution, but obviously you don't believe in that paper, otherwise you would have realized just how stupid your remark was.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
Agreed.
The vast majority of cops, like the vast majority of most subgroups of society, are just doing their job and are not operating from some egomaniacal power-trip. There will be a few, as in any subgroup of society, who are just plain asses; but for the most part, the cop who pulls you over is just the guy who lives down the street, or that you went to school with.
What keeps things from being friendly and all fuzzy is that the cop doesn't know who you are. The events in Detroit this week illustrate perfectly why cops are commanding and aggressive when they pull you over. For those who don't read the news, two cops in Detroit were killed when they stopped a man for a traffic violation. He apparently had other issues they didn't know about when they stopped him.
So, as a cop who is conscious of these things, I think I would probably be just as commanding and aggressive as this cop was with somebody who is a possible domestic battery suspect. After all, more cops are injured and killed dealing with domestic battery than any other crime.
The dumbass who just felt like arguing can take his hurt feelings and go to hell. He has a reasonable expectation of safety in the presence of a cop. The cop, however, has no such expectation in the company of a potential suspect.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Now if they just want to chat, they can be polite and introduce themselves like a civilized person. I'll likely respond in kind.
Lots of cops get grief from people because lots of cops start out talking to people in "confront" mode.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Which makes me wonder why someone hasn't done a large scale FOIA request on all the dashcam footage recorded of such incidents all the time. All they need is one person reporting such abuse and a request for the footage.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
In Pensacola, FL, a 4 hour course was required before you could get a permit/license. Drug/Alcohol use were the primary topics of the course, but also mentioned was that it was an unwritten agreement (or something to that affect) that you need to carry your ID on you at all times, and present it when asked to.
Checking to see if there is the same in other states (as well as if there is provided documentation in handbooks, etc) would be very beneficial.
Personally, refusing to identify yourself is a rather silly thing to do, and creates an atagonistic relationship between the police & public (which is not how it is supposed to be).
free?
## NB: Comment here
The cop had probable suspicion to investigate the claim that Hiibel and his daughter had been fighting, but he:
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation? Sure, if he has probable cause that something illegal happened, he'll need to ID the person, but that can wait until he's taken back to the station. Probable suspicion is not enough to arrest a person, or even ask for an ID.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
they're used to that. if you really want to piss them off, do what i do: call them "cupcake".
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I left my department a year ago.
I hear what you're saying... but people are people, and have the same weaknesses, desires, and sore spots whether they wear a badge or not. (Note: I've read many of your posts, KFG, and personally think you're a valuable contributor to this forum... so much of this isn't aimed at you... don't take it the wrong way)
Anyone who has ever dealt with the public has had one of those days: some jerk was rude to them, complained to their manager about something that wasn't their fault... basically treated them like human garbage. Cops get that on a regular, recurring basis... and only other cops seem to understand it. Is a cop really ineligible to receive common courtesy? I love the excuse that because a police officer was a little too authoritative with someone in the past, that now all cops are power-hungry jerks... change "cop" to "black" or "hispanic" and you have a bigot.
Look at some of the posts in this thread... "the only good policeman is a dead policeman" (that one got removed)... "I hate punk-ass chumps who get jobs as cops"..."This is a case of sloppy policework and power hungry or impatient officers." If you give a cop an attitude like that on your next encounter, it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy all the way.
Cops need a little slack... they deal with antisocial punks all day long, and extending them some simple courtesy may be the first nice thing anyone's said to them all day (in fact, they'll probably wonder what you're up to, and react with suspicion). Cripes, you've had days like that... now imagine an entire career like that.
Of course, look at the usual slashtrolls: "f*ck the police... they're all worthless, and they signed up for that"... yeah, so insightful... To all you trolls: after your job gets outsourced to India and you default on the rent, picture a cop saying the same thing to you as he evicts you from your apartment.
Yes... how does that feel again?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I have been pulled over/stopped by police 26 times (the vast majority before I was 18 in Arkansas which has a teen curfew, so I probably deserved it.)
In each of those cases I ALWAYS asked for (and received) identification and badge numbers from the police officers involved. It's only affected me in a positive way. When you ask for bade numbers and identification you are basically letting the police officer know 'I know your limits, and I'm going to hold you accountable.'
I've known several police officers in a social sense, and I've discussed this with all of them. They all, to a man (and one woman), have the same response. They don't begrudge a citizen looking out for themeselves, and asking for ID has the affect of raising THEIR awareness that they need to be careful.
The exception to this however is when people use bade requests as a delaying tactic or a method of not answering questions. As with most things in life, you need to know the right TIME to ask for this information.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
They do in the UK.. My local police don't like me, I always ask for their badge number and call the police station to check they're legit before I'll talk to them...
They also don't like me because I filed a complaint about them crawling me on my own street after I'd gone over to the car and shown them ID, proving I lived there...
fortune -o
WTF are you on about? Do you have any links to back up your assertions that [the police] here in Seattle kill people all the time and get away with it"? Any (non-indymedia, thanks) links?
I certainly hope you aren't making the argument "well, I mean they kill people in the line of duty but but but that proves they could get away with it" --that would just be lame.
privileged because in the process of attending public school I learned both to spell and to gather important pieces of information during the process of reading, such as the fact that Hibbel hadn't been driving the vehicle. Must be that thick skull of mine--so airtight that once information goes in it never leaks back out.
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
>Most believe that if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem.
Turn it around. If the officer has no reason to suspect you, why should he/she detain you?
Or put in another way. If you have nothing to hide, why put up with being treated as a suspect?
Or point out that Terry vs. Ohio is the law of the land, and shouldn't the police, of all people, obey the law?
Or ask why people are so casual about throwing away rights that millions of veterans have died defending.
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.
This is going to sound weird, but cops are trained to do that. Wait! It's nothing personal... read on.
Most people shake with their dominant hand, usually the right... that's also the gun hand. Standard interview position dictates that the officer stay arm's length or slightly more away, and blade his body to you in an effort to keep his gun side away from you. It's awkward and puts the officer physically off-balance to shake hands from this posture, and a trained person can take advantage of that imbalance to grapple with the officer and throw him to the ground.
As for introductions, officers in some jurisdictions have been outed by having their names, addresses, etc posted on the internet. Faced with that kind of harassment, I'd hesitate to state my name either.
I'm not trying to excuse outright rudeness... some cops are that way, and I won't condone their attitude... but try to understand the police officer's environment... it goes a long way towards explaining why they do some of the things they do.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Not only is there no requirement for US citizens to carry a national ID, THERE IS NO NATIONAL ID. There are state drivers licenses and there are passports if you wish to travel overseas...currently unless you are driving...there is no requirement to carry id. You do need an ID to fly, but thats only for the airport itself.
She's quite critical during White House press conferences.
I grew up in a small town where everyone knew everyone else, and the local cops always pulled the same people in for questioning every time that something happened in town. We coined a new charge for the local cops (not that they appreciated our "attitude") and named it "Suspicion of being Suspicious." This was 20 years ago, and I see that things haven't really changed much in the attitudes of the police, but there's something larger at stake here: this court case risks institutionalizing such behavior by our police. If this case goes the wrong way with the court, it will no longer be a tounge in cheek charge in some rivalry between some small town teens and ego tripping small town cops, but instead a simple fact of un-Ameican life that the cops have a right to do this sort of thing.
Instead of just hating police officers out of turn, why don't you research your opinion and present the problems as you see them to your city counsel? They will listen, especially if you do your research. Or better yet, become a policeman and do the job better than the current officers.
We need good police officers and if you are able to develop that ability to see and treat people as individuals you would probably make an effective policeman yourself. However, it sounds like you don't view police officers as individuals though, so you might have a problem in this reguard.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Even before USA PATRIOT we knew that if a police officer simply didn't like us they could mess our lives up, after USA PATRIOT its even worse of course. It is a problem, and it must be fixed. I rather like Brin's proposal in "The Transparent Society": make every cop wear a webcam at all times while he is on duty [FOOTNOTE]. Get lots of cameras in the hands of everybody so no cop ever feels that he is unrecorded. If I was a cop I wouldn't like this, and frankly I don't like that its necessary. I'm quite sure that the number of bad cops is quite low, but they do exist and as citizens of a free country we must be assured at all times that the police are not out of control.
The other thing we must do is to recognize that making the police's job easy is not always the best course of action. It would be much easier if the police had DNA records for every citizen, as well as finger prints, retinal prints, body profile, etc. It would make their jobs easier if they didn't have to get warrents, if they could arrest anyone at any time for anything. The point is that they have a hard job and unfortunately it isn't always in our best interest to make it easier.
.
FOOTNOTE: Naturally we'd have to make exceptions for police officers preparing for raids and the like; but I want their webcams simply time shifted so that the feed isn't released until after the raid, not simply turned off for that duration. Allowing the powerful to operate in secrecy is simply a bad idea. We must make the police accountable, thus answering the old question: "Who will watch the watchers?" We all will.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
you're "Jim on the Parade committee"
"Tyrone on the Parade committee" just didn't sound as good, did it? (It's nice to think that "Barabara on the Parade committee" would probably work, but unfortunately "Taneesha on the Parade committee" still won't.)
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I don't think it's really comparable to that at all. The Police Officer in question was responding to a domestic violence call involving an adult man and a female child. When he arrived he saw two people that matched this description. He made a quite reasonable request to see ID which was refused. The guy never asked him if he had probable cause to ask for ID -- he just refused. His body language wasn't exactly friendly either.
Mind you, that's no defense for what they did to his daughter. I would expect my daughter to be somewhat hysterial if I was in the process of being arrested too. But then I also wouldn't choose to make a political statement in a situation where my daughter could be hauled off to jail as a result of my actions. Maybe he should have thought of her first instead of making his stupid stand.
For the record I've refused to show ID to a police officer once on princepal. For starters he knew damn well who I was (small town) and I wasn't involved in the incident. I was eating breakfast at a small cafe and some drunk guy had an argument on a payphone with somebody (presumably his wife?) -- when he left he kicked the glass door and shattered it. Naturally they called the cops.
The officer who responded had been my DARE instructor many years prior (I love small towns) -- he called me by my first name when he entered the establishment. Then they started asking for witness statements -- I had no statement to give because I didn't witness anything. I was on the far side of the cafe and hadn't seen anything -- just heard it. I told them this and they refused to accept it at face value.
"Are you sure you didn't see anything?"
"I'm positive."
"I find that hard to beilive."
"I was focusing on my newspaper and my breakfast. I'm getting ready to go to work."
[nods as he's taking notes] "Uhh huh. Do you have ID on you?"
"Yes, why do you need to see it?"
"May I see your ID please?"
"No, you may not. Am I a suspect in your investigation?"
"No you aren't. May I please see some ID?"
"No you may not."
"How did you get here?"
"I drove."
"Then you need to have your license on you."
"I do have it on me, but you don't need to see it."
"Sir, may I please see your ID?"
"No, you may not. You know good well who I am."
At this point the Officer gave up. Or so I thought. When I walked out to my car to leave I noticed another cruiser sitting there -- both officers watched me climb into my car. It was obvious they were going to pull me over the minute I started it. Being the stubborn bastard that I am and refusing to concede my point I called a friend and arranged a ride to work. Picked up my car later in the day. Waved to the officers as I left in my ride. Not a damn thing they could do about it.
Check and mate. I win. But I was actually in the right. I don't think this guy has a chance in hell. I'm typically defend him (hell I just spent the whole day arguing against mandatory roadside BAC tests on another story) -- but he's obviously in the wrong here. The Police Officer was just trying to do his job.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You should watch the Canadian version of COPS.
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.
Excuse me. I don't have to go and prove I'm innocent to anyone with a badge who happens to not like my looks. Police officers cannot go and simply ask me for identification or my name for no reason whatsoever. Perhaps your 'law enforcement background' has made you less sensitive to constitutional rights and so I can see why you wouldn't see a problem here. And my mother would be proud that I'm not a good little 'young pioneer'
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Won't whey want to check if you're drunk? ;-)
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
This is a problem in America: people for whom the system has worked reasonably well have no call to question whether it works that well for everyone. They just assume it does, because that thought is comforting. If it doesn't work for someone, they assume that it is that person's fault, not the system's.
...how I feel about X Windows!!!!
Is it reasonable to be asked for your say drivers license if a cop comes to your car? I had always assumed we were to show it.
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...
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 no deep observation. What are they supposed to do to assert their authority, lecture you? No. When you question my penis size, I have two choices, show you the penis in question or just verbally defend myself. I'd choose to show you my penis and with your attitude I'd probably billy club you over the head with it. With my penis size I'd have to knock you to the ground and pelvic thrust your head, and I'd do it too. I know judo.
Don't ever question authority...especially that of my penis.
Read the link I posted from epic... it was not a situation of someone being rousted for their looks. Seriously... read about it. I'm not involved in law enforcement now, but even in my current role as a joe citizen, it certainly seems objectively reasonable.
;)
You're correct, BTW... an officer can always ask for your ID, but if he has no reason to suspect you of anything, you don't have to give it to him. Politely ask if you're under arrest or being detained... if the answer is no, simply state that you're in a time-crunch to be somewhere, and that unless you're under arrest, you'll be leaving. Unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, he cannot stop you from politely saying "no thank you" and walking away.
Also, it's police "explorer," not pioneer
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
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!
Is Slashdot shifting its focus from computer gadgets and networks and Linux to nothing more than a political commentary board? How is this story 'News for Nerds'?
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? What does this have to do with "nerd stuff"?
This particular story reeks of an editor foisting a political viewpoint on an audience guaranteed to work themselves into a frothy lather over it (isn't that called trolling?). It belongs on a Political site, not Slashdot.
Oh and yes, I did reply to this thread so that it would actually be read. The parent troll was modded down appropriately. Thanks for reading this.
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.
When you are pulled ove by the bad 15% of cops. These are equally divided between Rookies(who are just scary with their lack of experienced judgment) and the overzeaulous assholes who harrass everyone (god complex). The rest are good people who would rather help than anything else. I knew a good one when I was a teen, carried the same ticket book for 8 years, never used it up.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Why the hell should I waste my valueable time to goto some PD citizen counced to kiss arse. Just so when the local bacon is rummaging through my neighborhood he looks the other way as he comes to me. This totally defeats the ability for police officer to be impartial. Don't get me wrong it doesn't hurt to have a few good karma points when doughnut face is lurking around the corner.
Godwin's law transgressed on the first post? I daresay that must be some sort of a record... even for Slashdot.
is that this is NOT a case of "can I have your papers, please?" I know RTFA is verboten on slashdot, but I wish, just once...
There was a report of a witnessed assault/domestic violence, the police officer arrived to find a man matching the description, who appeared potentially intoxicated, and had a real bad attitude towards the police. This constitutes at least reasonable suspicion (the standard to detain for ID), and with the witness testimony, borders on probable cause (the standard to arrest). This wasn't a guy just minding his own business...
Police have to have some kind of articulable, reasonable suspicion to detain you for ID, and they have to be able to articulate that reasonable suspicion in court, or they lose their evidence, and along with it their case. This was not just some joe getting rousted for no reason.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Actually in most places (I'll use Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Dept. as an example) Your badge number doesn't mean anything, because it's not unique, they use an "EMPLOYEE NUMBER" to identify themselves, but no one knows to ask for that - cute way for the police to answer the "What's your badge number?" question without having to create huge amounts of paperwork for complaints when an arrest/ticket isn't involved.
I've had the unpleasant task of filing a complaint against a peace officer for assault in TN (This was over 10 years ago) because of mistaken identity (they got confused as to who had caused a disturbance that involved me as a witness and tackled me from behind upon arrival before asking a single question of anyone including the person that called them.)
I was threatened repeatedly in that nice "Are you sure you want to file these papers, I mean, most officers don't take kindly to this sort of thing." way.
Hey, I'm all for cops doing whatever it takes to defend themselves and make it home safe at night, but, the law is the law, and if you visit the site , and watch the video, he didn't break it, maybe he was a little bit rude, but it isn't a law that you have to have ID - he told him time and time again that he had none on him. Further, if the officer was so concerned about the 911 call, perhaps he should have taken Hiibel up on the offer to cuff him and DETAIN him (you can detain without arrest) while he actually did some investigation. ID or no ID he didn't care about why he was there, he just wanted to make an arrest when the guy didn't give in to his unconstitutional demand.
This is an important case because it could give the police that much more to arrest and detain and confiscate property with - I mean do you want to go to jail, and lose all your property, because you were near a disturbance and forgot your wallet at home?
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
A couple of publicized cases have come down in the last couple years. One said police who find drugs by squeezing soft luggage on busses or trains cannot open the bags. One said infrared on houses for pot lights is an illegal search. So its really a case by case basis thing.
However one thing you must realize is that bad searches happen all the time, because local jurisdictions [captains, the public, DAs] want drug criminals prosecuted because it scores points with the soccer moms.
What they do is perform an illegal search on an ignorant person they suspect, but have no probable cause for. They sometimes find something, and then lie about their rational when they have to justify themselves in court: Your honor, I was talking to this gentleman on the street when the bag just fell out of his pocket .
This doesn't fly in federal courts--judges there will tell you to fuck off, and don't show your face in here again--but state judges buy it because they aren't so removed from the democratic process. The problem is that there are too many incentives in the system for everyone involved to get more prosecutions.
I was stopped walking on my own property and asked for ID by police.
The reason? "There's been some break-ins around here." I had long hair at the time - maybe I wasn't the "right element" for him.
Just a loser cop with nothing better to do in suburban Connecticut.
Funny, they never even came to the house after I reported that someone batted my mailbox 8 times in one month.
Well,
If you pick the RIGHT thing to volunteer for, you'll get Karma points for more than the local Police officer!
That parade? It might be the one for MS, or MD, or the JDRF, or Breast Cancer, or "Make a wish" - and your helping out a bunch of sick people who could use the help. Maybe it make YOU feel good about yourself, and you get your cop karma - hey' REAL karma, and cop karma in one
Think about it....
as someone once said "The world is run by people who show up"
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Wow. You're pretty worthless, aren't you? What kind of winner says something like that? Life must sure have been fair to you!
(Awww. Does the tough boy cry inside?)
-FL
A better solution is just to ignore the police officer completely. By saying "no" you are asserting your intentions and this constitutes an act. By not responding to the officer you are giving him the burdon of action.
...
... ...
Case in point; one time my car was being illegally towed (the driver hadn't finished connecting my car to his, which is the law here in Eugene OR), when he refused to release my vehicle, I responded by entering my vehicle and locking the doors. Of course it's illegal to tow a car with someone in it, so the driver had to call in the police (yes I'm serious). At first two officers came and asked me to come out... I ignored their request and instead stated my reasons why my car was being illegally towed. Then they asked if I had ID and I presented it. Then they asked me to come out, but this time I ignored them. They said that I didn't come out they were going to break the window and pull me out and arrest me for resisting an officer. "Sounds a little excessive." I said, and that shut him up.
Not knowing what to do, they called in two more police officers so now there is 4. These next two cops pretty much do the same as the first officer, ask me to come out and I ignore them, just staring straight ahead.
Now they call two more officers, so there's six total, and they all get a chance at trying to get me out of my car, and they all get the same treatment.
Well they can't figure it what to do, so they decide to call the sergent, for a total of... 7 police officers.
So the sergent is obviously going to have the final say so I start talking, and when he asks for me to get out of the car, I simply say that I can talk to him just the same sitting in my seat, and that with my car on a tow hitch and 7 officers surrounding me he has my full assurances that I'm not going to try and run away. So he tells me that he's going to have his officers break the window and pull me out.
ME: For what?
HIM: for resisting arrest
ME: what am I being arrested for?
HIM: interfering with a police investigation
ME: how can there be an investigation if no crime has been commited?
HIM: You are resisting a lawful order given by a peace officer, which is a felony
ME: Why do you need me out of the car to talk to me when I can as easly talk to you right now?
on and on... it went like this for about 5 mins, but never did I tell him "no". Everytime he askes me to step out I always respond with "but why is that necessary...". Very sticky situation for him, I'm not disobeying yet I'm not obeying at the same time. Finally it comes down to this.
HIM: are you going to come out of the car?
ME:
HIM: this is your last chance to get out or I'm going to have my officer break in and pull you out.
And then I drop the bombshell.
ME: Officer, I want to inform you that this conversation is being recorded, and anything you say or do could be used against you in a civil court of law. (HA! I just read him his rights!)
HIM: It's illegal to record without informing the person. I could have you arrested for...
ME: I have legitimate belief that my car is illegally being towed and if the driver disagrees then he should take it up in civil court. I don't believe that this situation warrents the use of police or the excessive use of force, and I don't believe that your order for me to step out of this car is warrented or lawful, given the fact that I am in a vehicle that is immobile, and that there are 7 officers surrounding me.
HIM: If you don't step out of this car right now, then I am going to arrest you and you are going to have a felony, and you are going to spend time in jail. Do you want to spend time in jail? I'm trying to help you, but you are making this difficult. Do you want a felony because you simply didn't want to pay the truck driver the fee?
ME:
HIM: now please step out of the vehicle
ME:
And then he just stands there, then goes into his patrol ca
This is the same Supreme court that about 6 months ago ruled that it's OK for a police officer to arrest you for ANY REASON.
Texas case, seatbelt violation, ticketable ONLY offense, took the woman to jail, sent her child to CPS, impounded car etc. Didn't like her attitude.
All perfectly legal.
Expect your notice to show up for mandatory retinal scan any day.
I've always been a Republican, but I'm carefully constructing my tinfoil hat now.
I'm going to vote, and I'm arming myself, while I still can, because I don't trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them either, but for different resons.
Say what you like about the tenents of National Socialism Dude, at least it's an ethos.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
Of COURSE it's not the way it should be. We also should have cops parking their personal cars in a no standing zone for hours, or running lights to make shift change because they are about to be late, or any one of dozens of things I see every week
My advice was based upon what I've learned up to this point in my life. Most readers here are, frankly, in their teens and early 20s - the classic 'angry young man'
What you learn when you get a little older is that often, the BEST and FASTEST way to change things is from inside the system, IF you don't become corrupted by the system. If you can do GOOD (working the parade committee for (name charity here)) while getting inside to the point where the folks in power will LISTEN to you, you get the BEST of both worlds
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
That said, I don't think the current composition of the Supreme Court will rule in a similar manner to the case you've cited. Which I see as a weakening of the Bill of Rights.
That'll have our Founding Father's spinning in their graves.
Who will guard the guards?
I wrote a piece in my journal on Jan 8th after I found out that a client had consented to a search of his car and confessed to a crime. I think it is helpful and relevant to the "Show me your papers!" issue.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
and it's so blindingly obvious, it stuns me that more people don't realize it.
Over the course of your life, you will probably never meet on the street anyone with more power that the average police officer. On his summary judgement, he can deprive you of your liberty, property, even your life, should the circumstances warrant it.
Now, why in the hell would anyone purposely and unnecessarily antagonize someone like that? Why? If they're as corrupt as some people in this thread claim, why set yourself up as a target for their harassment? Why stupidly and openly proclaim yourself their enemy? I don't understand that philosophy... thousands of years ago, Sun Tzu taught that you fight where you are strong, and your enemy is weak. On the street, you're on the cops turf, and you'll lose that battle every single time. People that have a problem with self-control had better work on it... because being faced by a bad cop on the street is not the time to lose your temper.
Even if you hate the cops more than syphilis, it's simply in your self-interest to be cool, play deep, be polite, and if necessary, get your pound of flesh later. If the cops in your area are that corrupt, work with friends, get a camcorder, keep a pocket tape recorder running... but fight the battle later, in court, and in the media, where you actually have a prayer of prevailing.
Mr. Dowd, you've diplayed more wisdom than many in this thread, and as a result will probably enjoy a long and lustrous criminal career. I mod you +1 insightful.
Like they teach new cops in the academy: smart criminals are seldom caught... dumb ones practically arrest themselves.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
If this guy was just hanging out, as stated on his website, why did he happen to have a video camera ready to go? Just kinda curious, as I didn't really spend too much time on the site. BTW: it is common procedure to ask for some form of identification in these situations to check to see if there are any warrants outstanding. That said, too many cops abuse what authority they have (there's a reason that the phrase "if they weren't cops, they'd be crooks" came to be).
For that matter, even if the guy was not wanted, and he killed the woman the cop would rightly have been at least fired for not getting a complete story and knowing who to look for. I understand we are heading down the slope to the national number stamped on our foreheads, but honestly; lets get real here...
We are being real. Reality is that what happened to Mr. Hiibel is clearly a violation of his Constitutional rights, under at least the 4th and 5th amendments.
As for your "if he was a murderer" supposition... did you watch the video??? The cop arrested the guy, ***WITHOUT EVER EVEN SPEAKING TO THE ALLEGED "VICTIM"***
All the cop had to do was go over to the daughter, ask her "what's going on??" and get the story straight before trying to play "I want to be on the Cops TV show" or "Mr. Tough Cop" or whatever, and all of this could have been avoided.
Ya know, I'm sick of people who approve (even tacitly) of the freakin' cops abusing their power like this. If you people want to live in a police state, complete with Gestapo, KGB, etc., please move somewhere else. You and your gestapo are not welcome here.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
If a police officer asks you for ID, just tell him that you will produce ID if he does the same. Is he asking for your driver's licence? Ask for his. If he refuses, ask why. Then use that same excuse when telling him he can't see yours.
Visceral Psyche Films
Follow the police around with a camera. No ride along. Just film what they do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are there websites or books from credible sources where you can learn what your rights are in various situations? Things like whether an officer can search your car, whether you have to let an officer knocking on your door in, etc. Things like this always confuse the hell out of me. I realize I could wade through the entire U.S. code and mountains of statutes, but I'd much rather see the Cliff Notes. Any advice?
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
Thanks to the "convenient" subtitles in the video on Mr. Hiibel's site we're led to believe the officer asks, "How'd you get home yesterday?". Don't look at the video and listen closely. The officer really says, "How much alcohol have you had to drink?" Why did he ask that? Because besides suspicion of domestic battery the officer was also investigating a DUI and/or public intoxication. I'd be willing to be that Hiibel was driving and pulled over after seeing a cop car. He stood on the passenger side and had his daughter sit in the driver's seat to try and fool the officer into thinking she was the driver. Obviously it worked! Hey Hiibel, thanks for wasting the taxpayer's money! I can't believe this is going to the Supreme Court.
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. 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.
scripsit nursedave:
I prefer to live in a state where there is no SS to take people ``out back''... But maybe I'm just biased after that whole Holocaust business...
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
If the program were to show that, they would no longer be invited to film the action. Just like you never see critical reporters in white house press conferences.
I wouldn't go that far.
From what I've heard about the show (can't tell you if this is true or not), if you are arrested for committing a crime that was caught on videotape, and then convicted of that crime, the network does not need permission to air the tape.
If you are found innocent, then they must get your explicit consent, and they wouldn't go through all that trouble when they have reels and reels of convicted criminals to show.
Any lawyers/law students wanna confirm/deny that that's what happens?
When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it. --Anatole France
If the court has shifted to the right, care to explain to me Gratz v. Bollinger or Lawrence v. Texas? Those would be the two most recent decisions of great significance I would think, and neither can be construed as being to the right. You shouldn't over simplify like that.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
Many geeks are extremely concerned with matters of privacy and due process. Witness (for example) the EFF, which is dedicated wholly to the protection of Internet privacy.
It may not relate to the internet, but every geek has a vested interest in not allowing privacy and due process to slip.
+++ATH0
Your best bet is to get over it, it happens
How is that your best bet? If you just accept it things will never change. I for one cannot accept injustice, and stop and nothing to correct situations, even if it takes years, or a lifetime. Everytime you swallow something like this, a little piece of your soul dies.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Anyway last night on the Dave Chappelle show they did a skit in which they point out how there seems to exist two justice systems in this country. One for the rich(not always white) folk. And one for poor(usually minorities, but not always) people. The latter is usually concerned with the draconian drug laws in this country. The former for Enron type white collar embezzlers. Anyway the jist of the skit, was what if the justice systems were reversed, what if your stereotypical crack dealer was given carte blanche to make a mockery of our justice system, treated gingerly by an obsequious police dept and given a two month stint at Club Fed. While the white collar criminal was subjected to humiliation, denial of basic rights and a long mandatory stint in pound me in the ass prison.
It was a hilarious skit, but by the end I wasn't laughing at all, as it is sickeningly true. A white collar criminal who embezzles millions of dollars, pisses away the pensions of hundreds or thousands of employees, destroys countless lives, is practically given just a slap on the wrist. Whereas a two-bit drug user perhaps only destroying himself or those immediately around him is given a huge mandatory sentence turning him into a hardened criminal and a bigger detriment to society upon his release. I try not to focus on racism in this country as it is gradually going away, but the divide between rich and poor and the buying off of justice in this country regardless of color is definitely widening...
Respondent Wardlow fled upon seeing a caravan of police vehicles converge on an area of Chicago known for heavy narcotics trafficking. When Officers Nolan and Harvey caught up with him on the street, Nolan stopped him and conducted a protective pat-down search for weapons because in his experience there were usually weapons in the vicinity of narcotics transactions. Discovering a handgun, the officers arrested Wardlow. The Illinois trial court denied his motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. He was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. In reversing, the State Appellate Court found that Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion to make the stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. The State Supreme Court affirmed, determining that sudden flight in a high crime area does not create a reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop because flight may simply be an exercise of the right to "go on one's way," see Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491.
Held: The officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case, involving a brief encounter between a citizen and a police officer on a public street, is governed by Terry, under which an officer who has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot may conduct a brief, investigatory stop. While "reasonable suspicion" is a less demanding standard than probable cause, there must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for the stop. An individual's presence in a "high crime area," standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location's characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147--148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow's unprovoked flight that aroused the officers' suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is another pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, and headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion. In reviewing the propriety of an officer's conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences from suspicious behavior, and this Court cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty when none exists. Thus, the reasonable suspicion determination must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418. Officer Nolan was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further. Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of "going about one's business." While flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U.S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. But in this case the officers found that Wardlow possessed a handgun and arrested him for violating a state law. The propriety of that arrest is not before the Court. Pp. 3--6.
This case doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on the Hiibel case. Hiibel didn't flee, and he wasn't found to be posessing a handgun, afaik. He did have a knife but nothing we saw on the video indicates that there was anything illegal about his knife.
The part about "can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct" seems like the strongest argument for saying this decision supports the cops in the Hiibel case, but I don't buy it, based on the next highlighted section "If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. " Clearly they can't just keep you there forever, and nothing here suggests that failure to show an ID constitutes evidence of criminal activity.
// 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
christ, none of you retards read anything, do you. She's 17 and seeing her dad arrested- rather upsetting, I think.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
No, Dove didn't. A phone call means he needs to investigate. He did not investigate. He did not even check on the supposed victim, nor did the other thug, er, trooper, he didn't even talk to her. Hiidel was arrested for not showing ID. Well sorry bucko, that's not something you can be arrested for.
What Deputy Dawg and his gang of bullies did was prove once again why we need the Bill of Rights, and more police oversight. Those three morons escalated what should have been a legitimate investigation into a pointless, needless confrontation. Idiots like that should not be cops.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
I was arrested for not producing an ID once.
Of course, the cops lied on the arrest report and gave a completely false reason for my arrest.
This space available.
question (and I know I'm asking this on slashdot, so I won't take it as gospel): without probable cause, they can't have a k9 search, can they? You were just being nice (in a time-consuming manner that got your point across), right?
Ok, here's the story of the night I pulled over a cop in the suburbs of D.C.:
I was driving home from work late one night (~12pm) and it's about a 15 minute drive. For some reason, I see a lot of cop cars and they are all pass me at high speed and take different exits (they weren't all going to the same place). Two of them have lights on and I happily get out of their way. Three of them don't have their flashers and I gasp to myself - "oh my god a drunk is going to rear-end me". It was this last one w/o lights that pushed me over the edge.
I'm about three blocks from my house (speed limit 35 on a six-lane road, and rightfully so because it's hilly and people can't see you when they are pulling out of their driveways), and I look in my rear-view and see one of these high-speed cars. I was all alone in the inner lane, but I don't have enough time to get out of his way. He passes me, and as soon as I see he's a cop, I start flashing my high beams - mostly in protest, but also to warn innocent motorists ahead. After a few of my flashes, he lets off the gas and coasts to a stop (again, no blue lights) - coincidently across the street from my house. It took quite a while for me going 35 mph to reach him; I'd guess he was almost double my speed -- conservatively 60+.
I pull into my parking space and he flips on the blue lights and pulls up behind me. After running my plates, he comes to the window. I calmly explain that I live at the house, how it's a dangerous place to speed, that I see it all the time there, and seeing it that many times that night just pushed me over the edge. I asked him to please use his blue lights when going fast.
He said he couldn't do that because he might give a heads-up to the evildoers (my word) at the scene he's rushing to. No convincing him, even with the driveway/poor-visibilty argument. Never mind that all the other two light-less officers I saw that night turned off onto other major roads and could clearly have used their lights for a good portion of their trips. I don't know exactly where my officer was going, but obviously it wasn't as important as some law-abiding citizen flashing his lights.
He was nice and let me go. Hopefully my message sank in and he didn't want to admit it to me, but I'm not sure.
Part of my sensitation to speeders in front of my house is that, before my office moved, I used to walk to work across all six lanes.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Do you have a duplicable image? Google is coming up empty.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Of course other biometric methods could work but RFID is successful with trackng other valuable animals like hourses and dogs. Unfortunately though, identity theft would be a lot more painful !
Don't like that view of the world ? - well this is the country that accepts that you can't get a beer without showing ID. You reap what you sow.
You know what, if a police officer tells you to do something you do it and worry about suing them later. If they really had gotten a call about a potential battery situation the police have no reason to believe him whatsoever. He's lucky they didnt draw weapons on him. Now after reading the transcript, its obvious that both the officer and dudly are not the smartest of beings. Had this case occurred in Oakland, CA or South Central LA, this would have never gotten anywhere. I dont see a case for him either. Yes his daughter was mistreated, especially considering that she was the one purportedly being battered, or at least most likely to be in the majority of situations, so I believe she would have a case, but not him. I think the judge should and ultimately will reject the case or rule in favor of the state.
Has anyone actually watched the video? The guy is being as much of an obstructive smart ass as possible, and his daughter is in a hysterical and psychotic state.
The police are left with two choices, either to leave them to possibly kill each other, or to take them in for questioning, as they totally refuse to cooperate in public.
They both got what they deserved.
actually I remember this one episode where a cop goofed and blew down the wrong door of a suspected drug house.
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
You haven't been to Moscow in a while, have you? :)
You have to carry your papers always in this city for the last five years or so, without an ID you can end up in loads upon loads of trouble. That's the way the city government keeps out illegal immigrants.
Oh, there's a good point though - they don't call people "comrade" any more.
In Soviet Russia... RUSSIANS comment on YOU.
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
You do know that you can tell a cop you don't want him to search your person or property, right? If they had probable cause and the legal right to search you anyway, they wouldn't be asking. If they ask and you say no they can't touch you (unless they can see something on you or in your car which gives them probable cause - i.e if he'd seen that bud while standing outside the car he could search it without asking).
Also, if they try to say that your refusal to allow a search is probably cause and allows them to search without consent, it's horseshit. That question was specifically dealt with in the Supreme Court and simply denying a search is not grounds for searching you.
If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them.
On an incidental note, you can get a DUI in many states simply for being drunk and sitting in the driver's seat with your keys near you.
Often, someone who is drunk starts driving, realizes they are drunk, and figured out that they shouldn't be driving, so they do everyone a favor and pull off the side of the road. Then they get a DUI. (My Ohio changed this law, and such a situation here will not result in a DUI, it will result in some greatly lessened ticket.)
If someone doesn't identify themselves in most places it's not a crime. That's the whole point. It might seem odd in certain circumstances, but that only gives cause for the officer to observe further. It's not the suggestion of a crime. That's the line that was crossed.
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.
Add to that one more issue with police: they are happy to shoot the messenger.
No doubt you can find examples of people who call up the police asking for help, and then find themselves in trouble for one thing or another.
As I like to say, you could be being beaten in your own car, and sure, the police will stop that from happening, but at the same time, they will write you a ticket for having expired plates.
I'm always hesistant to call them.
No... my question to you is this: why would you purposely act like a potential threat and gratuitously antagonize someone who can cause you great harm, inconvenience, and expense? The likelihood of that officer being a bad cop is low, but even if he's not, why are you going to reduce his chances of cutting you a break to absolutely zero by spitting in his eye? I simply don't understand it... What's wrong with being polite? Is it worth that much to you to be able to polish that attitude, have your pride, indulge your childish fit of anger and tell off that cop? I can't tell you how much further simple good manners will get you. Besides, didn't your mother teach you that just because someone else is brusque, that it's no excuse for you to be rude in return? Good grief... Some of you people... borderline misanthropes.
Back to the topic: I'd say fear is going a little too far... but a respect for what that cop can do to you isn't a bad thing to keep in mind.
Now, you may think it's your God-given right be be as big an ass as possible to everyone you meet, especially cops... well, that's fine... but that won't stop me from calling you a fool for doing so, because you're the ONLY one who will suffer.
Save your rebuttal for the appropriate venue, where it might actually succeed. On the street is NOT that venue.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
It would be negligent to forget the media's roal in the downward spiral that we have witnessed since WWII. (And maybe even before that, but I don't want to split hairs here.)
After reading up a bit on how the diamond market has been allowed to pull such a mass marketing lie over the American public it's pretty clear that the powers that be have no desire to see truth in marketing. Now just think about that, if they don't really care that we have been lied to about something as simple as some silly stone that has an inflated value for the greater glory of some very few why would they have the 1st care about how the media spins things to fit whatever purposes that serves them best.
Freedom of the press was once viewed as a cornerstone as part of our freedoms. They would watch out for any sort of acts that might impune upon this country but as of right now they spin whatever the powers that be want them to and don't really look out for the people, except when it might make them a buck.
Of course the Internet has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan and they are doing all that they can to squelch it, but thats a whole other story.
For now, for right now, Joe 6 pack and Jessica box'o'wine gets her news at 11 from CNN/FOX/Local whatever and they dictate what "the world is". They view themselves as "informed" because they have watched the news every day and hell if you try to argue with them about it, what kind of creds can you stack up to Dan Rather? I mean hell, he is part of that Great Generation that Won the War. (Nevermind all the other nasty stuff they did. Those things don't make good books.)
Anyway, I've rambeled on enough about how much the media disgusts me. If you have a clue you allready know this, if you are on the fence well look into it, if you think that I'm some raving loony go back to watching FOX News as there is no saving you now.
(PS. What is the anwser to the problem that exists right now with such things as the lies in the diamond market? Why a constant and unrelenting flogging of the FACTS on every news station 24/7 until even the dimmist of fools understand why those silly rocks have no real value. If we could do even that little thing imo we would be on the road back to honesty in our media but I hold no real hope of ever seeing that in my lifetime.)
This is a movie of the incident in question.
http://tracker.apt202.net/no_id_arrest_LARGE.mov.Please keep your downloads open. Thanks!
Anyone with any contact to the webmaster please tell them to provide that link if they would like.
I agree with you, but the subtitles and transcript are decidedly not complete, and are decidedly not complete in favor of the man and his daughter.
At one point (after being slammed to the ground and being handcuffed), the teenage daughter says that the officers are "fuckers" or something along those lines that the transcript leaves out. I think that the man might have been muttering curses from inside the patrol car (there's something going on in the background), and that was left out. Finally, there were some places where the transcript read "garbled" -- and some of these were where the guy was being more rude to the officer (not that this has the slightest bit of bearing on the legality of the whole thing).
May we never see th
This is a good point. But in Brown V. Texas the court found that the "the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion". In the Dudley case the officers were responding to a "domestic violence report" which gave them "reasonable suspicion".
If the court finds for Dudley the precendent will be that police responding to reports of domestic violence will be prohibited from temporarily detaining the suspect or checking his ID.
I may be wrong but I don't think Dudley will win. Maybe in the 60's he would have had a chance, but with today's court it's unlikey.
This officer was doing his job - its not "normal" for people to walk around very late at night in a residential area,
Jesus fucking *Christ*. Has our society really devolved this far?
Farenheight 451 was written after exactly an incident like this one. I thought that that was an abnormal and somewhat disturbing event. Now we consider it standard to stop and question people walking after a certain time?
Christ.
May we never see th
reference to the Secret Service not the Nazi's SS.
The Supreme Court is a court of limited appelate jurisdiction...
If you keep on talking about this juris-my-diction crap, you can cram it up your ass.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Concerning this case: I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience. Unfortunately I believe that he could have handled this call in a better way. This is an example of how I like to think I would handle a call of this nature. (If I was ALONE WITHOUT backup on the scene)
D: Sir, step back here and talk to me. H: Ok D: Listen, I'm here because we got a call about some fighting out here, what's going on? H: Nothing I'm not parked illegally. D: Ok sir can I see your driver's license please? H: Nope, no way, no how. D: Do you have any ID on you? H: None that I'm going to show you. D: Ok listen, I want to know who you are and I want to go check on that person in the truck. I want to make sure your not going to run off so please give me your ID. H: Why? D: I'm not going to leave you back here without knowing who you are or having some other way of making sure your not going to attack me or run off. You know who I am, but I don't know you from a mass murderer. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but for my safety I like to know who I'm dealing with. H: Not showing you nothing! D: Ok sir if you don't cooperate with me I'm going to place you in investigative detention, which means for my safety while I figure out what is going on, I'm going to put some cuffs on you and sit you down while I conduct my investigation. H: What are you investigating? D: A call for an assault or domestic violence. H: Why don't you just take me to jail now? Here. (Holds out hands) D: Ok sir put your hands behind your back, understand that your not under arrest but being detained. (cuffs and sits him on the ground) D: (approaches truck and talks to daughter)
At that point I figure out that their has PROBABLY not been an assault because both stories (obtained seperately from the two parties) seems to match up. However, as a good law enforcement officer, it does not end there. There could be something going on here that is not readily apparent. Daughter could be not talking because she thinks dad is going to beat her (it does happen!) Daughter could not be daughter at all, but kidnapped or a runaway being harbored by this guy. Somebody called the police for a reason! I will not end my investigation until I check both names for local warrants and the national computer for warrants, missing, etc, etc. Once I am satisfied that everything is on the up-and-up, I release pops from the cuffs and everyone goes on their way. With a proper warning to pops not to drive since he is intoxicated.
Again, it's easy for me to say what I would have done having ALREADY SEEN what happened. This officer was trying to do the right thing although perhaps got a little too caught up on the whole ID thing.
The moral is: Fine, if you don't want to tell me anything about anything, you will sit there in cuffs till I figure out what is going on. If nothing, your free to go. If something, THEN your under arrest. People tend to assume as soon as cuffs go on that you are under arrest. This is not always the case, and as an officer I always tell people: you're not under arrest yet, but you're also not free to go. You are in what's called investigative detention. At this point it's basically for an officer's safety, and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. An officer can hold a suspect there on the scene for a "reasonable" amount of time to figure out what's happening.
In this case, I believe that the deputy has reasonable suspicion to detain the father. 1st- the call for domestic battery. 2nd- intoxicated, somewhat belligerent man s
Weird. I remembered hearing the transcript version.
Bizarre.
Trying to find a charge, any charge, on which to "get" someone is one of the more horrifying types of abuse of power around. Deciding that someone is a generally bad person and searching for crimes they might have committed is exactly backward.
People are defined as societally problematic only by the effects of crimes they've committed, not the other way around. If you have to work at trumping up some charges, then they simply don't need to be punished, however much you may dislike them.
This becomes even more problematic because it's virtually impossible to not be enacting at least some tiny infraction at any moment, especially while driving. So people aren't really punished according to their detrimental effects on society, but on the capricious decisions of whatever law enforcement official happens to be nearby at the moment. Driving one mph over the speed limit? Tire treads too worn? Driving recklessly, disturbing the peace, or doing anything else that's defined by officer's discretion? Then your world is in the hands of the temporary feudal lord who happens by.
I think the only solution to this would be removing officer discretion from the enforcement process. Enforcement officials should be legally required to punish every single infraction of every law, however minor.
What's that you say, they could never realistically do that? Then the laws are flawed. If an act is so ubiquitous that you can't keep up with punishing people for it, then it shouldn't be illegal.
You seem to be blissfully unaware that many if not most of the cases that set precedents recognizing or upholding our Constitutional rights involve unsavory, even despicable defendants and usually serious, sometimes unspeakably horrible crimes. Look up Miranda for an example. It's the nature of the system. People whose rights have not been violated have nothing to take to court or on appeal, and most of those who find themselves at the receiving end of abuses do so as a side effect of their proclivity to interact negatively with authority. Also, it's easier and safer for anyone in authority to abuse someone in an inferior, indefensible position, such as a bad actor. The good guys tend to have little contact with authority and, when they do, tend to conduct themselves in ways that do less to invite abuse and more to communicate that abuse may well engender consequences. It's entirely logical that many of the criminal cases that rise to the Supreme Court involve distasteful people and matters.
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...
We all know it's easy for cops to trump up charges. Thanks for clarifying where you stand on that issue.
First you seperate them. This he did. Then you question them. This he attempted. Unfortunately, he was not able to leave the father due to his combative and aggressive state.
I've watched the footage, and you are spin-doctoring it. First off, they were already seperated. Hiibel was outside the vehicle and moved to the tailgate when the officers pulled up. Mimi was in the truck. He did not approach the officers in anything close to a threatening manner. He was obviously agitated but arguing with a loved one tends to do that to a person.
The bare bones fact is the officers made mistake after mistake.
Face it, the officers were acting like blowhards. First off, the officer should have repeated what he was there for. Second, he should have been forthcoming in why he wanted the ID (I'm going to need your ID so I can do a routine background check on you while my partner speaks with the young lady in the truck.) Third, he should have been forthcoming in why he was asking Hiibel to move where he was directing (Sir, I'd feel safer if we put some distance between us and the road while we talk.)
Asking an officer relevant questions, especially a request for clarification of the current situation, is every persons right.
"Be afraid to die until you have won some victory for humanity" -Horace Mann
Probable cause is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is interested in this case.
The other, probably more important aspect is the right of a person to refuse to incriminate themselves. From the policeman's perspective, being able to check a person's history is a great way to tell whether the person is a threat to their safety. Unfortunately, the act of identifying someone can also make it more likely that the officer will suspect them of a crime, and the 5th ammendment gives us the right to remain silent in a situation where what we say may incriminate us.
--Owen--
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
about 50% of the time, that's the response - 50% of the time, you have guys who don't want you questioning anything they do. I've noticed that in certain jurisdictions, the POs are OK to deal with, in some, the POs are a PITA - jeck, here in the city it seems to vary shift by shift, Precinct by Precinct
Joke is? I've _NEVER_ been arrested, _NEVER_ gotten MORE than a parking ticket. I HAVE gotten a shit load of attitude when I was younger. I ASSUME that part of the problem is that I owned a home 4 block of a "Hopping bar strip". I was usually one of the folks CALLING the cops, but if I was walking home from the train, on a Friday night, the cops all seemed to assume that ANYONE walking along the street was looking for trouble/drunk.
Like I said, human nature. They probably HAD been dealing with drunks all might
I can remember on incident where I got stopped - my wife (she is also a geek) and I were discussing real time programming while walking home for dinner. I was emphasising the clock pulses by slapin one hand into the other - something like "(slap) And then you gotta do X,(slap) then you gotta do Y, (slap) Then Z"
Well, we got stopped, and the cop was giving me a HARD time - he thought I was threating my wife. She assured him I was not, and explained the converstion. When I asked for his badge number (because he had used foul language when stopping me - I don't LIKE getting cursed at by a cop), I ended up, shall I say, detained, while he ran a full check on me - took about 30 minutes - and no, he never gave me his badge number. I was eventually free to go, with some threats about "Next time he wouldn't be so nice"
Maybe it's just one or 2 bad apples, but man, they do spoil it for the bunch - lets face it. Run into one or 2 cops like that, and your trust level goes WAY down
Well, over the years, I started doing Vol work (NOT to meet the cops, just because I want to). I found that once they get to know YOU, you get treated a lot more like a human, and you get a LOT less of the "Cop attitude" - which has been well documented. You know, the one where the world is divided into 2 classes, cops, and perps. Those that aren't cops are ASSUMED to be perps that they just haven't caught YET
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Of course not everyone in uniform in the US is like that, but nearly every single one I've met has been. I really, truly wish it wasn't the case.
The US is not as free of a country as you think it is. After all, they're going to constitutionally ban marriages. That's hardly freedom. And that's just off the top of my head from the last 2 days.
If you want to see free countries, go to Europe. If you want to see a police state masquerading as a free country, turn on Fox.
"In fact, there had already been a physical exchange between the guy and his daughter."
The only physical exchange between the guy and his daughter that I am aware of was when his daughter hit him.
"That the officer was responding to a report (eg, some other citizen called the police) of domestic violence "
1. It was an Anony-mouse tip. Not probable cause.
2. The police officer did not attempt to find out if violence had been used before the time of the arrest.
3. The police officer did not ask the name, which is a question that would have been reasonable. He asked for proof of identity, which without probable cause was not reasonable.
4. In any case, the identity of the suspect was not particularly relevant since the tip did not include the name of an individual.
5. According to state law, there is a requirement to give ID if there is probable suspicion. However, previous judgements suggest that the constitutional situation is that ID can only be required if their is probable cause.
6. The police officer had inadequate evidence at the time the man was arrested of any crime except refusing to give an ID.
"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig.
The problem here is, the guy was legally parked on the side of the road (read: not blocking traffic). The truck was off, he was out of it and at the passenger window talking to his wife. The cop used the excuse of there being the report of them having a fight. All the cop had to do was put the guy in the cruiser, talk to the wife and see what was up.
At what point did the US turn into Nazi Germany, where the police have the authority to demand identification? How long before anyone's walking down the street, looks "suspicious" (based on the cops' belief) and has the right to "see your papers"?
Equating what happened to this guy with an armed intruder is apples to oranges - he wasn't doing anything wrong. There was no show of aggression on his part, the wife wasn't in any obvious and immediate danger.
Personally, I hope Hiibel wins and sues the cop and county.
Yes, police have the authority to enforce the laws. What law was Hiibel breaking by refusing to show ID?
And, BTW, I saw the video when this was posted to Madville a couple of days ago. The cop says he's "conducting an investigation" not "investigating an investigation" - at least, I didn't hear him say that and don't recall reading that in the captions that were added.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
So its really a case by case basis thing.
The cases have been IN GENERAL moving towards more tolerance for police searches. Kyllo (the infrared case) was surprising, especially considering that Scalia wrote the majority, but it's an anomaly.
However one thing you must realize is that bad searches happen all the time, because local jurisdictions [captains, the public, DAs] want drug criminals prosecuted because it scores points with the soccer moms.
And the SC is a lot more tolerant these days then they used to be. It used to be you needed a warrant unless there were exigent circumstances. Then it became you just needed probable cause. THEN it became that the cop just needed to THINK they had probable cause.
This doesn't fly in federal courts--judges there will tell you to fuck off, and don't show your face in here again--but state judges buy it because they aren't so removed from the democratic process. The problem is that there are too many incentives in the system for everyone involved to get more prosecutions.
Federal courts are far more lax about enforcing 4th amendment protections these days. In fact, in a lot of cases you might have better luck in state courts, especially since some state constitutions have stronger 4th amendment-style protections than the federal one.
I saw a fascinating video clip on one of the US cop camera shows we get over here in the UK. IIRC a couple of state troopers had pulled a car over, alleging that it was committing some minor traffic violation. The driver, who happened to be a senior officer with a neighbouring force, clearly stated that he disagreed. During the following "discussions" he also identified himself as another police officer, and acknowledged that he was armed. He kept his composure pretty well considering, simply denying the charge and requesting that a supervising officer attend the scene.
The state troopers became more and more agitated, muttering things about "He's got a gun" and "Call for back-up" every couple of seconds. Eventually, they sprayed the guy who was pulled over, and managed to restrain him; he didn't actually threaten them verbally, draw his weapon, or otherwise give any indication of impending violence or resistance, mind, just disagreed with the charge and asked for a supervisor to attend, and then sat on a fence at the side of the road waiting.
It's all on tape from the arresting cops' car, but I'd love to know how it turned out; looks to me like two over-ego'd cops picked on the wrong guy, then got aggressive and wrongfully arrested him. They were pretty lucky the reasonable senior officer didn't decide to exercise his legal rights, probably resulting in a firefight (which, given the apparent incompetence of the arresting cops in negotiation, and the rather pathetic skills in unarmed restraint and use of spray that they demonstrated, probably wouldn't have turned out well for them, I'm thinking). The senior guy probably figured it wasn't worth the risk to all concerned, but I hope everyone got what they deserved out of that incident.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You're lucky you're not in the UK, we got rid of that right a few years back - a jury/court are allowed to read guilt into the refusal of a suspect to answer questions by the cops now.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If someone was behind the wheel, they better produce a god damn drivers licence. Cops can just type in your plate number and get a bunch of information anyway. Now this idiot is wasting my freaking tax money for being a prick.
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.
From what I can tell, Mr. Hiibel instigated the confrontation. He could have easily complied but chose not to. Also, I have some experience in this field being a Police Officer. First off, a police officer has the right to ask you basic pedigree information, such as name, address, and reason for being somewhere. It is called common law of inquiry. No probable cause is necessary. However, the person has the right to refuse to answer these questions. At this point however, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is, or is about to occur, he may detain the person in order to investigate. The officer is also under no obligation to explain what he is investigating as that may put him at risk. (Think telling a murderer that you are investigating him killing someone) If you have reasonable suspicion, and the person does not produce ID, they may be detained until they are identified. Also, in NY, where I am a PO, it is not a crime not to have ID, but if I stop you for a crime or violation and you fail to give me your id when I ask and have it on you at the time, it is a violation offense. It is a class A misdemeanor also to intentionally lie to a PO about your name, address, date of birth, etc.
My personal opinion is that Mr. Hiibel intentionally caused a confrontation with the police officer which could have been avoided if he had simply complied.
Based on a referernce therein ...
Arlington County, VA, Code section 17-13(c) Identification.
It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification
I was once carded at Rocklands (there to get carryout), the bouncer said the law required I carry an id. Always wanted to do research on that but was too lazy.
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."against unreasonable searches " The point is - what is the definition of unreasonable?
I can't believe this has gone as far as the Supreme Court. Why hasn't a lower court already struck this down?
I am neither insensitive nor a clod!
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.
To be brodcast #1 it costs money. #2 brodcast media is controlled by the FCC (I was giving an example of how speech/expression are limited all the time). No one stops free speech they can stand on the corner and hold their signs all day long (which is what happens). You however are generally prohibited from doing it within a certain distance of a polling site and via brodcast media for obvious reasons.
Therefore, in NV it is illegal not to identify yourself when asked by a peace officer.
The argument then is that this law violates the US Constitution. What the NV law does not seem to specify is the manner by which the person must identify themselves. When an officer asks for ID is it enough to say, "My name is John Smith" or must you provide a driver's license or other "papers"? The Constitution seems to imply that citizens are to be secure in their "persons" and "papers".
The crucial point seems to be that the officer had a report of a crime which provided all the probable cause needed to do whatever he felt necessary to investigate that reported crime. If the officer had just seen the truck parked by the side of the road and demanded ID there would have been no probable cause.
This is a very good example of what happens when two stubborn, hard headed people clash and are unwilling to give in a little bit to the other side. Mr. Hiibel could have given up his ID; the officer could have toned things down and worked around the ID refusal. Instead, both felt they were well within their rights to get what they were demanding and weren't going to budge till they got what they wanted.
I sympathize with both sides. In the US, it is our right and duty to make sure the Government isn't abusing its power. OTOH, the officer should be able to ensure his own safety, and a first step in that is finding out who you're dealing with and whether they are a known "bad guy". Unfortunately, the police always have to assume they are dealing with the worst kind of drugged up, violent, whack job, criminal; that very often makes them rather unpleasant to deal with. Try to be nice.
- Jasen.
Unless you intend to completely give up on the idea of police arresting wanted criminals, these are the options:
1) Keep biometric data on everybody.
2) Arrest people if they look sort of like a wanted criminal.
3) Arrest people if they can't show valid ID.
Which one of those do YOU think is less of an invasion of privacy? Option 4 is "never arrest anybody unless you actually see them committing the crime right in front of you."
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.
You want to fight something? How about stopping face-recognition software being used in public places to run a "ID check" on everyone without even their knowledge.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but what's wrong with that? Background checks simply pull up a list of someone's prior police record, it doesn't get into any personal, irrelevant details like shopping habits, dirty magazine subscriptions or what have you. It simply says "The person in the photo has been identified as John Doe. He was convicted of misdemeanor posession of a controlled substance in 1992." Or maybe, "Mike Smith is currently wanted on an arrest warrant for murdering his daughter."
What's wrong with that? Why wouldn't you want cops to be better able to find people with warrants out for their arrests?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Welcome to America, Land of The Free. Where upon our shores you are FREE, provided you do as we say!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I presume you're from the U.S., as otherwise you'd probably realise that the U.S. was probably the most hated country on the planet well before George W. Bush became President.
Sure it can. You prick yourself, get blood on the needle, and claim to have AIDS.
That usually changes their tune pretty quick.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
No one sees the COPS footage were the innocent person was abused, found to be innocent, and then let go
No, but listen to what those cops stop people for. Many times it's for driving through a certain area of town.
Last night an episode of Cops caught my attention: A Texas officer (don't recall which department) said he was going to pull over this guy going 63 in a 55 zone. He gave a small speech about people speeding and foreshadows that suspects tell goofy stories. I was immediately suspicious that he left something out, because going 63 in a 55 in Texas is pretty ubiquitous,and I've flown past cruisers in the ditches at 8mph over the limit many times and didn't get pulled over. It was two latinos, and their stories didn't match, and a begrudgingly consented search of the car turned up tens of pounds of weed. On one hand I'm glad they caught some bad guys, but on the other hand did he pull them over because they were latino? Or perhaps he had another tip or cue that he was working off of but didn't tell the camera crew.
Another thing about Cops (the show): I notice that the officer with the camera is rarely the first on the scene unless it's a preplanned bust. Perhaps this is just happenstance and reality (lots of cops in a city and few camera-worthy calls), but I suspect the cop is there to babysit and censor the camera crew; I suspect a higher-ranking officer is sitting at the station deciding to which calls to send the cop with the camera crew and which to avoid. Then again, this is probably smart since the camera crew are civilians that distract the cop and need protection in a weapons incident.
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.
As per the citizen/officer deadly force issue, what happens when a citizen is killed VS a police officer?
Many places will make killing a cop (especially if said cop is in the line of duty) a more serious crime than murder of an average person. Why, murder is murder, but the police officer by defination may be putting his life on the line for the general citizenry.
Even when the law doesn't make a distinction, a cold-blooded cop killer is often more looked down upon than your average psycho in court etc. Yes, there seem to be quite a few overpuffed officers out there, but there are quite a few that follow the dream of protection society and doing good for their fellow men/women.
No one sees the COPS footage were the innocent person was abused, found to be innocent, and then let go -- that would not make good TV.
That wouldn't get them invited to ride along so that FOX can make more episodes. COPS is not a documentary.
Of course, this protection is only for citizens. US Permanent Residents are required to carry our Permanent Resident Card at all times and to provide it upon request. There is no mention of probable cause or anything else. Doesn't matter if they've lived here and payed taxes for 15 years.
TANSTAAFL
Very sad state of affairs i must say. It makes you realize that with each passing day, the US is becoming more and more of a police state. I hope you are all ready for 1984, because its becoming more of a reality with each passing day. R.I.P - Here lies democracy, the dream we once had.
As a wise man once said... somebody should attach a turbine to George Orwell's body... you could solve the energy crisis with the power generated by him turning over in his grave.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
running the registration has nothing to do with it... if the vehicle is stolen and unreported, or has stolen plates (oldest trick in the book, steal clean tags from a like model vehicle), you've just lulled yourself into a dangerous complacency.
/.'rs who cannot see the tactical stupidity in such a move. Control your temper... you can't win a street confrontation with a cop, because even if you can kick his ass, he's got a magic box called a radio that he can shake, and 20 (now very angry) guys just like him fall out of it.
I haven't seen the video either... but if the girl attempted to force the door open while an officer was holding it, I'm not at all surprised she was taken down and handcuffed. Attempting ANY sort of violence, and I do mean ANY, during a police confrontation is a sure way to get beat/taken down and handcuffed. The funny part is this: if he was a bad cop, by losing your temper and doing something dumb, you've just given him a legal blank check to do what he wanted to do in the first place.
I'm absolutely amazed by the number of
.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Ya know... if I were treated like that I would probably want to be sent to Canada. Who wants to live in a company that sticks your rights down the crapper?
Seriously, when I think about it Canada has been somewhat of a haven in the US, from those trying to escape black persecution to those trying to avoid being drafted into a useless war.
The other fact is that 6 million jews were killed along side the homosexuals and gypsies. The jews were forced into ghettos where walls were built to keep them seperated from outsiders. The people who were persecuted and murdered other than jews were few in number, not nearly as many as the Jews themselves.
Any kind of identification tag is a bad thing. The jews wore a star because it was the shape of the star of david.
If you want more information or to see what the Jews went through in WWII, go to the holocaust museum in NYC. It's extremely informative, and despite what some people would say or choose to ignore, the parallels between Hitler's rise to power and what is happening in the united states is strikingly similar.
If you happen to go to the museum, the last exhibit you see before you leave is the most troubling. It was a Torah stolen by the Nazis. They were keeping it with the intention of displaying it in a museum of the history of the extinct jewish race.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
My god, shouldn't we do this with everyone we see?
I can't believe some of you people.
"I will be a freaking jerk because it is my right to be. I will take 10 minutes from this guys time because it is my right, and I don't care that those 10 minutes might be the 10 minutes in which he might prevent a crime or arrest a criminal because he was around the corner as opposed talking to me."
Sure I can stand up for my rights. But I know what are my rights, and I know that I can still freaking give some information and be helpful to a person that is making my neighborhood safer.
Yeah, so I might get harrassed sometime because I match a suspects description. But I don't have anything to hide. And I understand that THIS IS WHAT I CHOOSE TO DO TO BE PROTECTED FROM SCUM who will think nothing of putting a dent in my head.
I don't know where you people live but what I see on this board is just amazing.
TANSTAAFL
I for one cannot accept injustice, and stop and nothing to correct situations, even if it takes years, or a lifetime.
Spoken like someone without a wife and kids to support.
Do you think you're the only person who's ever felt this way? Do you really think that NOBODY who's ever gone up against the government has felt the way you do? Why do you think they backed down?
One word: Reality.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I do hope he wins, since the law itself is ridiculous, but I hope they re-arrest him for being drunk in public, disrespectful to an officer, and his daughter for assault.
Since when is disrespect illegal???? Can you say "First Amendment????"
And who exactly did his daughter "assault?" I've watched the tape, and I don't see any assault going on. I see a police officer preventing a young lady from exiting her vehicle (thereby interfering with her right to "carry on with her business"), and then tackling and pinning her to the ground when she does exit the vehicle.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
If you are a cop, your first role is PROTECTION. That includes the protection of yourself. This man is describing his precautions because most situations he's going to be in are going to be hostile. He's not afraid, just careful.
This makes the rest of this reply completely inane because it's based on a premise that the cop is afraid.
So, it will be I who calls bullshit on this bullshit.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
The cops will say "We'd like to search your vehicle."
Then they stop, and wait, and look at you significantly. They are waiting for you to say "Okay, go ahead and search it."
This is a consent search. They are fishing, and need your permission to search your vehicle. Simply say "No, I'd rather you didn't" and, not having your consent, they won't search the vehicle.
Yes, it really is that simple.
Cops will ask for a lot of stuff they have no right to demand. And when you say "Okay" you gave permission. Simply don't say okay. Don't be impolite. Don't be insulting. Just respectfully say "No."
==
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I seem to remember a case that went up to the Supreme Court from California during the 70's or 80's where a person refused to produce ID when asked by police while walking. His crime was WWBIRWN (Walking While Black In A Rich White Neighborhood). The pedestrian won.
I'll let you all in on a little secret... it seems that it's not really any better in the rest of the world. Those who have power will use it, and sometimes they will abuse it.
I've got tons of stories from friends and some of my own. From personal account, I've been accused of a few things but never found guilty (because I wasn't) - but definately had to go a ways to prove it.
The best one:
I was dating a girl in a nearby town about 1h away (city X). While back at home (city Y) I received a call from the local RCMP (Canadian police) in which the officer accused me of stealing from a Roger's video in city X a week earlier. Now, I asked how this could be, and he said that somebody had pulled my plates as I drove off, and that there was a recording on a surveillance camera. Though I denied taking any video the officer told me several times to "turn myself in and return it so I just got fined instead of a record."
I'd been at the Roger's the prior week, so I thought maybe there was a mistake of some sort, and I volunteered to come in and he could see if I was the one really the one in the video. At that point he balked a bit, stating that he didn't have it, just a printout that it was in city X.
So that little part annoyed me a bit, he was strongly accusing me stating there was "evidence," but all he'd ever seen was a piece of paper with my name.
Now we go a little further... I called the video store in city X and got to speak to the owner. I explained the situation and asked if she could (please) check if the tape was in fact on-shelf, and maybe had been misplaced. She checked the computers... and found that no such tape existed (not checked out/stolen, but never stocked). I told her about my conversation with the overzealous officer and she told me something else, there are no security tapes, just monitoring cameras.
The owner was quite helpful, I got her to contact the local police with my casefile and let them no that not only was I innocent of the "theft," but that no theft had in fact occurred.
The case just went away after that... no more annoying police phonecalls, and no apologies.
A few weird things that came up though:
a) If somebody tagged my plates while I drove away after the alleged incident, why didn't they call me or pull me over somewhere earlier than a week post?
b) The officer stated that it was somebody "matching my description, wearing a trenchcoat and etc etc." At the time I was prone to wearing trenchcoats, but the weekend of the alleged incident I had recently been gifted a new jacket and was not wearing trench. Odd?
The only good that came from this case. My mother was stopped for doing a rolling stop at a sign. The officer was the same one that had harrassed/accused me over the phone and recognised the last name on her ID. When he asked her about the case, she said that the video store owner had helped clear things up as it was a mistake. He mumbled something about "having heard something like that" and let her off without a ticket.
But really, if I hadn't called the store owner - how far would this have gone? Sounds like a crank call implicating me was made.... so how well exactly did they call and verify that an illegal act was committed much less that I was involved? Nowadays you trust yourself first, and it seems that you have to do your own legwork to get the police off your back.
Do I distrust police? Yes. Do they make me nervous? Yes. Would I just give out my ID to anyone? Probably no.
The person who wasted 10 minutes wasn't the guy in the hat - it was the cop. If he had asked the questions he had to, determined there was no issue and taken off, there would have been no problem.
It was the deputy's insistence on violating the rancher's rights that wasted all that time and money, and maybe kept that "what if" crime from being prevented.
Functioning freedom requires eternal vigilance. Usually foisted upon authority by belligerant yahoos, often while drunk. That means excercising those rights, whether you have anything to hide or not. If you're afraid of being dented, get yourself a baseball bat, or maybe work to help the world create less scum. The cops aren't going to help you, because prevention isn't their job - they do followup work.
I agree. The safest course of action is simply to arrest every male over the age of 10 (since women are innocent until proven innocent). Needless to say this would stop 95% of all crime, including murderers. Why bother to wait for evidence. After all we are all potential criminals and should be treated as such.
/. news article.
Actually, an even better idea would be to simply kill all humans ASAP. Clearly this would reduce crime considerably. People cannot commit crimes when they are dead. I believe that this may also give us a solution to our nuclear stockpile issues. Perhaps it's time to just use it. All of it. And let's face it. We need to get this done ASAP, maybe even before the next
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Here's a good article
that does a nice job of summarzing why it would be a Bad Thing for the Supreme Court to find against Mr. Hiible.
Text mirrored here without permission:
---
Must Americans Carry Identification, or Else Risk Arrest?
This Term, The Supreme Court Will Decide
By DANIELLE SUCHER
----
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003
In France and many other countries, citizens and travelers alike are required to have their identification on their person at all times. In the U.S., however, that is not the case. We live in a society that prizes the right to privacy, of which anonymity is a facet.
This may soon change. This Term, in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court will decide a case that asks the following question: Does the Constitution permit a police officer to arrest someone simply because, when stopped under reasonable suspicion, that person fails to produce identification?
The federal judicial Circuits have split on this issue. The Tenth Circuit has upheld a similar statute in Oliver v. Woods, while the Ninth Circuit has struck another down in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Nevada Supreme Court -- which issued the decision the Supreme Court is reviewing -- has already held that this type of arrest does not violate the Constitution.
It would be a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to agree. Because the standard for reasonable suspicion is very low, the upshot of such a decision would be to require all citizens, immigrants, and travelers in America to carry identification at all times -- and to be prepared to produce it for inspection.
The Low Standard of Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low standard -- even lower than probable cause. In practice, it merely requires the police officer to be able to articulate some reason why he found you suspicious -- which is generally very easy to do, particularly under the vaguely defined "totality of the circumstances" test that is used.
Under the leading Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio, passing by the same storefront too many times can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Under the recent Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Wardlow, it may trigger reasonable suspicion if, in a dangerous area of town, a person runs when he sees a police officer approaching. Under a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Cruz, simply walking alongside the wrong acquaintance can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Racial profiling can be factor when articulating reasonable suspicion, as can the crime rate of the neighborhood you are in or the activities of people you know.
In sum, no one can be sure he or she will not trigger "reasonable suspicion," in the eyes of a police officer (and in the eyes of the law). Suppose that the Supreme Court affirms the decision in Hiibel that "reasonable suspicion" plus the failure to produce identification can constitutionally lead to arrest. If so, all Americans will be well-advised to carry I.D. at all times.
Otherwise, they may risk unwittingly triggering "reasonable suspicion," and thus being arrested merely, in effect, for failure to produce identification.
Why It Would Be Wrong To Force All Who Travel in America to Carry I.D.
Being required to carry I.D. may not seem to be a problem. Many people carry identification with them at all times already -- carrying a driver's license in their purse or wallet, or if they are younger, a student I.D. card. For them, having to show I.D. would be only a slight inconvenience.
Moreover, in this age of the "war on terrorism," some may consider it to be a good idea for the police to be able to "card" anyone on the street about whom they have a hunch. There are those who believe that the inconvenience is somehow balanced by an increase in the safety and effectiveness of the police.
If we do not g
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
The original poster is right.
.308 round with an maximum effective range of 1000 yards. The AK fires a 7.62x39 round with a typical effective range of 4-500 yards. The LA police had Beretta side-arms, firing a conventional 9x19 round, (maximum effective range of 200 yards) and shotguns with no slugs (maximum effective range of 00-buck is 75-100 yards). The criminals in question had also made full body armor suits for themselves out of old vests... they were gym rats and gun nuts who came prepared.
The cops in LA were up against better-armed and better-equiped adversaries, and were pinned down at long range by rifle fire.
The men in the North Hollywood shootout that you are referring to were using several types of weapons... one had an HK-91 and another had a fully-automatic Hungarian AK with several drum magazines of ammunition (drums can hold 100 rounds). The HK-91 fires a
The police were unable to hurt either of those criminals with the weapons they had, particularly at the range at which they were being engaged... one of the two men eventually killed himself after he'd exhausted his ammunition for his long-gun... the other was killed by SWAT officers with mp5 submachine guns, who shot from cover at close range; skipping rounds off the concrete under the suspect's car to take out his legs (he bled to death from a femoral artery hit).
I don't think you understand this very well.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Here's what a Nevada Supreme Court justice thought of this decision. Clearly this justice is the one who really understands what's going on here: (emphasis added)
AGOSTI, J., with whom Shearing and ROSE, JJ., agree, dissenting:
As the majority aptly states, the right to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, is a fundamental right of privacy in a democratic society. However, the majority promptly abandons this fundamental right by requiring "suspicious" citizens to identify themselves to law enforcement officers upon request, or face the prospect of arrest. I dissent from the majority's holding that the identification portion of NRS 171.123 is constitutional.
It is well-established that police officers may stop a person when reasonable suspicion exists that that person is engaged in illegal activity.[1] However, it is equally well-established that detaining a person and requiring him to identify himself constitutes "a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment."[2] In light of these constitutional requirements, the United States Supreme Court has stated that although the officers may question the person, the detainee need not answer any questions.[3] Furthermore, unless the detainee volunteers answers and those answers supply the officer with probable cause to arrest, the detainee must be released.[4]
The Fourth Amendment requires that governmental searches and seizures be reasonable. Reasonableness is determined by "a weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty."[5] A court's primary concern in weighing these interests is to assure "that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers."[6]
Anonymity is encompassed within the expectation of privacy, a civil liberty that is protected during a Terry stop. The majority now carves away at that individual liberty by saying that a detainee must surrender his or her identity to the police.
I agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' reasoning on the issue of whether a person may be arrested for refusing to identify himself during a Terry stop.[7] In Martinelli v. City of Beaumont,[8] a woman was arrested for delaying a lawful police investigation by refusing to identify herself during a Terry investigation.[9] The court held that allowing the police officers to arrest the woman for failing to identify herself in effect allowed the officers to "'bootstrap the authority to arrest on less than probable cause.'"[10] The court determined that the woman's interest in her personal security outweighed the "'mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest.'"[11]
More directly on point, the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board[12] addressed the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3), the very statute at issue here. In Carey, a casino patron brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a Nevada Gaming Control Board agent for violating his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.[13] The agent was called to a hotel to investigate Carey and another man, who were both suspected by hotel employees of cheating.[14] The agent caused the men to be detained, identified himself, indicated he was investigating gaming law violations, read them their Miranda rights and conducted a pat-down search of both detainees.[15] During the Terry investigation, the agent determined there was no probable cause to arrest the men for gaming violations.[16] However, when the agent asked the men to identify themselves, Carey refused, and he was arrested pursuant to NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190.[17] On appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop, and also probable cause to arrest Carey
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
I was born in 1980 in Leningrad, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Today I still live in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. So far I've been stopped by police, let me remember... just about 5 times or so. First it happened when I was 4 years old (1984, get it! :] ) and took my girlfriend (was I lucky :] ) to a walk to my grandparents (a 30 km hike across the city). :) Was taken to a police station, questioned, detained and shown some cool stuff, including guns (they even let me hold one :] ). Then was stopped once (in 1990s) when I forgot my metro pass and was trying to stowaway. I ran away, though. :) Then once again in metro, when I was asked to show what was in my bag (I was on my way to the railway station and then to Finland). And was asked two or three times more, always in metro. That's it. And nobody else ever asked me for an ID (except for administrative purposes, like when I am hired, enter a university, etc.). Other than government issued ID I used a one in a business-centre where I worked and a student ID to enter the university building.
:( On the other hand, nobody asks us to remove our shoes or do other crazy stuff like that in the airport. Still, it's no paradise, but for other reasons mostly. Moving to a decent country, preferably Switzerland or something like that, remains a priority...
That's about it. Unfortunately, in other respects Russia is less free. For example, a passport is needed to board long-distance train or plane.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
If you're a citizen, and you kill someone in self defense, there aren't any problems.>/i> Well, if you think spending lots of money to defend your self isn't a problem... Go search for a few actual cases of self-defense and the aftermath and you'll quickly see a number of horror stories. 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. <IANL> The standard in Wisconsin for the use of deadly force is: Would a reasonable person believe that they (or someone they're defending) was in danger of death or grave bodily injury? The same standard also holds for police. 'Course, police poke into things that the rest of us would probably just walk away from... </IANL>
Crime prevention IS their job. By investigating a crime they will prevent the criminal from commiting that same crime again, either out of ignorance or because they got away with it. By following your argument we shouldn't have jails or police at all. Why have police if they only follow up? Why punish people at all if the crime cannot be prevented? The damage was already done, nothing we can do about it, we will just violate the criminals rights if we arrest him for the crime.
Belligerant drunk yahoos more often than not cause damage to others or themselves before someone points the cops to them. I shouldn't need a baseball bat to defend myself, I expect not to be living in a lawless state. But to have laws, which we impose onto ourselves, we choose to accept a few willing people to enforce those laws. I like going into grocery stores without bulletproof glass. I like being able to walk outside.
Police need more oversight, I agree. Police need more and better training, I agree. I am not saying the system is perfect, after all cops are just people. I am saying that the system is there for a much better reason than to violate our rights. Like it or not, people choose to have security. I believe that the person's right to life has priority over another person's right to be a beligerent yahoo with a bat (or a gun).
TANSTAAFL
the dynamics of these situations.
Action always beats reaction... Anyone trained in close quarters combat will tell you that. By the time you see someone pull out the object, realize it's a weapon, make the decision to fire, line up your sights and squeeze the trigger... you can already be dead.
From the holster it takes an average of about two seconds+ to realize that someone is a threat, make the decision to fire, draw your gun and fire even one round. The officer is always reacting to somebody else, which always puts the officer at a disadvantage... that lag time has gotten officers killed.
In this case, it's slightly different... the suspect was faced with four drawn guns. He should have kept his hands where everyone could see them... unfortunately, whether from a language barrier, fear, ignorance... whatever the reason, he made a move, and it cost him his life. It didn't help that one of the officers tripped while trying to retreat and fell down, leading the other officers to believe he'd been shot.
If I tell a person at gunpoint not to move, and they go for their pocket, I'm going to shoot them. They might be pulling a wallet out of their back pocket... but then again, they might be pulling out one of these, these, one of these or even one of these. Understand now? You now know what cops know... and what cops are worried about.
When faced with a drawn gun, think of it as a game of "simon says"... you do nothing until simon says. If an officer considers you enough of a threat that he's got his gun out, pay attention, because your life depends on your next move. Just FYI, in a lot of jurisdictions, anytime an officer draws his gun, he has to make a police report; If he's got a reason to have it out... for the love of God don't give him a reason to use it.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
A report isn't very good cause, and for good reason. I'd rather not have police able to stop random people on random tips. It gives the small number of crooked police an easy excuse to stop people (Well, I got this tip), and provides an easy way to harass someone (call the police with reports from payphones).
Nice phrasing of the facts. More specifically, his daughter hit him. There was no evidence at the time that he had assaulted his daughter and there is no evidence now. He was not reasonably suspected of a crime, there was no reason to demand his ID.
Boo, freaking, hoo. A 17 year old girl tried to push a police officer. Was it stupid? Yup. Did it represent any sort of real danger? Nope. Part of being a cop is dealing with stupid kids. More importantly, the actions of the daughter have nothing to do with the man's right to refuse to hand over ID.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
So, as a cop who is conscious of these things, I think I would probably be just as commanding and aggressive as this cop was with somebody who is a possible domestic battery suspect.
This is not about being commanding and agressive. This is about whether you can arrest someone simply because they refuse your request to show ID.
The dumbass who just felt like arguing can take his hurt feelings and go to hell.
Hurt feelings? If the Supreme Court rules in his favor then this is about a violation of his constitutional rights. And if they weren't inclinded to rule in that direction they probably wouldn't have taken the case in the first place. If they wanted to let the current ruling stand they could have simply declined to take the appeal.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
> Why do you think they backed down?
Because they are pusses who won't stand up for themselves.
Just curious: where are you from, originally?
Originally, I am from Croatia, while it was still part of Yugoslavia. Trust me, I know what beligerent police is. And for all the complaining, Americans have it good.
Again, I am all for people's rights, as long as they don't infringe on someone elses. It is good that people can discuss the issues, especially in such a controversial case (good arguments exist on both sides of the case, otherwise it would not be all the way up at the Supreme Court level).
TANSTAAFL
That's the point, and why I'm willing to risk getting cracked on the skull - to give up a little temporary security in the name of freedom. Because once you give it away, little bit by little bit, you never get it back.
Dear Humboldt County Sheriff's Department:
I just became aware of the incident that occurred with Mr. Dudley
Hiibel a few years ago, and which is going before the US Supreme
Court soon. I just wanted to e-mail and let you know that I fully
support Mr. Hiibel, and I hope most fervently that he wins his
Supreme Court challenge, for the sake of all Americans.
What happened that day was a travesty of justice. I cannot
believe that in America in 2001, you police types believe
you are allowed to behave in such a manner. This is America,
not Nazi Germany, and you are a Sheriff's Department, not the
Gestapo.
Your entire Department, and the Nevada State Highway
Patrol should be ashamed of what happened to Mr. Hiibel.
If you had any integrity or belief in the principles this
country was founded on, you all would immediately offer
him and his daughter a public apology for this incident,
and fire Deputy Dove.
Your department has brought shame and disgrace to the state
of Nevada, and made this law-abiding American citizen very
happy to say that he lives in North Carolina and not Nevada.
Thank you for your time,
Phillip Rhodes
--
When the 1st Amendment no longer protects your voice.
And when the 4th Amendment no longer protects your privacy or your stuff.
Thank God we have the 2nd Amendment to tell our elected representatives that enough is enough.
It's time to put "... from my cold, dead hands" back where it belongs.
FREE AMERICA
Vote Libertarian
www.lp.org
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
What he could have done is asked the guy what his name was, first
Hmmm. . . I see your name is not on the list. That, in and of itself, is suspicious. I think we'd better put your name on the list!
On the issue of black Americans, you're absolutely right. What went on violated the letter of the Constitution but for various political reasons survived for 100 years until the Voting Rights Act. And still happens today to an extent. But I was trying to distinguish the origins from the structure of Nazi governance, in order that we might reflect on both.
On your last point, my limited evidence leads me to disagree. Probably state and federal courts are becoming more lax but state and municipal judges are a lot more likely to accept fabrications from cops than federal judges.
directly from this weeks onion:
Teen Responsible For All Six Items In Clarksburg Police Blotter
CLARKSBURG, WV--According to sources at the Clarksburg Telegram, troubled youth Danny Nathum, 17, is responsible for all six items on Monday's police blotter. "We had two disorderly-conduct reports, three counts of vandalism, and one DUI arrest," Telegram assistant editor Jesse Sutton said. "Looks like Mr. Nathum had himself one heck of a busy weekend." Clarksburg, population 16,743, last experienced an all-Nathum crime spree in December, when the teen stole a bicycle, burned down a barn, and punched Old Man Herman.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Jeez, let's focus a little here. It's one thing for a cop to walk up to you and demand that you identify yourself, under a transparent pretext. It's quite another thing for a cop to respond to a person who initiated a confrontration and who is openly breaking the law. Yeah, "blocking traffic" isn't a major offense, but it's not one he could ignore either.