Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court

Wear the yellow star by ObviousGuy · 2004-02-19 13:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 /. password was too easy to guess.

Re:Wear the yellow star by AyeFly · 2004-02-19 13:13 · Score: 5, Informative

How the heck did the yellow star post get marked as offtopic? do you have no knowledge of 20th century history? nazis made Jews wear yellow stars to publicly identify them... and you also had to show ID whenever an SS or Stormtrooper or police officer or judge or MP or any anonymous person asked for it. The above post is saying that the US can become like the nazi state if we allow this kind of raw authority into our civilization. At least, thats my take on it... and if you dont think so all i can say is, "Sieg Heil"

--
Sig- http://www.dreamhost.com/rewards.cgi?ayefly
Re:Wear the yellow star by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I weep for our species.

I weep for those who continue to browse at threshold 1 after Taco made it the default. But I guess anonymity is something to be feared and trampled on.
Re:Wear the yellow star by torpor · 2004-02-19 13:49 · Score: 5, Funny

no no, its not sig heil, its ... "whatever ..."

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Wear the yellow star by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 14:10 · Score: 5, Funny

You know, the Nazis had pieces of Flair that they made the Jews wear.
Re:Wear the yellow star by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 14:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fact that you had to point out the mis-moderation tells you how bad it already is. The dumbing-down of the youth has been going on now over 25 years. The new youth is being brought up by relatively un-educated older-youth. With the fucked-up ruling in California involving Diebold, it's, well, time ...
for people to pay the fuck attention!
V
Re:Wear the yellow star by abolith · 2004-02-19 14:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

if you read the transcription it says that there was a report of a fight.

Well, I've got a report that there's been a fightin' going on between you two tonight.

he had a report of a fight at that location so the officer had every right to ask for ID. If it was just some cop randomly stopping and asking for ID then it would be a different story, but it's not. This guy did it to himself, it is not a case of some cop abusign his power. when you are stopped by a cop you DO NOT have to show ID even if asked UNLESS the cop has probable cause to demand it (i.e. an investigation). in this case the cop did and Hiibel refused thus impeading a lawful invetgiation.

--
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Re:Wear the yellow star by mdwh2 · 2004-02-19 14:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I set the preferences so that Anonymous Cowards appear at 1 like everyone else, and then view at threshold 1.. makes Slashdot a lot more readable imo.
Re:Wear the yellow star by jefe7777 · 2004-02-19 15:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

After watching the video..I kind of sympathize with this guy..you can tell he truly believes in his right "not to be fucked with"...by anyone.

The cop was fairly reasonable and polite. The cowboy was moderately animated, moved around a bit, and refused to show his ID. I can see how the cop would definitely have his guard up.

It's a difficult line to draw. Both arguments seem reasonable. That's why it's "on the line".

Note: If you are planning on civil disobedience, disobey, and if at all possible, stay calm and state your case...then go to jail. Hiibel could have done a better job, if his goal was to make a point.

Hiibel is hoping the video will clear him. I've got to be candid and say that it's "borderline". In the video, Hiibel states: "i'm being cooperative"...but many people will look at his body language and decide that he really wasn't. Hiibel's wife isn't going to help either, she went off in the video, like a screeching hag. And nobody had touched her yet!
Re:Wear the yellow star by operagost · 2004-02-19 15:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

He had no right to ask for ID. What he could have done is asked the guy what his name was, first! Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID. That's what is meant by being secure in one's person and PAPERS.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Wear the yellow star by gray+code · 2004-02-19 15:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any investigation that the cop might have started on the side of the road did not require, nor would have been furthered by, Mr. Hiibel's ID. The cop had a report that there was some kind of fighting going on in a truck who's description (i assume) matched Hiibels. He would have had reasonable suspicion that something had been going on and that a he had the right people but he did not have probable cause. And since (as far as we know) the witness did not name any names ("that looked like Hiibel in that truck"), asking for Hiibel's ID was unreasonable as the cop was not looking for a specific person by name.

If you watch the video, the cop made no attempt to even verify that a fight/crime had occurred before he demanded ID and arrested Hiibel. I think that's really the crux of the debate.
Re:Wear the yellow star by Tiro · 2004-02-19 15:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes standing up for freedom deserves getting modded up, but so does real perspective.
As a student of the Politics of Local Justice, let me tell you that this kind of event is a lot more common in Humbolt Co., NV or Anytownship, USA than it is in Chicago or San Antonio. The reason is that police in rural jurisdictions are expected by the townsfolk to keep tabs on everything going on in town. If there is a stranger who isn't just passing through, it'd be good to know who he is.
This happens for two reasons: Constitutional rulings keep getting handed down at a VERY rapid rate from the Supremes, and rural cops don't have the time or the training to keep up with them. Also remember they're less well paid and less educated in general than city cops. Second, rural cops have to deal with a lot of weird shit because of how intimately they're tied to the community. If Johnny and Tony get in a fight, cop takes them home to Mother--an extralegal response, but a lot more efficient/practical than prison.
What you guys need to remember is that there's a big difference between policies enacted at the National level in Nazi Germany and power exercised on the "capillary" level, to use Foucault's term, power and authority exercised beyond what is precisely legally ordaned. This second type of overstepping can be called more harmful, because it happens below the radar--blacks in the South got kept down by the man way after the post Civil War constitutional amendments.
But the way our government is set up, it doesn't lead to Naziism. Local police are subject to local constraints on their behavior, what the townsfold consider right, and that restricts them a lot more than state/fed constitution. Basically the slippery slope argument is null here, because when cops pull stunts like these [not this specific case but other similar abuses] in the Big City, judges don't buy it. Federal judges especially will tell prosecutors to fuck off, and don't come back, if they try the "drugs fell out of his pocket" routine in open court.
But the way things work on the ground in rural America is a bit different--but it generally works out okay. If it makes you queasy, move to the city, and you'll be fine. Nevermind the Nazi FUD trolls.
Re:Wear the yellow star by NanoGator · 2004-02-19 16:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

"But I guess anonymity is something to be feared and trampled on."

What? Anonymous posting is a huge burden on Slashdot because 99.9% of what you anonymous chickenshits post is inflammatory garbage. The fact that a.) The threshold is even there and b.) That it's only ONE point above anonymous is not a sign that being anonymous is something to be feared, but rather something that is accepted. Only on Slashdot could the allowance of anonymous posting be turned into some attempt to keep the little people down.

Incidently, you're still anonymous even if you register a nickname. Nobody has any NFI who you are, nickname or not. In light of that fact alone, I don't see how anybody could mod what you said as insightful.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Wear the yellow star by VFVTHUNTER · 2004-02-19 16:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you fit the description of a suspect and are in the vicinity of a crime, I'm with you. But consider this:

"Those who desire to give up freedom, in order to gain security, shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one." --Thomas Jefferson

Are you any safer now than you were before 09/11/2001? Does it bother you than John Ashcroft is using chemical weapons laws to go after meth lab operators? Yes they should be in jail but that is in no way the spirit of THAT law. That's why TJ was absolutely right.
Re:Wear the yellow star by forgetful · 2004-02-19 16:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

A few years ago I was stopped by a "drug interdiction team" while coming off the desert after a week long camping trip. My young son and nephew were with me and we were detained for an hour while they brought out a little shaggy dog to sniff the tires. I was polite, but really pissed. The cops Mutt and Jeffed us the whole time. This was fairly common for a year or so until a couple was detained for four hours. They filed a $40 million civil suit, and I haven't seen one of these roadblocks since. There was never a public report of the outcome of the suit, so I assume the couple won something. I've had many friends who were cops and deputies, but there is no excuse for constitutional violations; more so if the immediate public safety is not at risk.

--
"...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
Re:Wear the yellow star by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 16:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Any investigation that the cop might have started on the side of the road did not require, nor would have been furthered by, Mr. Hiibel's ID.

Actually if his ID confirmed that he shared the same address as the alleged victim of battery/assault, then the crime could be upgraded to domestic violence battery/assault which carries harsher penalties (even though the crime didn't take place in their shared residence).

I doubt that the cop had that on his mind though. His actions were unconstitutional but they weren't entirely unreasonable. In law school, I defended women accused of domestic violence battery because they defended themselves in a fight with their boyfriend/husband and the cop just arrested everyone in sight instead of trying to figure out what happened.
Re:Wear the yellow star by qtp · 2004-02-19 16:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI

He wasn't driving, and nowhere in the charges against him is he accused of having been drunk.

and then has the gall to take this to the Supreme Court.

That's the court you want your case to go to when your Fourth Amendment rights are being violated.

And why is this on Slashdot?

Because search and seizure is a serious topic for geeks old enough to remember the late 1980s and early 1990s.

--
Read, L
Re:Wear the yellow star by VFVTHUNTER · 2004-02-19 16:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Thanks for the correction - I always get their wigs confused :)
Re:Wear the yellow star by Katharine · 2004-02-19 16:50 · Score: 5, Informative

duncanatlk wrote: I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI . . .

No luck involved. His daughter had been driving the truck.

As for why it's on Slashdot, I've noticed that the folks here have a fondness for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Here's the amicus brief the EFF filed in support of Mr. Hiibel.
Re: Wear the yellow star by bezuwork's+friend · 2004-02-19 17:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

So I'm allowed to ask anyone I encounter for their ID to verify that they aren't dangerous to me if they act "hinky"?
Of course you are allowed to ask this. That doesn't mean anyone has to comply. Just don't impersonate a police officer when you ask, now that'd be illegal.
A police officer is able to legally ask anything that an ordinary citizen can ask. The thing I don't like is that because police officers have a visual authority and act and use a voice which conveys that they have the authority to ask what they ask, they get alot of people to comply with their requests to the detriment of the people when the police don't have the legal authority to enforce compliance.
The repeat offenders, the dangerous criminals, are not the ones likely to get caught like this. The ones who get caught are likely the younger ones, the high schoolers out drinking and such.
Re:Wear the yellow star by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2004-02-19 17:26 · Score: 2

Point of order. Just because a law is "on the books" does not ipso facto make it constitutional. That is why it's before the Supremes.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:Wear the yellow star by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-19 17:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The cowboy was moderately animated, moved around a bit, and refused to show his ID. I can see how the cop would definitely have his guard up.
"Having your guard up" is not the same as having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
It's a difficult line to draw. Both arguments seem reasonable.

It's not and they don't. Police can detain a citizen only when there are specific and articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and can make an arrest only based on probable cause. "I don't want to show you my papers, and I don't want to talk to you" is basis for neither.
If you are planning on civil disobedience...

Civil disobedience means breaking the law. It does not include standing up for your legal rights. The only law breaking going on here was the actions of the police.
In the video, Hiibel states: "i'm being cooperative"...but many people will look at his body language and decide that he really wasn't.

Body language is not probable cause for arrest.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Wear the yellow star by instarx · 2004-02-19 18:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

What he could have done is asked the guy what his name was, first

No. The police officer did NOT have the right to ask his name. His name had no bearing on determining if a crime had been committed or even if there was probable cause. How is it better for your Constitutional rights to have the police demand your identity by voice rather than by paper? The whole point is that you do not have to identify yourself to the police simply because they want to know who you are.

Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID

Suspicious? How can giving or not giving you name be suspicious? Is "Donald Duck" a suspicious name - or is what Mr. Hiibel answered ("Why?") suspicious enough?
Re:Wear the yellow star by Fjandr · 2004-02-19 19:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (USSC+)

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 [p*48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Re:Wear the yellow star by LizardKing · 2004-02-19 21:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

in most places (Europe, for example) they can hold you for a few days until you produce some
United Kingdom: no
France: no
Germany: no
Italy: no

Well, that covers over half the European population. Get your facts straight next time.
Chris
Re:Wear the yellow star by pyrotic · 2004-02-19 21:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where I come from (UK), the police can ask to see your driving licence if you are in charge of a car. As his daughter was driving, I can't see why he should have to have ID. However, it sounds odd (to European ears) that people are freaked out that they need to show ID to police. In France it is illegal not to have ID with you, anywhere. Period.
Re:Wear the yellow star by adamh · 2004-02-19 21:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

They can certainly ask for it - but you're not required to have it with you.

If you don't have it with you they can ask you to produce your Driving license, registration, insurance, and MOT certificates at a police station within a week or so.
Adam
Re:Wear the yellow star by Oddly_Drac · 2004-02-19 22:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Hiibel's wife isn't going to help either, she went off in the video, like a screeching hag. And nobody had touched her yet!"

Daughter. At least have the decency to deal with facts rather than assumptions.

She was a seventeen year old girl watching her father get cuffed for an argument that she was having with him. It's bound to be a little stressful, and you have to wonder whether a heavily armed man really needs to sit on a girl to 'restrain her'.

"I can see how the cop would definitely have his guard up."

That's because he was prepared to make an arrest before he was prepared to find out what the situation was. Start confrontational, no matter how polite, and things will remain confrontational, especially where one party is armed and twitchy because they don't know if the other party is armed. Fear isn't a good thing to take into any discussion.

Instead of smiling and trying to find out what the situation was, he did that ludicrously polite demanding that has more in common with a four year old than a trained officer of the law. After being told once that he couldn't see ID is when a decision should be made, but he should have made at least some effort to see if a crime had actually been committed.

Firstly, the statutes tend to deal with innocence before guilt. Secondly, a dangerous precedence is being set up by 'resisting arrest' being the only reason that someone should be arrested.

The main problem is that events like these only serve to reduce the faith that people have in the body that is supposed to be protecting them, and trying to whitewash the incident or dodge the culpability only makes matters worse.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Wear the yellow star by aerique · 2004-02-19 22:59 · Score: 4, Informative

However, it sounds odd (to European ears) that people are freaked out that they need to show ID to police.
Bull.. it doesn't sound odd at all to my Dutch ears.
We didn't have to show any ID nor have any on our person until about ten years back here in the Netherlands. Since then, the powers that be have slowly eroded those freedoms and they are pushing for an obligation to carry and show an ID everywhere. (See the press release and open letter from Privacy International to the Dutch government.)
Just about all of the reasons for obligatory ID are unfounded or shown misguided yet they are still pushing for it and the majority of the government supports it.
The mind wonders :-(
Re: Wear the yellow star by Lumpy · 2004-02-19 23:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Let's add to this that police officers generall have the attitude that they are above the law.

most of the time they are breaking the law themselves in the police car by not obeying traffic laws, and then they break it wildly after work knowing they wont even get pulled over for smoking the tires through a red light if they are in their own turf. (I know 3 cops, yes this is absolutely true... an officer will get written up for writing a ticket to another officer by the union and the station)

the police need to be held to a higher standard... officer crumb was caught speeding? FIRED. officer dan acted in a non professional manner? FIRED.

I'm sick of the cops being populated by the power trip asshats and guys that are generally jerks. police academies need to be re-opened, you should be REQUIRED to prove that you are worthy of being a cop.

unbfortunately today, all it takes is a little college education and a red neck. and in michigan now, no college is needed anymore in several cities....

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Wear the yellow star by Stephen+Maturin · 2004-02-20 01:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, they had pieces of 'flair' for lots of groups in society they wanted to keep tabs on.

Homosexuals had a pink triangle
Communists had a red triangle
Criminals had a green triangle
Anti-Socialists had a black triangle
Emigrants had a blue triangle
Gypsies had a brown triangle
Jehova's Witnesses had a purple triangle.
The fact is (commonly overlooked) that many more people than just Jews were persecuted and interred in concentration camps under the Nazi regime.

--
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
-- Cicero
Re:Wear the yellow star by Alsee · 2004-02-20 02:35 · Score: 2, Informative

clickable link... learn. (It's on my to do list.)

A simplified example:
<A href="LINK">TEXT</A>
TEXT

A full (working) example:
Stuff <A href="http://www.cithosting.com/">the link</A> stuff.
Stuff the link stuff.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Wear the yellow star by martyros · 2004-02-20 03:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Having your guard up" is not the same as having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

While that's true, I must say that in general cops have a lot tougher job that people give them credit for. They don't know these people, their character, their history, or whether they have any weapons. They risk coming into a situation with a "domestic dispute" trying to help and being enemies of both sides.
When I was in the Marines, we had an indoor firing simulator that included training for MP's, which included some "shoot/no-shoot" scenarios, where you're covering your partner in some situation; and in half of the scenarios, someone pulls a gun and shoots you. Shoot too soon, or too late, and you fail the scenario.
The scary thing was, just about anyone in the scene could do it, and for any reason. You pull a woman over for speeding, and she starts digging around in her purse, and pulls out a gun. You're breaking up a fight and your partner is wrestling one of the guys in the fight on the ground; his girlfriend says, "Stop it, leave him alone" in a really girly, weak way; then pulls a gun out of her purse and shoots him.
I haven't seen the video, but I can understand why his daugher was tackled when she got out of the car, and why if he was acting upset (as is natural, if he was upset enough at his daughter to ask to get out of the car) the policeman would be afraid.
Behavior of the police officer(s) aside, the guy didn't have anything against him, and shouldn't have had to show his ID. The charge should be dropped.

--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Re:Wear the yellow star by the_mad_poster · 2004-02-20 03:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

I call troll. The issue of it being a "stupid case" to some people centers around the report and the fact that the defendant was acting in "an aggressive manner". However, he was hauled in for not producing and ID which is not a pubnishable offense. Since he wasn't driving the car, not ony is not prosecutable, he was under NO obligation to even be CARRYING an ID.

If some cop walked up to me and said "I have a vague report of XYZ occurring" and couldn't give me any better reason for producing ID, I'd tell him to go pound sand too if he persisted after a polite refusal. Know why? Because a responsible officer wouldn't press the issue without producing a good reason for me to identify myself to him. Gonna charge me for something, I'll tell you who I am. I've never given my driver's license and registration to a cop that pulled me over until they told me why. I tell them I have it and I'll show it to them when they tell me why they pulled me over. This caused a problem one time when he persisted, but then relented, told me why he pulled me over, and I handed over the license without another word. Two other times they informed me why I was pulled over and that was that.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Wear the yellow star by poot_rootbeer · 2004-02-20 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fact that you had to point out the mis-moderation tells you how bad it already is.

Look. Ask any "youth" if the Jews were persecuted and slaughtered by the Nazis, and 99 out of 100 will say they were. Ask them what the marks Jews were forced to wear on their clothing for identification, and probably less than 10 will correctly answer "yellow stars".

It doesn't mean that the youth are being "dumbed down". It means some of the details have simply not been considered as important as the big picture by history.

Yes, the yellow star reference in the grandparent comment was quite clever... but a little more obtuse than it could have been. That's all.
Re:Wear the yellow star by hesiod · 2004-02-20 06:07 · Score: 2, Funny

> I'm at school and don't feel like sending my password cleartext through the networking lab

Yes, because logging into /. is such a sensitive, personal thing that all those evil hackers are looking for.
Re:Wear the yellow star by mindstrm · 2004-02-20 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Suspicion of what? A guy being somewhere is not suspicious. Just because the war on drugs has led us to believe that any rights trampling is okay because it's related to drugs or bad neighborhoods doesn't make it okay.

If we don't keep things so the police need a real reason to arrest you, where does it stop?

I'm not trying to say the police shouldn't do their job, and in your situation, it sounds reasonable.. but again.

How about "Officer, I am not here dealing drugs, I am here on private business.".

There is NO REASON for the police to be able to detain or inhibit this person's right to be in a public place, and that includes showing identification. I do not have to prove that I am innocent by showing ID and letting him look things up before he lets me go.. otherwise, where do you draw the line?

He doesn't need to confirm that I have no priors... that's just what they would LIKE to do. Whether or not I have been arrested before has no bearing on what my current actions are, or whether I am allowed to be in that place.

The cop was conducting a lawful investigation, yes, but it could have easily been left alone once he saw nothing was going on. He doesn't need to "Check for priors" in order to determine nobody was having the shit beat out of them, as the complaint said.. and if there was no fight going on, and nobody was hurt, he had no business persuing it further.

Wow by cptgrudge · 2004-02-19 13:02 · Score: 3, Funny

The first thing that ran through my head while reading the summary was a Nazi German saying, "Your papers, please."

Imagine my surprise when the site of the article is papersplease.org.

--
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium

Re:Wow by alan_dershowitz · 2004-02-19 13:22 · Score: 5, Funny

I found the site contents somewhat ironic:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Re:Wow by teklob · 2004-02-19 14:08 · Score: 3, Funny

These aren't the Jews you're looking for. *waves hand*
Re:Wow by Anonymovs+Coward · 2004-02-19 14:08 · Score: 2, Funny

That should have been:
You don't have permission to access this server from /.

Silly me, and I thought... by Kjella · 2004-02-19 13:03 · Score: 4, Funny

'investigating an investigation.'

...it was Internal Affairs that "investigated investigations". Oh well...

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Silly me, and I thought... by Bingo+Foo · 2004-02-19 13:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, he should have told the officer that that sounded like a conflict of interest. Then he would have been let go for sure.

--
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!

Re:What is there to hide? by Borealis · 2004-02-19 13:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:What is there to hide? by tsunamifirestorm · 2004-02-19 13:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

just because the innocent have nothing to hide, means that there is no reason for giving up our rights of privacy.

Welcome to the Police State by madMingusMax · 2004-02-19 13:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Re:Welcome to the Police State by djmurdoch · 2004-02-19 13:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

How easy will it be to force people to do things against their will when we have no guns to defend ourselves?

You think if Hiibel had defended his rights with a gun he'd still be alive?
Re:Welcome to the Police State by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

...

The second amendment is supposedly there to keep 'the people' armed in case 'the people' need to overthrow a bunch of tyrants. It's one of those check/balance things they talk about, except it's supposed to happen on a populous scale.

Police officers are part of the government, an accepted part of society, as well as the courts. The fact that this is being fought, except with words and lawyers, shows that the government, the systems in place within it, all are still grinding along. More of those checks and balances.

Were these checks and balances ultimately to fail 'the people' then that populous scale of check/balance is supposed to happen. The second amendment isn't about shooting cops, it's about preparedness. At least, that's how the writers of the US Constitution saw it. It was a different world then.
Re:Welcome to the Police State by fermion · 2004-02-19 15:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

This really reminds more of feudalism and the kind of society that exists in some third world country, especially in the Americas. We have been sliding down this slope for a while. Fortified castles in the form of gated and guarded communities. People driving around in military and pseudo-military vehicles. People fear being in certain neighborhoods because, even though the roads are theoretically public, the police are owned by those with money.
This has always been true to some extent in the US. It has always been the case that some people were considered better. It has always been the case that if you did not have the proper skin color or proper style or proper accessories, you were subject to police harassment. The scary thing now is that we are reaching a point in which a very few people, those with money and power, are exempted from government abuse. The rest of us are not. The police can no longer look at you and decide if you are protected. The officer must now know your name.
Which is to say, these laws are no ones fault but our own. We are really a democracy. All of us who live in the US are responsible for our country's actions and decisions. We all must willing make the sacrifices necessary to bear or change the policies. We are in fact not a dictorship in which we can be forced to comply, no matter how much our president has stacked the appellate courts in that direction.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Welcome to the Police State by Prior+Restraint · 2004-02-19 16:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are you honestly suggesting we should wait until after our rights are gone to get worried?
Re:Welcome to the Police State by david_reese · 2004-02-19 18:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Which is to say, these laws are no ones fault but our own. We are really a democracy. All of us who live in the US are responsible for our country's actions and decisions.
I would totally agree for you except for Diebold and their un-auditable machines. Guess what, now even if you do vote, your vote might just be invalidated or part of a massive miscount.
Oh well, maybe I should just vote absentee ballot? Oh, did we have problems with those, too??
We're fucked.
Re:Welcome to the Police State by Prior+Restraint · 2004-02-19 18:22 · Score: 2, Funny

You have a right to life, liberty, etc etc, but not to anonymity.

In that case, I can't see any objection to our President deploying troops to the polling stations to guarantee that democracy doesn't fall to terrorists:

A large man in military fatigues and a loaded rifle will check your ID, to make sure you're permitted to vote at this location, aren't trying to vote twice, etc. A second soldier will escort you into the booth, and stand guard over you as you fill out your ballot. He'll go over your selections with you, to ensure you didn't make any mistakes; we can't have another Florida-style fiasco, can we?
Re:Welcome to the Police State by Viggo+Fait · 2004-02-19 18:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did you even watch the video? Read the transcript? The daughter didn't call the police. He got a report of a domestic disturbance from someone who saw them. *She* actually punched him!
You could arrest him for suspicion of whatever you want, but if you don't have probable cause of a crime, it would be thrown out. It also doesn't matter if this guy *is* a whatever. He doesn't have to identify himself. That's the nice thing about the Constitution. We have the right to talk and the right to shut up. We can use either right any time we want! Unless they have a warrant or probable cause, you really don't have to comply with any of their requests.
You are right on one thing Tony. Giving your ID isn't a big deal until you don't want to. If the police want to do something they don't have a specific right to do, it would be my advice not to allow them to do it. Things snowball real quick. Maybe you haven't done anything illegal. Maybe they'll find something that can be interpreted that it is. And you let them have it because, it's no big deal. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You also have the right to be a *private* citizen. Private is much the same as *anonymity*, no?
BTW, if he was a rapist/murderer/whatever and this gets thrown out of court, I'm pretty sure they can't hold him. "Fruit of the poison tree". He was obtained illegaly. People have gotten away with worse stuff for stupider reasons though.
Re:Welcome to the Police State by instarx · 2004-02-19 19:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh stop with the histrionics. What happened was a violation but it really isn't Nazi Germany here yet. Slashdrones are so silly.

-Detention of citizens without trial or recourse to courts or lawyers
-Detention of citizens without charge for unlimited time
-Secret detentions (the US now has its own "disappeards")
-Declaring people "enemy combatants" and allowing them neither Constitutional protections NOR rights as prisoners of war.
-Torture of enemy combatants (as defined by international law)
-Local police undercover agents infiltrating lawful political opposition groups under the auspices of the Joint Terrorism Task Force
-The ruling party seriously suggesting that the Constitution might need to be suspended after 9/11

No, it isn't "really" Nazi Germany, but it is getting far too close for my comfort.
Re:Welcome to the Police State by instarx · 2004-02-19 21:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The terrorists haven't destroyed our way of life and never had the power to. They just gave those in power an excuse to finish destroying our way of life and national heritage.

That's 100% true.

Think Kerry will be any different than Bush? Just remember that they're both avowed and dedicated Bonesmen. They are no different on the inside, they just attempt to give the illusion of being different on the outside.

I'm suspicious about Kerry's insider status (he turned populist just a little bit too fast for me), but in the end I think he *would* be different than Bush. No politician in the history of the country has been more aggressive than G.W. Bush in cancelling the rights of Americans. Simultaneously turning the U.S. into the most hated country on the planet was just an added bonus.

When the Roman Emperor Caligula was finally deposed, the Praeatorian Guards installed a horse on the throne of Rome as a clear statement that nothing could be worse than Caligula. After four years of George W. Bush I understand exactly how they felt. Kerry or Edwards (or the horses they rode in on) - it doesn't matter to me.
Re:Welcome to the Police State by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-20 03:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

you find that the phrase "bear Arms" was never used except in referring to militia activities.

The context for the discussion was state rights versus federal power, and the creation of standing armies versus reliance on militias, so this is hardly surprising. Remeber that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought! However, it is clear that the framers had a armed citizenry (and not standing armies) in mind:
"..but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Hamilton, Federalist No. 29
"...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..." -- Madison, Federalist No. 46
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." Hamilton, Federalist 28
The National Guard are militias.

As they are today, the National Guards are more military reserve units than real militias. (See Title 32 U.S.C.)
Yet why did they explain why it was important?

Explaining why something is important is done to give it extra weight. Doesn't your boss ever say things like, "Nomadic, getting this project done is necessary to keep FooBar as a customer, so I need this next week"?
they DIDN'T use that phrase with any other amendments.

Which would indicate that it was especially important. "Nomadic, do X. Nomadic, do Y. Nomadic, getting Z done is necessary to keep the company solvent, so do Z." Which do you do first?

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Welcome to the Police State by Fjandr · 2004-02-20 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh, I wasn't implying that's what you meant. I should have been more explicit in my wording: there are a lot worse things out there than Bush. I do understand your sentiment though. What we have is a never-ending parade of self-indulgent babies who wish nothing more than to promote themselves and their petty agendas, to hell with everyone else.

Yes, there was a revolution in the 30's, and the revolutionaries won. FDR helped the revolutionaries win. He helped to permanently install socialism in the United States.

However, that wasn't actually what I was talking about. I was talking about his actions during the war. He signed EO9066 and EO9102, removing the rights of 120,000 Americans, stripping them of their property and dignity, and incarcerating them without due process for 4 years.

He forced 10,110,114 American men into involuntary servitude, stripping them of more rights than the 12,000 affected by EO9066. Many of them were ordered to their deaths against their will, the ultimate betrayal of individual rights.

FDR was also complicit in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, based on now-declassified documents pertaining to the breaking of the Japanese military code. They knew in advance.

He transformed the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of ones' labor into a privilege to be granted or revoked by the government by creating a tax on the privilege of being employed, and the privilege of employing (neither of which are privileges, but absolute rights). When the Supreme Court laid the smack down on him, he extorted their complicity by threatening to destroy the integrity of the Judicial Branch by flooding the Court with partisans.

He removed the United States from a monetary standard backed by tangible wealth to one backed by nothing more than faith. After all, paper is worth what people believe it is, and nothing more.

FDR did not believe in Constitutional checks and balances - he tried to destroy and was prepared to defy the Supreme Court and Congress.

FDR signed legislation in order to fix prices and insulate people from the consequences of defaulting on contracts (ie the consequences of their actions as outlined clearly in contracts they agreed to).

Personally, I can't think of one good thing that FDR accomplished, but I can see a lot of people who are worse-off as a result. Just look at the abject failure of Social Security. Not only did it strip everyone of the right to work and enjoy all the fruits of their labors, but it has made generations of older people dependent on it, instead of having a family safety net. The family is busy paying taxes to fund the exact cost of Social Security at the current moment and so have nothing left to help support their elders and keep a family life together. All the surplus is spent on $1000.00 hammers and $800.00 toilet seats, or on renovating government offices to install a new spa or gym.

No, FDR wasn't a great president. He was the scum of the earth, and was only interested in acting along the same lines as his contemporaries Stalin and Churchill: an arrogant, power-hungry populist who had more ego and power than he had sense.

The only wartime president worth a damn in the entire history of the United States was Washington, and even he had his faults. At least he also had intelligence and principles, and was a reluctant leader. Those are the best.

How can they do that? by scribblej · 2004-02-19 13:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:How can they do that? by GigsVT · 2004-02-19 13:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the answer to the guy who trotted out the "if you have nothing to hide" line.

They can do it because no one fights back.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:How can they do that? by Tassach · 2004-02-19 13:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

the guy always ends up being guilty of something
Well, there are so many laws on the books that it's almost impossible for anyone go through a normal day without breaking a few laws. Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to play "spot-the-stoner". And of course we're talking about TV... all the stops they make that don't result in an arrest wind up on the cutting room floor
This seems like as good a time as any to ask - how CAN they do that?
Because we let them.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Re:How can they do that? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2004-02-19 13:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

The show needs access to police departments. The police depts. want to be shown in a favorable light. The show has editors. How many clips ended up on the cutting room floor of the times have they abused the rights of someone when they don't end up being guilty?
Re:How can they do that? by jcr · 2004-02-19 13:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.

Duh!

Think the innocent people who get harassed will show up on TV? If the show did that even once, they'd get no further cooperation from the police departments.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:How can they do that? by morkeld · 2004-02-19 13:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

... although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.

Of course the ones you wind up seeing on TV are guilty, what about all the incidents you do not see that never make it on TV? Also, all the car chases you see on TV end in the death or capture of the criminal ... they never show anyone getting away. Of course, I'm not advocating criminal behavior, just pointing out the subtle conditioning that's going on with these shows.
Re:How can they do that? by monkeyfinger · 2004-02-19 13:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

I saw a similar show, (I think it was called "Scariest Police Chases") and in one chase the guy being chased had a criminal record and the narrator actually used the phrase "criminals never learn". I couldn't believe it, somebody was actually said that criminals lack the ability to learn from their mistakes. Like they are some kind of retarded sub-human scum.
I realize that this was not exactly the cream of American Television, but it really bothered me. It seemed to echo the whole American policy of simply locking people away instead of bothering to rehabilitate them.
Re:How can they do that? by thirdrock · 2004-02-19 14:55 · Score: 2, Offtopic

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie ...
Re:How can they do that? by Lord+Barrabas · 2004-02-19 15:18 · Score: 3, Informative

>>There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
>Nice! Consider that stolen for use in my sig. ;)
And when you do use it remember to attribute it to Ed Howdershelt and not the grandparent poster. The quote is in kernel hacker Gene Haskett's sig, where it is happily and properly referenced.

I spent 8 hours in jail for this by spun · 2004-02-19 13:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Let me get this straight. You read slashdot but you go to parties and drive around with girls?
dude we know your lying.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

Similar story about being detained illegally....

one evening, i was riding with a few friends to go pick up some computer parts from someone. we get to our destination and the driver - who knew the guy, ran in to grab the stuff, just a couple of drives and some ram. while he was in there, a police officer pulled up, asked me and my friend (sitting in the back seat) what we were doing there. We told him - he demanded ID. Following the guise of "Well, I have nothing to hide - here." He procedes to check our ID's. He comes back after seeing that I had minor history, says he wants to check the car. Not knowing that the driver had a 'bud' of marijuana under his seat (note: under the driver's seat) He sees that, puts me in cuffs. Takes me down to the station, and doesnt even bother with the driver. After about an hour of asking for a phone call to call a lawyer, as well as trying determine just why I -was- there, he proceeded to tell me to shut up or he would make me. I said "I'm just trying to excercise my rights." Well, I guess he took that as "being smart" so he came, open the cell, back handed me across the face twice and said that I'd better just shut up. I decided to get "smart" at that time, telling him: "I hope you feel more like a man for hitting someone you know isn't going to hit you back." He turned red and walked away....waited about 15 minutes (for the redness of my face to go away, I assume) and took a 'mug shot' (with no numbers, mind you) and told me to leave. Shame of it is, the best I could get out of the department was a written apology. Even more shamefull is that this isn't the first time I've been harassed by an officer of the law. On another occasion, I was targetted for having a 'Phish' sticker on the rear glass of my car. I was broke down, waiting for a tow truck. They searched me, searched the car. They never offered any assitance, asked if I need to call for a tow, nothing, it was straight to the point: "Where's the weed?" they asked. They felt there was something missing since they didn't find anything.
Walking back to their car to leave, the one officer jeered with a snicker, "You might want to take that sticker out of youer window..." and then he proceeded to peel out onto the road from behind me.

From those nights, I've lost most of my regard that I once had for police officers. Luckily, I have not lost my regard for my fellow man.

I may not have a completely clean record, but I'm no criminal by any stretch - I'm merely trying to get past my follies and live life. I'm an Eagle Scout, Assistant Scoutmast, and a deacon at my church - go figure.

Sorry for being off topic, but I just felt like sharing.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by Mad_Rain · 2004-02-19 13:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

I had a similar experience happen to me in Oklahoma in 1998 (so we can't blame the Patriot Act for that), where I was driving with a Maryland driver's liscense, and got pulled over after leaving a party. I was sober, my passenger was not. They were about to let me go, but because my liscense didn't show up in their computer, I was arrested for driving with a false ID. Fortunately, my friends came to bail me out after about an hour.

Of course, the first thing they did was take me to a different party so I could have a few beers, but that's another story. ;)

--
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by rindeee · 2004-02-19 14:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

In California they do this in order to determine whether or not you're an illegal, in which case that will give you a drivers license, food stamps, free tuition at the local community college and more. In this case you only received 8 hours of free room and board until such time as they realized that you're a US tax payer. God bless those happy liberals.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by chimpo13 · 2004-02-19 14:33 · Score: 3, Informative

In California you are required to provide ID, as pointed out in a couple of college classes in the California State University system. Both professors said California is the only state that requires this. So even if Hiibel wins the court case, nothing will change in this fine state.

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by flacco · 2004-02-19 14:39 · Score: 5, Funny

From those nights, I've lost most of my regard that I once had for police officers. Luckily, I have not lost my regard for my fellow man.
just give it awhile, you'll get there.
note to moderators: not funny.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by Felinoid · 2004-02-19 14:56 · Score: 2

You gave him a Hawaii ID and still went to jail?
That is just wrong.

But I think I can do you one better.
In California even. I gave him a California state ID. No he wanted a dam NIGHT PERMIT. I've never heard of a night permit. Nobody I know knows anything about it. I haven't a clue where to get one. Thankfully he didn't arrest me but... Ick.

I work late nights. I desided to stand outside for a while becouse around that time a certen jerk likes to show up and threaton to break into the building. I wanted to get his liccens plate so I could give it to the police.

Instead I get super cop who wants to arrest ME for standing on the sidewalk infront of the building where I work.

--
I don't actually exist.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by operagost · 2004-02-19 15:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, since this has gone to the federal Supreme Court, it will take precedence over state laws. That California law will become void. Of course, whether California actually decides to obey that is a good question, since now its cities are apparently allowed to function as rogue, anarchic states (re: San Francisco).

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by iminplaya · 2004-02-19 16:00 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm going to blow off some karma here and be redundant, because it's important for people to be aware(beware?) of this. Not to diminish yours or other's bad experience, but you all have nothing on this guy.

--
What?
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 17:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

"If a cop asks if he or she can search your car, you say "no." If they tell you that it'll just take a second, you say "no." Keep saying no. "

Never say no to a search. You say no that means you are trying to hide something; which means they have probable cause.
The correct responce would go something similar to this.
Officer: Do you have anything illegal in your car?
Driver: No.
Officer: I am going to go ahead and search your car.
or if they are nice
Officer: Is it ok if I search your car?
Driver: You may search my car officer as soon as you tell me your probable cause.

If someone else has a better statement please let me know. As far as I can see, saying yes as long as they tell you why is the best route to go.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by 0111+1110 · 2004-02-20 04:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

If it was the "vehicle" who was stopped, why not ask the "vehicle" for its ID and why it had kidnapped all those people inside of it?

Since when does merely being a passenger in a vehicle constitute a crime? If a city bus hits a pedestrian, would you encarcerate all the passengers until you could "verify their identity"? This just gets better and better.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by michael_cain · 2004-02-20 05:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
you're not required to have a passport, not required to have a driver's license, not required to have a state's alternative ID card, etc. ...

While it is still feasible to function as an adult in the US without some form of photo ID, it has become quite difficult from a practical perspective to do so. Without such an ID, you can't:
- Operate or rent an automobile,
- Travel by plane,
- Buy alcohol (unless you have enough gray hair, like me, that no one questions that you're 21),
- Access many commercial services (my bank will not lease you a safe-deposit box without photo ID),
- Be employed at many companies.
The last one is perhaps most unsettling. When I started at my last position, I had to provide photo ID as evidence that I was who said I was and that I was a citizen. A passport did the job nicely, otherwise you needed a drivers license (or state alternative) and a certified birth certificate. My 17-year-old daughter applied for a near-minimum-wage job which required a drug test and the testing firm required photo ID -- no ID, no test, no job. Once people become accustomed to showing their "papers" on demand in their private lives, they will probably be more willing to do so in their public lives as well.
I fully expect that "papers" will become a requirement in the US during my lifetime. The world has become a more dangerous place, and will continue to do so. For example, we are almost to the point where technology will allow a lunatic with the resources of a small country at their disposal to engineer "designer diseases" and use them as weapons -- much easier and cheaper than building a nuke. Assume an epidemic killing a million people, and it is more likely that the Supreme Court will change their mind about the balance between "unreasonable searches and seizures" and "provide for the common defense and general welfare".
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this by ChaosDiscord · 2004-02-20 07:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

In California you are required to provide ID, ... So even if Hiibel wins the court case, nothing will change in this fine state.

It'll depend on the ruling. If the Supreme Court rules that demanding ID without probable cause amounts to an unreasonable search, or that holding people solely for refusing to provide ID is unreasonable seizure, then California will have to change. By no means a certain thing, but it's a real possibility.

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events

Putting a stop to this now. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:05 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Putting a stop to this now. by fishbowl · 2004-02-19 13:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case."

That's why the Supreme Court will have trouble deciding against this guy's appeal. There isn't a national ID card that they can require, and they, being a Federal court, cannot make a requirement that all citizens of the several states must carry a certain ID, because there isn't one that they can specify in their jurisdiction. They can't order the States to require an id card. They can't create a national id card because that would require an act of Congress.

The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law. As it should be. Lesson learned: Choose your Local and State government wisely. Be part of the process that puts the local guys in power. Local politicians become national politicians. It's a hell of a lot easier to reach them before they grow up!

IANAL, and I'm especially not a Supreme Court justice on a republican-appointed court.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Putting a stop to this now. by Eric+Smith · 2004-02-19 13:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law.
The state might have that authority. Or it might not. That will be decided by the Supreme Court. States do not have the authority to do absolutely anything not prohibited by Federal law; the U.S. Constitution limits States as well.
I think a convincing argument can be made that the police demanding an ID for no legitimate reason is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the right to privacy. (The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a right to privacy, even though it is not a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.)
A person should have the right to peaceably and lawfully go about their business without having to present identification.
Re:Putting a stop to this now. by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-02-19 13:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Supreme Court can rule it un-constitutional and have the law stricken. Which is the only acceptable answer, and is what any sane person wants. Also, it is the most likely outcome, I think. There is no way they are going to let this stand, even with the shift to the right.
Re:Putting a stop to this now. by sangreal66 · 2004-02-19 14:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because a law is bad does not make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, and allowing them to do so in cases we favor only grants them the power to do so in cases we don't. This is a fight that belongs in congress, not the courts.
Re:Putting a stop to this now. by Wavicle · 2004-02-19 15:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quite honestly I think the state of Nevada knows it is treading on questionable grounds. If you read their brief in opposition of certiorari, they use some truly circular reasoning to try and sidestep the law in question. Notably:

On one occasion Hiibel asked Dove why he needed to provide his identification. Dove explained that he needed Hiibel's identification because of the reported fight. During this encounter Hiibel even placed his hands behind his back and told Dove to take him to jail. In light of Hiibel's refusal to provide identification, Dove placed him under arrest for the crime of resisting an officer pursuant to NRS 199.280.

Okay, so now that he has been arrested for not providing identification:

Once a person is detained on reasonable suspicion they are considered to be seized under the Fourth Amendment. Davis v. Mississippi 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

And then

One of the questions put before this court is whether the right of privacy found in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a person from being compelled to provide identification after he is lawfully detained by an officer. The state contends that compelling a lawfully detained person to identify himself is reasonable when balancing the interests of law officers and a person's right of privacy and/or right to be free from arbitrary interference with law officers."

Ummm... yeah... let's see... Officer says "let me see your I.D.", if you refuse he can detain you on reasonable suspicion, and now that you are lawfully detained the public interest is served by forcing you to identify yourself... *HOW* is it again that one is expected to be free from arbitrary interference with law officers?

Sounds like they can arbitrarily get your ID legally to me.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Re:Putting a stop to this now. by MrLint · 2004-02-19 15:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

On a side note to this discussion i saw something wholly disturbing at a rest stop today : "Support out troops abroad and at home" it was a poster soliciting donations for the NYPD benevolent assoc. Frankly i am going to have nightmares for the rest of my life because of that. Civil law enforcement are not 'troops' and equating them as such really has the nauseating feeling of the blurring lines of the civilian and military. I am very much afraid that it may be way to late to turn away from the eventual police state.

Keep these points in mind,

* ceding more power to the govt causes it/them to want more (for reference please see the abuses of power at the FBI under JE hoover and the reforms that were put in place after his reign.)

* the criminalization of civil matters (look at the actions of the RIAA MPAA, and the use of not only federal resources, but their own legally allowed goons to threaten and harass)

* Govt influence is being bought and sold by big money (see again RIAA/MPAA and Senator Disney (Hollings)

* The rather insane need by certain govt officials to amend the constitution to limit the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry (where as the document lays out the restrictions of the powers of the govt.)

* The drive of some to also remove the miranda warning as to put people into a coercive situation with law enforcement and deprive them of at least the cognizance of their rights.

* People being held without charges and without counsel.

There are a lot of people that benefit from having these powers to arbitrarily make inconvenient people go away temporally or permanently, and even a well meaning leader may not be able to reverse the course.

Re:What is there to hide? by asklepius · 2004-02-19 13:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

His webserver must not have shown ID by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Apparently it's been arrested.

Probable Cause? by Supp0rtLinux · 2004-02-19 13:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Re:Probable Cause? by Supp0rtLinux · 2004-02-19 13:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Um, I did mention why I was stopped and why I was searched. If you read my post, I said they had a suspicion I was driving a stolen vehicle (the reason is that I had a new vehicle with no plates so they pulled me over thinking my truck might be stolen). I showed them the temporary registration and bill of purchase. They read both, *then* asked me to exit the vehicle and searched me and my truck. They found the gun that was being legally transported in a unloaded, locked gun box. The police report said as much, which is why the judge dismissed the case after reading over the police report.
Re:Probable Cause? by nodwick · 2004-02-19 13:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wasn't aware that " parking off the road" was probable cause to "investigate an investigation".
I think the "probable cause" would be the call from the witness claiming they saw some domestic violence going on. Both the story and the cop in the video mention it. So it's not a case of where the police cruiser just pulled over because they thought the guy's face looked funny.
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.
Not being an expert on legal matters, I can't really say anything from a rights standpoint, but I do feel obliged to point out that from a pragmatic standpoint a little bit of calm and courtesy probably would have prevented things from escalating the way they did. On the video it looks like the man started getting visibly agitated and shouting pretty easily, when he could have just calmly stated his case. Unfortunately when you get right down to things, if you start by being hostile and loud it usually doesn't help things. This is true regardless of whether you're talking to a cop, a secretary, airport security, or whatever. (On a side note, I've seen what I'd consider much more aggressive tactics given much less provocation every time I pass through the airport.)
Re:Probable Cause? by HBI · 2004-02-19 13:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

(On a side note, I've seen what I'd consider much more aggressive tactics given much less provocation every time I pass through the airport.)

Hence why I don't fly unless I absolutely positively have to.

Great things this new age is doing for the airline industry, their service was already going down the tubes without the Gestapo at the gate. I have to admit the TSA people are a lot more professional now than the private security companies, but when I get shit about my insulin supplies and can't carry them unless I have a written prescription on me...fuck them. Like i'm going to hijack an airplane with a 3/4" needle that is thin enough most people can't even feel it go in. Oooo, scary weapon.

The whole industry can go bankrupt for all I care. I vote with my wallet. Ass holes.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Probable Cause? by kimgh · 2004-02-19 14:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Was the guy drunk? Seemed to have trouble talking coherently. Although he walked OK, and the deputy was a bit incoherent as well. Perhaps it's just adrenaline...
I was a bit more concerned when they pulled the girl out of the truck and onto the ground and cuffed her. That seemed totally unnecessary. The view isn't clear, but wasn't she a teenager?
Re:Probable Cause? by civilizedINTENSITY · 2004-02-19 15:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually "probable cause" is why the supreme court is interested. The Neveda law states that reasonable suspicion is all thats required for an ID detainment, and that you are then *required* to ID yourself. They can then detain you up to one hour to verify the ID you gave them. The legal question is whether "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" is necessary in order to require ID.

NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.

IANAL but I am a citizen. My take is that we are to be consider innocent until proven quilty, and that we have an expectation of privacy. Resonable suspicion is not probable cause. No one says "innocent until reasonably suspected". At what point does their suspicion outweigh my rights? I say they need to more than suspect its possible, they need to have proof that its probable.
Re:Probable Cause? by cperciva · 2004-02-19 20:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Sorry pal, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how useful a hypo kit could be to a hijacker, like you said, "most people can't even feel it go in."

I think the grandparent is overstating things a bit here: The pain is minimal, but it's unusual to not notice it entirely, and it's almost impossible to give an insulin injection to an uncooperative patient -- the needles are thin enough that any sort of violent movement will break them.

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Re:Probable Cause? by John+Gilmore · 2004-02-19 21:25 · Score: 2, Informative

In a case such as this - where someone has called the police and reported a potential crime - the police have the right to ask everyone present for ID.

Yes, and the people who they "ask" are not required to respond. As Shakespeare said in Henry IV:

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
You are confusing a request with a demand. A cop is free to request anything at any point, with a few exceptions. (And people who have never had good advice from a lawyer are likely to do as they request -- to the peoples' own detriment.) But what a cop can demand is limited by the Constitution. A "request" followed by an arrest if you do not comply is a "demand".

Just don't get it by Docrates · 2004-02-19 13:07 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Just don't get it by GigsVT · 2004-02-19 13:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Have you ever asked a blind man to describe what "red" look like?

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah well, Panama, like pretty much everyplace else in SA, you pretty much are expected to do anything that a man in uniform with a gun orders you to do.

You don't see anything so horrible with that system because you are willing to live under it. One more day. Someday, somewhere, the reason you don't want to identify yourself to an authority figure will not be as obvious to you as "illegal immigrant" or "escaped felon."

It's happened before, in other parts of the world, where unthinkable things would be done to you simply because your papers indicated you were of the wrong ethnic group to be in this part of town after dark... So that's not the case in Panama today, but why are you so willing to give them the tools they need to oppress your people when they choose to?

When people aren't concerned about their liberties before it's too late, when it's too late, well, it's too late.
Re:Just don't get it by SparafucileMan · 2004-02-19 13:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, its not that they're willing to live under it. It's just that Panama has a habit of getting invaded by the United States, who always supports the military, who are the ones with the guns, who run the country. I mean christ, ever heard of the PANAMA CANAL?
Re:Just don't get it by at_kernel_99 · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

One point of difference is probably the political system you've been raised in vs. the one in which US citizens have been raised. I don't know what the panamanian constitution looks like, but I imagine that its very different from the freedoms provided in the US constitution, particularly in the area of the Bill of Rights.

The concern that some US citizens have is that the US government is devaluing personal privacy, which some view as an infringement of the rights provided in the constitution. The US legal system, for instance, is based on presumed innocence. i.e. law enforcement is expected - no, mandated - to presume citizens are innocent, not guilty of commiting crimes. There is not, to my knowledge, any federal law mandating that US citizens carry identification. It appears (I do not know for certain, as I cannot get to the article) that the individual in question was not in the act of committing a crime - or even suspected of committing a crime, but the law enforcement officer demanded that the individual identify himself as the officer was 'investigating an investigation.' This would appear to be insufficient reason to detain and fine the individual in question.
Re:Just don't get it by petabyte · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Amendment 4 of the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the US, people (theoretically) have the right to not have people looking through all of their stuff. The idea being that this would lead to abuses by government officals as per what happened under colonial government. So the question in this case is: was this request "unreasonable"? He needs a legitmate reason for requesting information (which he probably had). It is probably his "investigating an investigation" reason for doing this that caused all of hubub.
Re:Just don't get it by Josh+Booth · 2004-02-19 13:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because it is too easy to lose it or have it taken away. In the South of the U.S. before the (U.S.) Civil War, free blacks (freedmen) were given papers to prove that they were not slaves. They were still second class citizens, though, and if they forgot their papers one day and someone asked, it was off to the plantation you go.

In the U.S., most people revere very highly "innocent until proven guilty" (except for the military) and that is what this case appears to be about. I'm not sure the exact letter of the law is, however, because in essence, we do have a national ID (Social Security Number). But I don't think that anywhere one is required to carry ID everywhere as that would seem morally wrong to me.

Could someone enlighten me some too?
Re:Just don't get it by petabyte · 2004-02-19 13:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Responding to my own post but oh well. I read the ACLU amicus brief. Terry v. Ohio states that a police officer must have probable cause to arrest an individual. Terry allows the officer to ask a moderate number of questions in order to satisfy himself BUT, the person being questioned does not have to answer them. The officer cannot arrest the person unless he has probable cause. Nevada law, however, says a person MUST identify themselves (give their name). This goes against Terry's right to refuse to answer questions by the officer.

The question of the case then, I guess, is whether the Nevada law requiring a person to give their name to an officer is Constitutional. I'm hoping they vote no and the ruling overturned.
Re:Just don't get it by LittleBigLui · 2004-02-19 13:54 · Score: 2, Redundant

It's just that Panama has a habit of getting invaded by the United States,

Panama better lay off that habit quickly. You know, the US now fights for democracy, so if Panama gets invaded that proves that they are full of Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

--
Free as in mason.
Re:Just don't get it by UVABlows · 2004-02-19 14:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is not insightful. A legitimate question is being responded to with a failed analogy. This is FUD. If the answer to his question is so obvious, please enlightem him as opposed to trying to make fun of him.

--
<high-level position here>
<name of stupid small company here>

Not papers, just a name by bentini · 2004-02-19 13:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is that he didn't give his *name*, not his papers.

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?

Re:Not papers, just a name by onewing · 2004-02-19 13:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

The reason someone shouldn't give there name is the same reason i wouldnt give my name if some stranger came up to me and asked for my name.

A police officer without any probible cause should be treated as just another citizen and should not have special privilages to access any information.
Re:Not papers, just a name by Dirtside · 2004-02-19 13:21 · Score: 3, Informative

Not only did the cop not see Hiibel driving the truck, but Hiibel hadn't even been driving the truck -- his daughter had. He wasn't driving at all, let alone driving without a license.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:Not papers, just a name by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't give my name to someone else just because they request it. Show me the benefit to disclosing my identity, and I'll consider doing so.
Re:Not papers, just a name by culain · 2004-02-19 13:59 · Score: 3, Informative

And in fact the website indicates that she WAS driving, and was in the drivers seat.
Re:Not papers, just a name by John+Gilmore · 2004-02-19 14:46 · Score: 5, Informative

From the transcript on the video page, you can see that Deputy Dove was demanding papers: "I need to see some identification", then "I just need to see some identification", then "Show me your identification".

Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".

The standard advice from ANY lawyer is to not say anything when accosted by cops. Not even your name. And the mass of court decisions, e.g. Kolender v. Lawson, concurring opinion of Brennan state that nobody has to answer ANY of the questions a cop asks of them -- even IF the cop suspects them of a crime:

"... States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer."

Here's another one, Terry v. Ohio, concurring opinion by White: "[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." 88 S.Ct., at 1886 (White, J., concurring).
Re:Not papers, just a name by guacamolefoo · 2004-02-19 16:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Deputy Dove

So close...so very close. Perhaps a few more monkeys...a few more bananas...

Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".

A little more menacing than Sergeant Schultz, but I still see him saying that. Take a look at my journal for some practical ideas under these circumstances. FWIW, I think that there may have been enough (clearly, IMHO) for a Terry stop. Beyond that, the tape doesn't really show anything else is warranted. Unfortunately, the rights of the accused are not a high priority for the Rehnquist court.

Under most circumstances, acting up during a Terry stop would get him arrested. The problem here is that the cop wasn't smart enough to nail him for something like disorderly conduct.

More importantly, I think the videotape makes this case. I couldn't find a link at the site for the case (or obtain info from the pleadings that are not downloading right now) which dealt with the source of teh video. I presume it is from the police cruiser as part of a standardized "record all traffic stops" policy?

In thousands of stops every day, there isn't any tape. In the jurisdictions where I practice, there is generally no videotape of stops. I think it would really put the clamps on the police to open up what they do to the light of day although it protects both the accused (from some types of police misconduct) and the police (from allegations of misconduct/abuse).

On an unrelated note, I gather that you are the same John Gilmore (Sun) who filed the amicus brief (through counsel) and the same John Gilmore as this person?

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits

Re:What is there to hide? by fishbowl · 2004-02-19 13:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Happened to me by Gothmolly · 2004-02-19 13:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Happened to me by Neil+Blender · 2004-02-19 13:13 · Score: 5, Funny

I ended up working late on some Microsoft catastrophe at work.

Nice. Work in a dig at Microsoft. Ah, Slashdot.
Re:Happened to me by sensei_brandon · 2004-02-19 13:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Me too.
I was jogging after work one night and a cop drove up on the sidewalk in front of me, lights on. I was wearing khakis and a shirt and jogging down the sidewalk at about midnight. He asked if I was on any drugs, then if I was on any illegal drugs, as though the first question weren't all-inclusive. I asked him if I was under arrest, and he said no, but wanted to know where I lived. I told him, and he said he'd wait for me to finish jogging and if he didn't see me come in the house in 20 minutes he'd go looking for me. WTF?
Re:Happened to me by freakmn · 2004-02-19 13:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think if people call anything in, the cops are supposed to investigate. It just covers their butts so they can't be called negligent.

I have a funny story about the cops showing up at a LAN party. We had a 24 hour LAN party ata local computer shop, and a few people decided to leave at 5AM, instead of staying until it ended at 10AM. I guess some neighbors thought it looked a little suspicious to have as dozen people walking out of a computer shop at 5AM and load computers into their cars. About 1/2 hour later, 4 squad cars pulled in and started asking questions about what was going on. They stayed around for 1/2 hour, talking to the only employee there, who, if you were looking for someone suspicious, would be the first suspect. They left, but the same incident happened a few weeks later at the next one. Now the owners of the store call before they have a LAN. It was kinda funny, but I guess they were doing their job.

--
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
Re:Happened to me by Cryptnotic · 2004-02-19 14:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

dozen people walking out of a computer shop at 5AM and load computers into their cars.

Yeah, that would look a little suspicious.

But anyway, they got a call and they investigated it. If the next day, the store owner calls the police and says, "hey we had $50,000 worth of computer stuff stolen", they've got a suspect.

My original point is that if the police are investigating a documented report of suspicious activity, then they have a right to go to the scene and question people. On the other hand, if they're just hanging out on the street stopping people for no reason (e.g., fishing), then that's not only a waste of their time, but it's also unreasonable search. On another hand though, if a cop is just driving around and he sees a crime being committed (say someone smoking pot in public), they can stop the person and make an arrest or issue a citation.

The police are far more aware of the laws than the average citizen because if a policeman screws up, the jailer, district attorney, and judge will be upset at him for wasting everyone's time.

--
My other first post is car post.

Re:What is there to hide? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, you lose them.

Re:why ? by nomadic · 2004-02-19 13:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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".

ACLU by Neil+Blender · 2004-02-19 13:10 · Score: 4, Informative

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.)

Re:ACLU by tfoss · 2004-02-19 15:02 · Score: 3, Informative

All fine and good, but he wasn't stopped in a car. He was standing next to a lawfully parked vehicle.
-Ted

--
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.

Drawing the line. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Drawing the line. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:15 · Score: 3, Funny

What has it gots in its pocketses?
Re:Drawing the line. by hammock · 2004-02-19 14:03 · Score: 5, Informative

If you are in your car, you need proof of license and proof of insurance, that's just the way it is.

1. What's your name?
It's on my license
2. Can I see some ID?
Yes here is my drivers license
3. What is your reason for being here?
I prefer not to discuss that with you
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
I do not consent to a search of the vehicles storage compartments
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
I do not consent to a search of my person
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
I do not consent to a search of my dwelling
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
I do not consent to a search of my personal computer

Remember also "Can I leave now?" "Am I under arrest?" "Why am I being detained?" and "I do not wish to speak with you now."

The EFF? by JoeBaldwin · 2004-02-19 13:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:The EFF? by John+Gilmore · 2004-02-19 15:26 · Score: 2, Informative

EFF filed a brief because they believe in privacy and anonymity.

(Also, working with me has educated them on some issues around ubiquitous ID demands. Turns out that most of these ID demands are backed by big databases; the ID is used as a key to search them. E.g., a cop radios in your license number and they tell him things about you from the NCIC database. Or the cop uses the multi-state MATRIX web access from the laptop in the police car. Or the TSA's CAPPS-2 looks up your credit records to suspect you if you don't have any credit -- and cross-checks them against your ID when you show up at the airport.)

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) by G4from128k · 2004-02-19 13:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:What is there to hide? by Will242 · 2004-02-19 13:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

This was on Kuro5hin by ryancerium · 2004-02-19 13:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:This was on Kuro5hin by ThomK · 2004-02-19 13:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

What makes you assume he was drunk? If anything the cop should have been sensitive to the fact that he was already under stress from fighting with his wife. That is the COPS fault. You don't walk into a domestic situation like that and just start barking orders at someone who is already on an emotional rampage. Men under stress can snap, the cop could have gotten a lot more than he asked for, for being such a dick.

--
TK
Re:This was on Kuro5hin by 1029 · 2004-02-19 14:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yeah, what a jerk. Fine him! Attitude police everywhere unite!

Seriously now, is saying "I have right sided tendencies" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) supposed to pacify us and make us think "Well gee, if this guy is generally a Republicrat and he approves of the cops doing this, it must be ok?"

I'd post a link to the video, but I can't find it anywhere on the net and I forget what newsgroup post I originally found it in. The file is called no_id_arrest_SMALL.mov for anyone who cares to search around on their own. And from what I could understand being said on the tape the subtitles were pretty damned accurate. In fact, many times they only printed "(garbled)", when I could in fact plainly make out what was being said. I think they just wanted to air very much on the side of caution about captioning what was being said.

Anyhow, this guy seemed out of it, but beyond that did nothing at all to get arrested. In fact the cop started giving him trouble and the guy just told him not to touch him, and asked pretty plainly why it was that he was being harrassed. When the cop said something along of the lines of "I'm investigating... stuff" the guy then asked why that made him have to give ID. In the end this guy just gave up and told the cop he wasn't going to give id, but if the cop wanted he could go right ahead and arrest him. Which the cop then did.

Then comes the best part... 2 more cops show up, run up to this guys truck and start harassing the passenger. They held the door shut for awhile, and when they finally let it open they literally grabbed the girl inside and slammed her to the ground. Fairly small girl, not nearly a match for these 2 cops, and as far as I could tell she did nothing more than perhaps yell at them. She certainly wasn't resisting anything.

These guys are just a bunch of backwater fucktards on a power trip. I hope they get their asses in a sling for this. Cops should spend their time arresting criminals, not harassing semi-argumentative old guys.

--
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.

I was arrested for this offense in Texas by jpnews · 2004-02-19 13:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:I was arrested for this offense in Texas by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2004-02-19 13:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Walking is a very suspicious activity. The only people who walk are (1) criminals or (2) people who are too poor to buy a car and so are probably also criminal.

--
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.

Please board the train for relocation by Gothmolly · 2004-02-19 13:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

I write a weekly newspaper column by prisoner · 2004-02-19 13:15 · Score: 4, Informative

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...:)

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column by LoveMuscle · 2004-02-19 13:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind this body cavity search either right?

-or to take a step back-

If you have nathing to hide, you won't mind if we put cameras in the bathrooms right?

With the state of legislation these days EVERYONE has SOMETHING to hide. Most laws are written by folks who think "their way is best", and through force of law feel the need to cram it down the throats of the rest of us.

There are many laws that I think MOST of us can agree on: murder, rape, etc...

There are far more laws that MOST of us don't agree on: prohibition of drugs, abortion, j-walking, etc...

The first defence we have against the "stupid" laws is some level of privacy, protected by NOT having to submit to this kind of intrusion..
Re:I write a weekly newspaper column by circusnews · 2004-02-19 14:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sometimes its a matter of asking the right question. Try asking you readers this:

Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.

Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?

Why not?

Now, why it is OK for a cop to do this to an adult?
Re:I write a weekly newspaper column by Riktov · 2004-02-19 15:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.
Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?
It's certainly not a crime, but I think that any child that ages from 10 to 12 years old within the span of one Sunday afternoon would arouse some suspicion!
Re:I write a weekly newspaper column by MourningBlade · 2004-02-19 15:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think I have a moderately good defense of privacy: the foundation of our criminal code is based on external acts, that is acts against another person or entity. The proof for an external act would then be public material, or material provided ("made public") by the harmed party. Therefore, privacy is a restriction on the encroachment of law: if you can't be shown to be doing it, you can't be convicted of it. Thus privacy is a good thing can be derived from the idea that "if you didn't harm another, it's not a crime"
Another way to say all this is: If you didn't hurt anyone, you didn't commit a crime. If you did commit a crime, the person hurt (or a person witnessing or affected) would come forward with evidence: you don't have to prove you didn't do it. Privacy is your right to an accuser.
Many of the problems we've had in recent years with the law have been 1) "victimless crimes" or "societying-wronging" (drugs are the classic example), and 2) where the state is the accuser.
Both of these are in part because there is no concrete person wronged, so it's difficult to defend yourself. Even worse is when the state is the accuser, because the state is An Authority: what they say is true. Very hard to prove otherwise, and the individual clerks process so much information each day that things are just assumed to be true because they're written: no one remembers writing them.
These fears are often dismissed as being kafka-esque, but anyone who has ever delt with a large corporation that has a "it's written so it must be true" problem can understand what the problem is. Now imagine where the result is not paying an extra $100, but having 5 years of your life taken away. High stakes. And beaurocracies don't get any better when they're played at those stakes.
That's a basic defense of privacy. I'm still struggling with the "ihre papieren, bitte" (sic?).

Re:What is there to hide? by pnatural · 2004-02-19 13:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

While it's bad, it's not as bad as implied by strech · 2004-02-19 13:18 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

This sounds like a good way by nija · 2004-02-19 13:18 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

thank you John Asscroft! by segment · 2004-02-19 13:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't feel bad there's not much you as an individual can do unless you have a boatload of money to throw around...

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

Re:thank you John Asscroft! by spood · 2004-02-19 14:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't worry though the USA PATRIOT ACT's will take care of all your problems.

Yes, it's much nicer in Cuba than Canada this time of year.

--
---- Just another spud server.

Duh! by El · 2004-02-19 13:19 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:Duh! by kramer · 2004-02-19 14:16 · Score: 4, Informative

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!

DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer, just a law student

No.

Follow that rule, and you may well end your ass up in jail. The rule in most jurisdictions is that you do not have a right to resist arrest unless one "reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect against an arresting officer's use of unlawful and deadly force"

Essentially, you cannot resist arrest unless you're in fear of your life or grevious bodily injury -- EVEN if the arrest or use of force is unlawful. The way to deal with unlawful use of force is a civil action later. It is not up to the man on the street to decide whether an arrest is legal or illegal -- that is a matter for a judge and jury.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Biagini (655 A.2d 492) is a good example (and coincidentally where I stole the above quote from). Man is arrested without sufficient cause. During the arrest he assaults an officer. Man is found not guilty of original crime, but does time on the resisting arrest charge.

I don't think I can state it clearly enough -- you do not have a right to resist arrest except when in immediate fear of death / near death.

Good thing you're not black by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Or it might have went like this:

Cop: Hey boy, whats going on?
Me: Nothi....
Cop's begin beating you

Not "investigating an investigation" by stubear · 2004-02-19 13:22 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Not "investigating an investigation" by Dirtside · 2004-02-19 13:49 · Score: 4, Informative

How else was the officer supposed to gather information on the suspect?
He could have asked. I watched the video. The officer did not ask Hiibel's name. He started out by asking for his ID. Hiibel didn't have any ID on him. If the person who made the call in the first place knew Hiibel's name, and told the police his name, then the first thing the sheriff should have done was asked "Are you Dudley Hiibel?" He could have asked Hiibel's daughter if Hiibel had hit her, if she was okay, etc. But he started out by assuming that a crime had occurred, based only on an anonymous tip. Rather then trying to determine if a crime had occurred (which would have given him cause to ask for ID), he jumped to the asking for ID part.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

Re:why ? by iminplaya · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

More interesting and less /.'ed site by kwerle · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 3, Informative

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'.

If there was "no way", then they wouldn't hear it. by Kelmenson · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

What would everyone prefer a policeman to do? by i)ave · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:What would everyone prefer a policeman to do? by malchus842 · 2004-02-19 14:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, there are times when giving your ID is required, I had a breakdown and when the local police arrived, and asked for ID, I showed it. Why? Because I had been driving my car, and last I checked, my state law requires that I carry my license when I'm driving, and surrender it to a police officer who asks. That's one of the prices of driving - you have to follow the regulations surrounding the license you've been granted.

As an aside, the request for the license was for the contact report, which our local police are required to file anytime they talk to someone in an official capacity. Had the situation been different (ie not vehicle related), simply giving my name and address would have sufficed.

The ordinance that requires these contact reports was put in place to keep the police in check. And it's a good one.
Re:What would everyone prefer a policeman to do? by andreMA · 2004-02-19 16:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
[...]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 think this misses the point... a demand for identification in this case was never necessary in the first place. Here's how it should have been handled, in my view:
Cop: Afternoon, sir... is everything here alright?
Hibel: No problem, officer... what's up?
Cop: Well, we had someone reporting a fight and need to check things out to make sure everything is OK. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm sure you understand that ww need to look into reports like this... Would you mind waiting over there...
Driver is directed to a place safely off the road where the cop (alone at that time?) can keep an eye on him while interviewing the daughter.
Cop talks to daughter, determines if anything is amiss -- does she seem upset beyond what might be expected from an argument and being a young driver confronted with a policeman, possibly for the first time? Been crying? Any obvious bruises? Does she plausibly deny having been hit? (yes, sometimes domestic violence victims deny having been abused. That dosen't mean you don't ask!)
In all likelihood, he'd have arrived at the truth of the matter in short order -- that the original report called in was an over reaction -- and he'd have shaken hands all around and created good rather than ill-will. In less time than his confrontational approach would have taken even if Hibel had cooperated from the outset.
And guess what? He'd never have needed to ask for IDs or names at all, or even called in the license plate of the pickup truck (though he probably did anyhow as a safety measure when he pulled up - a sane and non-invasive precaution.)

Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:why ? by jcr · 2004-02-19 13:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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."

No Checkpoints?? by rueger · 2004-02-19 13:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:No Checkpoints?? by fishbowl · 2004-02-19 14:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?"

Unfortunately you are correct. There's a gray area between rights and privileges. The people who interrogate you at the airport are not police, do not have police powers, and pretty much are not able to do anything except decide whether to let you enter the private property which is the terminal or the aircraft. They can also notify the police if they suspect you of a crime, which is not any sort of exclusive privilege that they have, and you do not.

Yes, the whole system is that way because federal agencies require it. The theory is, those federal agencies have created regulations under public review and scrutiny, and that the people who make decisions in those agencies are in their position of authority because they were appointed by people you elected. And yes, the people at the airport terminal happen to have a real quick way to get the attention of the police, who happen to be on site. But you are NOT passing a checkpoint that is actually operated by a police agency. Not yet anyway.

Government operates with the consent of the governed. By not voting, you voice your consent...

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:why ? by rcw-home · 2004-02-19 13:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's nothing wrong with asking an officer to show their badge and give you their name. They'll happily share that information.

Happily, that is, until you call them an asshole.

The US is different by Sycraft-fu · 2004-02-19 13:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:The US is different by Rick+Zeman · 2004-02-19 13:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Eh? I'd submit that it's your Social Security Card/number. How many attempts are there to make that into the de facto standard for ID? You can make it to a ripe age without a passport, but try doing anything without an SSN.
Re:The US is different by autocracy · 2004-02-19 14:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Birth certificate or naturalization papers. Don't have one, and you don't have proof of citizenship. Not a good sign if for any strange reason INS wants to talk to you.

--
SIG: HUP
Re:The US is different by dave420-2 · 2004-02-19 23:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

The US does have a national ID card. It doesn't identify you as a citizen or not, but it does show who you are, and is nationally recognised. It's your drivers license.
You need it to go for a drive round the block. It's the standard ID shown at bars and clubs.
I've spent a lot of time in the states, and every time I leave the house, I had to make sure I kept my passport on me, as I seemed to be asked for it a hell of a lot. Picking up a 40 at 10am on a tuesday? "Got any ID?". Going for a drink at the bar down the road? "Got any ID?" Buy something at Vons with my credit card? "Got any ID?" Get stopped driving to Carl's Jr for a double bacon western cheeseburger meal? "License and registration, please". You're expected to prove your identity in the US more than anywhere else I've ever been.
I live in London (England), and I don't have to carry anything on me. Driving, drinking, buying stuff, whatever. I don't have to show anything. Ever. You don't need to have anything on you when you drive, as they (quite rightly) presume you innocent.
Americans seem to think the amount of ID-carrying they go through is the "bare minimum", as that's what they've been told. It is, however, half-way up the fascist ladder. You don't realise unless you leave the US and go somewhere else.

Re:it's called refusing a resonable request. by Loki_1929 · 2004-02-19 13:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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."

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) by iminplaya · 2004-02-19 13:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Re:What's wrong with asking for ID? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Because I'm a free citizen of a free country. If Joe Blow walks up to me on the street and asks for my ID, I'll tell him to pound sand. If Joe Withabadge walks up and asks the same, I'll answer the same, unless he's got a good reason to ask for it.

It's not a matter of getting worked up about it; in fact getting worked up about it is dumb.

What do I have to hide? Nothing that is illegal, and everything that is my own business and nobody else's. Why? because the most precious right of all is the right to be left alone.

Re:Republicans 5-4 by boobsea · 2004-02-19 13:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

This case is Extremely Important. by Beautyon · 2004-02-19 13:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:This case is Extremely Important. by technos · 2004-02-19 19:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

As much as I hate the idea of the government accumulating a dossier on its citizenry, linking the databases and restricting queries could be good for privacy. Cop tells computer he's running a warrant check; Instead of seeing a screen with my entire driving history, all the cars I own, my entire arrest record, he gets a simple "No warrants". No more information than he's requested, and all requests with a reason.

Or I've got an expired registration on me, or an expired proof of insurance. Instead of wasting his time writing the ticket and showing to court, plus mine, plus the courts, because all I have to do is show the current version to the judge, a simple "Is HKR 264 registered?" "Yes."

Would cut down on bullshit rousts too. If you have to give the computer a reason you'll be asked about in court, you'll be less likely to pull someone over just to run them. "Matched description of known local drug offender" works fine after the fact now, but when the cop has to tell the computer up front he thinks the guy is a drug offender and the computer calls him a liar because the owner of the car matches the description of the driver and he is not a drug offender, or that the drivers description doesn't match any local drug offenders, before the car is even to the shoulder, they'll think twice.

--
.sig: Now legally binding!

torrent of video by TedCheshireAcad · 2004-02-19 13:35 · Score: 4, Informative

torrent of hi-quality quicktime movie

Re:it's called refusing a resonable request. by Jo3sh · 2004-02-19 13:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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.

Re:don't do the crime by malchus842 · 2004-02-19 13:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

The police don't defend my rights by Operating+Thetan · 2004-02-19 13:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:Slashdot is so predictable by Little+Brother · 2004-02-19 13:43 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Devil's Advocate... by Whyte · 2004-02-19 13:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Devil's Advocate... by sabat · 2004-02-19 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think you're not thinking this through.
Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement.
Really? Big marbles statues that speak, or something? If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
People (read: me, but I am not the only one) get upset about this kind of thing because it sets precedent. The path from a free society to a Police State (where all your movements are tracked and must be justified) is lined with stepping stones, and this is one of the bigger ones.

--
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Re:Devil's Advocate... by Zak3056 · 2004-02-19 15:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.

Many states have such laws. If you hadn't noticed, the 4th amendment is slowly but surely being gutted (mostly in the name of the "war on drugs" but now the "war on terror" is an even better method) and the courts no longer seem to hold the Constitution in high regard. Words like "Congress shall make no law," and "Shall not be infringed" seem pretty straightforward to me, but increasingly the Constitution is merely a guideline instead of the "supreme law of the land."

What do you expect when Supreme Court Justices make statements like "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re:Devil's Advocate... by Banjonardo · 2004-02-19 17:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
-Ben Franklin
It's a liberties issue.

--
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Re:Devil's Advocate... by psykocrime · 2004-02-19 18:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement. There are a number of good reasons for this.

There are no good reasons for this, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown V. Texas that a Texas law of this nature violated the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig

A Couple of things... by A+Binary+Rebel · 2004-02-19 13:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:A Couple of things... by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-19 19:19 · Score: 2, Informative

First off to everyone here asking "why didn't he just show is ID?"

Because it's a right that, if not defended, can slip away. As demonstrated by the people saying this, it already has to some degree.

If the only people that refuse to show an ID *are* criminals, than refusal to show ID becomes extremely suspicious in and of itself.

For the people saying "If you've done nothing wrong, why not just comply?" -- this is *exactly* the mantra that Orwell used to justify everything in his state. It works well. If you're doing nothing wrong, then why should you object to being monitored by state-controlled cameras in your house or any of the other elements of a police state?

--
May we never see th

Re:To the Supreme Court? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 13:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can't use the public schools either, you're too old.

You can't exceed the speed limit.

You can't run red lights.

You can't use the carpool lane by yourself because of the incredible number of individual commuters.

You can't drive without a license.

You can't be president until you're 35.

You can't run your own TV station, your taxes subsidize huge networks.

You can't fly a Harrier jet, even though you helped buy them.

You can't live in a gov't building, even though it belongs "to the people".

know your history by segment · 2004-02-19 13:45 · Score: 2, Flamebait

who ever said asscroft had anything to do with that particular law? Reading my prior post I did not mention that now did I? I'm thanking Asscroft for current laws trying to be passed into existance. You know those little inclusions like monitoring via library cards what someone is reading... I say what's on my mind without the blur of 'pseudo anonyminity' and can take flames, why would you post anonymously. Don't tell me you're scared of something. After all your identity can be revealed just as easily as mines can.

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.

The USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act broadly expands law enforcement's surveillance and investigative powers and represents one of the most significant threats to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions in U.S. history.
What is PATRIOT?
The USA PATRIOT Act (officially the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) was quickly developed as anti-terrorism legislation in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The large and complex law received little Congressional oversight and debate, and was signed into law by President Bush Oct. 26, 2001. source

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

Re:I don't get it, what is the problem here ? by malchus842 · 2004-02-19 13:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ben Frankling got it exactly right:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Truer words have never been spoken.

If I have a choice of totalitarian government or terrorists, I'll take my chances with the terrorists any day.

Read up a bit by The+Tyro · 2004-02-19 13:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Read up a bit by ricosalomar · 2004-02-19 14:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

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
That is such utter bullshit that even slashdot should be ashamed.
I have personally been assaulted by a gang of criminals while an armed, on duty cop watched and did nothing. Then, after I had been held down and kicked by the group, more cops arrived and accused ME of causing trouble.
I have been walking down the street in NYC with a friend and, since he is black, had 3 cops throw him against a wall and stick a billy club in his kidneys, call him 'nigger' repeatedly, and toss him to the sidewalk, all on his way home from work, at his taxpaying, law abiding job.
I have been riding in a car in Beverly Hills and pulled over and asked to show ID because the driver was black.
I don't hate all cops, my brother-in-law is a State Trooper, but I don't trust cops. I obey the law. I hate people who break the law, and I hate punk-ass chumps who get jobs as cops because they have been weak, pussies their whole lives and being a cop makes them feel like a big bad ass.
So why don't you check that 'virtually all people' crap and read up a bit yourself, dillweed.
Re:Read up a bit by kfg · 2004-02-19 14:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds?

Garbage men work for the man. The janitor at city hall works for the man.

The second you put on a badge you are the man. Your personal identity ceases. You are the government in all its might and power incarnate, and with all the restrictions that apply to government power.

An officer approaches his job with this realization and with respect for what it entails, and accepts the responsibility and the risks to his very life is an object worthy of respect, even a certain amount of reverence. Such officers should be held as our most valued citizens.

Honestly, meaning no personal disrespect officer, but a man who thinks of police duty as a job, like working at McDonald's, should really find another line of work, and there is no shame in doing so.

KFG
Re:Read up a bit by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-02-19 15:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

You're long gone, aren't you. And no, I've never been arrested. I've also never committed a crime that would put me in contact with a uniform. I commit white crimes. I can commit my crimes with impunity and be confident that I'll never be arrested, because I don't look like "some kind of scofflaw" to you.

Maybe it's my prior law enforcement background talking, but I really don't see the problem here.

Yeah, yeah maybe.

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.

That's exactly the point. Your "law enforcement background" has led you to dehumanize the people that you interact with in the course of your job. There is no legal difference between "regular citizens" and "some kind of scofflaw". You have to treat them both the same. The difference is in your head. And it is a slippery slope from your current opinion all the way down to "fajitagate," broomhandles, and 44 bullets in some poor black motherfucker.

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?

Yes, actually: Anything you tell to a cop will be used against you if at all possible. Tell me it isn't the truth. Don't get me wrong, I'll never pull the bullshit that Hiines pulled. I'll also never give any information to a cop unless I have to.

I never used to be so anti-cop. Then a friend of mine became a cop. My whole circle of friends simultaneously gained infintely greater understanding of the heinous shit they have to deal with, and lost all potential to ever trust a police officer. I know *why* y'all dehumanize the people you interact with, but that doesn't make it ok. If you think my anti-cop sentiments are due to criminal activity on my part, please consider the possibility that my kind of crimes are very common among "regular citizens."

Also consider this: GW Bush used to be a habitual criminal. This is accepted fact (and it's ok with me). Now think to yourself: Would GW or the world be better off if he had spent a few years in jail for the crimes he committed? Even though I don't like him as a president, I certainly wouldn't argue that he should have gone to jail.

Now think about all the people that are in jail for exactly the same crimes. Should they be in jail? Just because you think they're "some kind of scofflaw"?

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Read up a bit by John+Gilmore · 2004-02-19 15:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The California law that claimed to require people to produce ID was declared unconstitutional by both the Ninth Circuit and by the Supreme Court. That case was Kolender v. Lawson. Edward Lawson is a black man in dreadlocks who was stopped and/or arrested more than 20 times for walking around in neighborhoods where the cops didn't like to see black guys. Eventually he filed cases against these cops and won. The cops appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The Ninth Circuit said it violated his Fourth Amendment rights and was too vague. The Supremes merely said it was too vague, and didn't inquire further -- which is why they needed to take the Hiibel case.
Re:Read up a bit by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-02-19 16:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not a matter of looking like anything... it's a mindset, and attitude; you have it all the way. I'm not talking about attitude on the cop's part... I'm talking about the "F*ck the police" attitude that people who view the police as their enemy typically exhibit.

Funny, 'cause I've never had trouble from a cop. I dress nicely, shave every day, and speak politely to police officers. I'm telling you: I *do* slip under the radar. I can control my attitude just fine, thank you.

There is no legal difference between "regular citizens" and "some kind of scofflaw". You have to treat them both the same.
vs.
Nooo... there is a substantial legal difference.

Then we're not talking about the same thing. Let me put it this way: most acquaintance rapists, white collar criminals, upper class drug dealers, etc. will never be accused of their crime. They will treat police officers with the utmost respect. They may not even consider the police to be their enemy. They would be, to you, a "regular citizen."

Someone with an attitude, darker complexion, lower class diction, and an eighth of weed in their pocket has good cause to fear a uniformed officer. Especially if he's walking around in that upper class drug dealer's neighborhood. Agreed?

You're referring to drugs, of course. Here's the thing: if you're a regular citizen who's smoking a bit of weed...

No, you're missing my point. Consider the larger class of Crimes Rich White Men Commit. My crime (felony, I believe) is intellectual property theft. But please, ignore that for a second. I'm just trying to say that many people who have committed my kind of crime do not hold a grudge against police officers. I believe my anti-cop sentiment to be at least somewhat based on evidence, and I'm just saying that I don't want you to write it off due to my criminal behavior.

I don't know what cops you're used to dealing with, but that's never been part of any department I've been involved with.

A friend of mine trained to become an officer for the SFPD. He was on the job for a few months, but he quit because he couldn't stand what it was doing to his opinion of humankind. And because he couldn't bust the people that he felt deserved it. And because it was too corrupt. They had to let go a few people on drug busts because they couldn't keep the evidence locker from getting robbed by employees. WTF does that tell you?

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Re:why ? by cujo_1111 · 2004-02-19 13:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Did you notice? by daveschroeder · 2004-02-19 13:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Re:Did you notice? by daveschroeder · 2004-02-19 14:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

What constitutes probable cause?

A concerned citizen called 911 to report a possible domestic violence situation, saying they had seen punches thrown.

The officer arrives to find the vehicle had been stopped in an erratic, sudden, and aggressive manner.

The man is immediately belligerent.

If you're saying the officer should have NO RIGHT to identify that person in the course of attempting to determine what is going on, e.g., to check for prior domestic violence arrests, then that simply represents a fundamentally different philosophical position from mine.

I take offense that you'd imply that I somehow don't deserve to call myself a US citizen simply because I believe that police officers should be able to identify persons when they arrive at the scene of a possible crime because of a dispatch by a 911 call.
Re:Did you notice? by psykocrime · 2004-02-19 15:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're just wrapping up the meaningful facts with a lot of terminology to try and support your position. "911 call" sounds very impressive to most people I suppose... I on the other hand have been a 911 operator, and have been on the receiving end of enough crack-pot calls and silliness that gets directed to a 911 center to realize that the fact that 911 was dialed doesn't add any extra significance to the situation. People are encouraged to call 911 so much in this country that 911 centers are swamped with bogus b.s. calls that interfere with their ability to handle real emergencies.

I take offense that you'd imply that I somehow don't deserve to call myself a US citizen simply because I believe that police officers should be able to identify persons when they arrive at the scene of a possible crime because of a dispatch by a 911 call.

Tough. Get over it. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way to Nazi Germany. Please take a few of your gestapo friends with you when you leave. You are a disgrace to what the U.S. stands for, if you would allow this abuse of police authority.

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) by soft_guy · 2004-02-19 14:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:why ? by CharlieG · 2004-02-19 14:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Try being black! by Juise · 2004-02-19 14:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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-

Not just Nevada -- also Ohio by michaelmalak · 2004-02-19 14:03 · Score: 3, Informative

"Your papers please" comes to Ohio

ACLU membership (and some advice) by sdedeo · 2004-02-19 14:16 · Score: 5, Informative

As someone with a contrarian (read: Yankee) spirit, I often leave my wallet at home when I go out for a walk. And, being a dork, I'm often up late working or thinking, and so I end up walking late at night.

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

Re:ACLU membership (and some advice) by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2004-02-19 15:50 · Score: 3, Informative

>1. NOT make any sudden movements, jump around, act agitated, or get nervous.

And for Krelden's sake keep your hands someplace visible.

Police have to deal with some really nasty people. They've seen situations go bad really quickly, either in real life or in training films. If you're a stranger they'll think about officer safety when interacting with you.

Don't alarm them. Standing on your rights is one thing, making an officer worry about his safety is a completely different thing.
Re:ACLU membership (and some advice) by guacamolefoo · 2004-02-19 16:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

A good response to a police request for you to do something is "are you asking me or telling me to do X". Make them commit. If they are "asking" then decline. If they are "telling" then do it but let them know that you do not consent to it.

Being polite and relaxed is excellent advice. It is also incredibly hard. The psychological pressure of being stopped by the police is tremendous even if you are innocent and even if you know what your rights are.

The single best advice is "shut your mouth". Give them your name and address only. Everything else, even "I'm going to church to wash the feet of the poor" can be somehow used against you. Silence can't.

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits

Should have got their ID by bluGill · 2004-02-19 14:17 · Score: 4, Informative

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)

Dennis Kucinich by No-op · 2004-02-19 14:20 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Cops don't have to investigate. by bluGill · 2004-02-19 14:20 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:If there was "no way", then they wouldn't hear by Xenographic · 2004-02-19 14:21 · Score: 4, Informative

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

or by metalhed77 · 2004-02-19 14:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) by RodgerDodger · 2004-02-19 14:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

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"

Re:why ? by bluGill · 2004-02-19 14:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Where it all leads by phr1 · 2004-02-19 14:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

"It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the President and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics at the time... That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn't even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn't even an enemy you could put your finger on...

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

What do you expect by Phillup · 2004-02-19 14:39 · Score: 2, Funny

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

waste of time by segment · 2004-02-19 14:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

For anyone who truly believes you have a fighting chance ... Sure you do, you're one of those 5% who has a shot in hell against winning a case against the government. Do your research. Too many people I notice have this notion of a great justice system, a place where your interests and liberties are protected, and in some cases they are, but to the average joe, you're bound to lose, and what happens when you lose, you either appeal or deal with it. The stats on appeals are similar where the gov has more than a 90% win ratio. So keep dreaming if you think it's as clear cut as walking in with proof. Think about that deeply for a second. Firstly you're going up against a gorilla with unlimited financial resources, secondly for those who don't know and have never been to a trial, it is scripted. What can be asked, what can't be asked. And if you're high profile... Shit the gov is going to do everything they can to "perp walk" all over your liberties and identity to make the public feel all warm and woozy about justice being done... Justice? For whom? For those in office seeking more government cheese (aka budgetary funds), to support them.

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

Re:waste of time by JabberWokky · 2004-02-19 15:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm aware that you're talking about federal court, but since most cases don't take place there, I figure I'll toss out a good word for the Public Defenders and their staff. 80% of them (just about all the ones that handle cases) are damn fine attornies making lousy pay and defending people who can't afford it. And despite their clients often being guilty as hell (I worked IT there, I can say that they were), they get an amazingly large number set free or placed in a setting (often rehab) where they have a shot at a future.
The other 20% are interns, recent law grads who are more spotty in their abilities and motivations, but still contribute.
Good people, working for the legal system.
--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:waste of time by segment · 2004-02-19 17:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

I didn't say everyone was innocent, I was pointing out stats for conviction rates. Now coming from "the hood" as some people would call it, I know offhand many people cop out rather than face a trial because a) their lawyers often advise it rather than go to trial b) don't understand or are fearful of the justice system. So while you can point out how many people are guilty, I would never dispute that, but there are unfortunately a lot of people who get caught up in a viscious cycle of junk justice.
Now without getting into all sorts of detail, let's just say my confidence in the justice system ranks along with my confidence that enron simply made a mistake... Again I guess there are many people who believe the justice system could do no wrong, and that method of thinking is foul. Now if you claim you worked at a public defender's office you would know, or perhaps have heard of the tricks prosecutors use to win cases... You know threatening to imprison an entire family if the accused doesn't cop out, making their lives a miserable hell, etc., I'm sure you have, and again this type of information does not come out, it's a perception problem... The government would never do such a thing... Bullshit. Let's just say I know they do, but coming from me it would be conspiratorial.

--
MoFscker

These aren't the driods you're looking for by DaveBear · 2004-02-19 14:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Why oh why couldn't he just have said with a wave of his hand, "You don't need to see his identification..."

Sometimes by The+Tyro · 2004-02-19 14:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Not charged with a crime? by mveloso · 2004-02-19 14:45 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Not charged with a crime? by glk572 · 2004-02-19 15:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Rember these words "officer am I under arrest, am I free to leave." usally the answer is no, get out of here.

Here's how to keep from being arrested, cooperate with the cops, be polite, kiss ass, but give NO useful information, absoluteley nothing, tell as much of the truth as is harmless b.s. but no more.

be nice, but make it clear that you don't have anything to say, and that you'd like to carry on with your buisness unless you're under arrest.

rember johnny tight lips "who says I got a mother."

--
Well art is art isn't it, but then again water is water; and east is east; and west is west; and if you take cranberries

FINALLY ON TOPIC! by Lord+Kano · 2004-02-19 14:48 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Uh. by Raven42rac · 2004-02-19 14:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Uh. by fishbowl · 2004-02-19 15:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

>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.

Do I have the right to remain silent, or don't I?

Do I have the right to consult an attorney before answering any questions, or don't I?

Do I have the right to keep any papers or belongings being inspected or taken away from me, without a duly executed warrant that specifies the items to be searched or taken from me, or don't I?

I get the impression that you would tell me I don't have these rights.

I don't draw a distinction between this corruption, and the supposed "real corruption" that you allude to. It's all the same, the camel's nose under the tent.

If the police officer had a reason to detain or investigate the person in the story, that's an entirely separate matter from the question at hand. Was it the guy's responsibility to provide evidence against himself to the police? This starts with demanding papers. It didn't help or hurt the police investigation that the man chose not to surrender his papers. What will hurt, however, is the blatant violation of the rights of the accused, which appears to have begun well before he was actually accused of any crime at all.

Suspects are presumed innocent. If probable cause exists to make an investigation, then the police should investigate. But the suspect is not required to provide whatever evidence the police would like to have. On the contrary, he is explicitly protected from being required to do so, it's one of the fundamental laws of the land, one of the most important rights afforded to Americans. It's one of the primary things that defines us as a free nation, and citizens who enjoy liberty.

If you disagree, that's your right, but don't tread on mine just because you'd throw yours away.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Uh. by Raven42rac · 2004-02-19 15:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

The subject did not even give the officer a chance to Mirandize him. If the subject in question were under arrest, he would be Mirandized on the spot, but the officer was on a fact-finding mission. Yes you do have your Miranda rights, and I would encourage you to use them, as I would in such a situation. I see no reason to do the officer's job for them. How is "heard you guys have been fighting" corruption? I love my rights and treasure them dearly, but you have to choose your battles carefully, or risk losing credibilty by presenting irrelevant cases. I am not treading on your rights, if an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that you did something, you should have to identify yourself. I agree this could be abused by some of our more unscrupulous men in blue, but what is the alternative. Also, I do not make the laws, nor do I agree with all of them, and I also prefaced the statement you cited with "IIRC". Which was left out, either on purpose or by accident.

--
I hate sigs.
Re:Uh. by psykocrime · 2004-02-19 15:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not treading on your rights, if an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that you did something, you should have to identify yourself.

Why? Either there's probably cause to make an arrest or there isn't. My identity doesn't matter.

Besides, lost in all this is the fact that it simply cannot be justifiable to ask anybody, at any time, to produce identity documents... **because not everybody even HAS identity documents**

As far as I know, there is no law that requires you to ever be issued any identification documents. You don't HAVE to get a drivers license, that's for sure. And I'm almost sure there's no law requiring you to tote around a birth certificate. At best, there might be some argument for everybody having a social security card, since I seem to recall hearing that SSN's are assigned at birth now. But I'd like to see the law that says you have to carry your social security card on your person at all times...

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Re:Uh. by psykocrime · 2004-02-19 16:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also, probable cause can be gleaned from identity, say they suspect you of raping someone, and the run your name, and you have been convicted (not just arrested or accused) of rape, seems like probable cause now huh?

Does it really? Why? Anyway, if they suspect "you" of raping somebody, then they already know who "you" are, so asking for identification papers is a moot point.

OTOH, if the rape victim can identify you by sight, and say "that guy, right there, he raped me" then that would obviously be probable cause, whether or not you had identity papers.

Sorry, but none of that justifies the idea of a person being arrested simply for refusing to provide identification. As soon as we, as a nation, start accepting the idea that this is OK, you might as well attach a turbine to George Orwell's body, cause he'll be spinning fast enough to power all of NYC.

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Re:Uh. by indefinite · 2004-02-19 18:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think what was meant here was that if you identify your self, the officer might get a reason to arrest you *after the identification*, where before the identification, he would be just suspicious of what you were doing.
So the jist of it is that you would want to be protected from self-incrimination.

Probable Cause isn't required by Sycraft-fu · 2004-02-19 14:57 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Not Off topic by Felinoid · 2004-02-19 15:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

The Cato amicus brief says best what's wrong here by John+Gilmore · 2004-02-19 15:06 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

RTF Web page, please. by Osty · 2004-02-19 15:24 · Score: 5, Informative

The cop had probable suspicion to investigate the claim that Hiibel and his daughter had been fighting, but he:

Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around ...)
Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate
Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID

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.

Re:RTF Web page, please. by QuickSilver_999 · 2004-02-19 17:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Lets take this point by point:

1. Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around ...)

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.

2. Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate

One of the first things said was there was a report of a fight between the two of them.

3. Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID

OK, looks like he got a little tongue tied, but he DID state why he was investigating earlier. Looks like he got a little tired of dealing with someone that should have been wearing a tinfoil hat.

What does an ID give a cop in an investigation?

Wants a warrants baby... Wants and warrants... First thing an officer does when he gets an ID is calls into the station, requesting a wants and warrants on the individual. He usually also does it on the vehicle registration as well to verify it hasn't been stolen. Had the stop turned up something like an arrest warrant, he would have immediately arrested him. Now, when someone isn't willing to give over an ID, this can cause a suspicion that MAYBE he's wanted for something more than a traffic summons, but you're right, it shouldn't greatly affect the over all picture.

but that can wait until he's taken back to the station

Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.

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.

You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.

The problem here was simply an officer responding to a domestic call (ie: Doing his duty), and getting worried and suspicious due to the actions of the accused.

I've always found that if you act calm and composed with an officer of the law, they will usually treat you as a human being. If you immediately start pacing, swinging arms around, talk about being arrested, etc. you're usually going to end up on a ride downtown.

--
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Re:RTF Web page, please. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2004-02-19 17:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

/sarcasm

So I can just make an anonymous phone call to the effect of "I saw a guy with this description hit a girl with that description in a truck of another description" when some dumbfuck cuts me off, and when he, having done nothing of the sort, questions the situation he gets the shit beat out of him and his skank girlfriend gets cuffed and stuffed too?

sweet. /!sarcasm

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:RTF Web page, please. by QuickSilver_999 · 2004-02-19 17:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thanks for the sarcasm tags.

An anonymous phone call isn't much... and if you make it from the cell phone while driving, it's not that anonymous, since enhanced 911 tells me whose cell phone it is and where it was when the call was made.

And yes, that may be precisely what may happen if he acts in a violent manner towards an officer. However, if he acts reasonably, he's most likely out nothing more than the time it took to pull over and talk to the cop. Unfortunately the cops have to investigate and take these things seriously, because the first time they don't, then everyone screams about how they're not doing their jobs.

Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around. These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop, every domestic abuse call, every bar fight, etc. If they act in any way to protect themselves and others they're considered Nazi's. If they don't, they're considered incompetent when someone dies on their watch. People waste their time by doing just the kind of trick you've described, and laugh about it. People treat them like dog crap all the time. And still they go out, put on a uniform and take a risk of getting shot. And often it's for 8 bucks an hour and no benefits.

Do I respect all cops? No. There are several in my local precinct that I could definitely do without. There are a bunch on the street that are uptight overdeveloped steroid popping pricks. And they all get tarred with the same brush. But there's also the guy that dives in front of a moving train to save a suicider, breaking several ribs in the process, all for 8 bucks an hour and no medical insurance. Don't believe me? On that one I can even name a name.

Now, when your GF/Wife/Mother/Sister/"domestic partner"/family friend/etc. has an abusive incident, and the cops don't do a damn thing about it, remember what has been posted here today, because incidents like this just cause more cops to look the other way. It's usually easier, and you don't have to testify in Washington DC.

Oh, and I would DEFINITELY make that call from a payphone. False reports to law enforcement is a crime, at least here in Pennsylvania.

--
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Re:RTF Web page, please. by QuickSilver_999 · 2004-02-19 18:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Thanks for the well thought out and polite reply. I was actually quite amazed to see such a thing on /.!

I just didn't see this as bullying though. He told the person what was going on/why he stopped. He made a simple request. Instead of a simple answer, the suspect started acting in a (what appeared to me from the video) violent manner.

As for the treatment of the female, remember how many officers are attacked, not by the person they're cuffing, but by the person that called in the domestic in the first place! Cops are taught at most academies to remember that the victim is NOT your friend. In many cases, the supposed victim will attack and injure or kill the police officer while he is in the process of arresting the suspect. It's human nature in a way. We may be mad, we may be scared, but if we see someone "hurting" one of our own, EVEN AT OUR OWN REQUEST, we often flip to the other side, protecting one of ours against "them."

As for refusing to talk, you're right, the deputy probably could have handled things a bit better. I don't see that he was "abusing the weapon." however, because he continued to try to talk after the suspect had made it clear through body language and responses that he was not going to be civil about the situation. The only place that he really screwed up was by not asking for a name first. Getting on a name (whether first or last) basis with someone can really help difuse the situation.

--
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Re:RTF Web page, please. by jadavis · 2004-02-19 18:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around. These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop, every domestic abuse call, every bar fight, etc.

I agree. However, to become a cop you accept a higher level of responsibility. If you're a citizen, and you kill someone in self defense, there aren't any problems. If you're an officer, people immediately question whether deadly force was required, and whether the officer followed every procedure properly from the start, and whether the officer had neglected trainning that may have ended the situation peacefully.

Is it a double standard? Yes, of course, as it should be. We are empowering these armed individuals, with our own tax dollars, to enforce the law against ourselves. They better follow procedure. They better be well trained and alert. We hold surgeons to a different standard because we need to trust them. When they violate that trust, that's a serious problem. Citizens can go about their lives normally and all we ask in a self defense case is "did they THINK their life was in danger and did they THINK that the only way to avoid it was to use deadly force?". That doesn't cut it with cops, sorry. People can make mistakes, surgeons and lawyers and cops CAN'T.

These high law enforcement standards we hold are more valuable than the supposed reduced crime you might get from unaccountable officers.

Oh, and nobody can waste an officer's time. They can only waste taxpayer money. The officer is being paid, so as far as he's concerened, he's working no matter how many delays he's faced with.

Asking for ID should be perfectly legal and fine, just like it's legal to ask if you can search someone's house. But when they refuse, take a hike unless you've got probable cause. There better be some real CHARGES.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:RTF Web page, please. by instarx · 2004-02-19 18:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wants a [sic] warrants baby... Wants and warrants
Who the heck do you think you are, the Terminator?

I've always found that if you act calm and composed with an officer of the law, they will usually treat you as a human being

Of course what you really mean is if you do everything they say when they violate your rights and invade your privacy THEN they treat you politely while abusing your rights. What they are actually doing is treating you like the sheep you are. Note I am not condemning police in general - we are talking about those situations where citizens' rights get violated.

Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.
This is circular logic. If Mr. Hiibel hadn't refused to identify himself he would probably not have been handcuffed and thrown into the back of the police car. To state that another way - if the officer had not decided to violate Mr. Hiibel's rights there would have been no handcuffs or back seats.

I haven't seen the video (slashdotted) but I have news for you - being a pain in the ass isn't a crime in this country. Being unhappy that you've been asked for your ID illegally is not a crime. Non-violent resistance to giving your name or ID (i.e. not "understanding" what the charge is, asking Why, and declining to produce ID) is NOT a crime in this country. However, if more people start thinking the way you do they soon will be.
Re:RTF Web page, please. by Belgand · 2004-02-19 21:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course what you really mean is if you do everything they say when they violate your rights and invade your privacy THEN they treat you politely while abusing your rights. What they are actually doing is treating you like the sheep you are. Note I am not condemning police in general - we are talking about those situations where citizens' rights get violated.
No, not exactly. You simply tell them politely and reasonably that "No. I don't feel that you have a right to demand that and I'm not going to give it to you. I feel it would be a violation of my rights." Like you, the video is slashdotted for me as well, but there's very rarely any need to be anything but polite to an officer of the law. Most often they're simply doing their job or attemping to do it in the way they see best. Becoming abusive and difficult makes things hard on everyone and makes it seem much more like you're going to be a dick to them for no other reason than you hate cops. This is often enough to cause someone to suspect that you may be up to something. If nothing else a great deal of people will then be complete assholes to you in response. In this case, the cop has the authority and you are more likely than not going to end up getting fucked over a lot more than he will.
Re:RTF Web page, please. by hesiod · 2004-02-20 07:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around.

For good reason. The only time people interact with them is when the cop decides he feels they might have done something wrong. Everyone knows cops are disliked before they become one, so they should damn well know what to expect.

> These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop

Bullshit. 90% of the Police force have never been in a truly dangerous situation (ie risk of losing their life), but act like it is whenever they pull someone over. I got pulled over for expired license plate tags (the details are extremely questionable, but we'll assume for now that I was 100% guilty of it). It's 4:00PM on an interstate, bright sunshine -- TWO police officers creep up to my car, both with their hands on their guns. One walks (very slowly) to my drivers-side door, while the other is trying to sneek a peek through my back, passenger window, assuming I have drugs or something -- what I have in my car is none of his fucking business. He was a dick about everything, even though I explained, rationally, the situation to him. He did not speak with a decent tone, he spoke down to me, assuming I was a dirty fucking criminal. What's the fucking point of that, if not intimidation?

He was so rude & such an asshole, that had I not ripped up the ticket, I'd have found out who he was, where he lived, & egged his fucking pig house. :) (pig is meant to describe him personally, not cops -- most I have met are very nice people)

Re:why ? by enjo13 · 2004-02-19 15:27 · Score: 4, Informative

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!

Re:Welcome to Communism Folks by Bored+Huge+Krill · 2004-02-19 15:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

um, no. This isn't communism. This has nothing whatever to do with communism.

The word you're looking for is fascism

Sorry to be a pedant

Krill

Suspicion of being suspicious by plnrtrvlr · 2004-02-19 15:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re: a possible solution to the problem by gaijin99 · 2004-02-19 15:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

That's the essence of the problem though. I know that's the way it *is* but that isn't the way it *should*be*. We should not be afraid of the police. The sight of a police officer should be a welcome one, not one that makes us nervous.

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

For What it's Worth by Shakrai · 2004-02-19 15:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

The first thing that ran through my head while reading the summary was a Nazi German saying, "Your papers, please."

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.

Re:For What it's Worth by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-20 03:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

If somebody calls the cops and tells them they witnessed an middle-aged man arguing with a teenage girl (presumably his daughter) and the cops then find a middle-aged man and a teenage girl in the area it's a fairly safe assumption that they are the ones in question.

None of which has anything to do with demands for ID papers. No one said "I saw Dudley Hiibel being naughty".
You do not have the right to refuse to give the authorities your name

First, he wasn't asked for his name. Only for his papers. Second, yes, you do, though refusal to give your name can be grounds for suspicion - but not, by itself, probable cause for arrest. But you can always say "I don't want to talk to you. Unless you are detaining me or arresting me, I'm going to leave now," and be perfectly within your legal rights. Third, since the cops in this case weren't looking for any person by name, neither giving a name nor showing ID could have any effect on reasonable suspicion or probable cause in this case.
As a parent you don't look to make a political statement if it's going to harm your child. It's simply not worth it.

It saddens and amazes me that you thinks that insisting on your civil liberties being recognized is just a "political statement". And I'd say standing up for right and freedom is one of the most important things you can do and demonstrate for your kids.
I do know that in my state they can't force me to give ID.

It has nothing to do with which State you're in. It's a fundamental principle of American law.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

I've almost had this happen to me by rynthetyn · 2004-02-19 16:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

Re:why ? by Tiro · 2004-02-19 16:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, thanks for generalizing but there are lots of counterexamples too.

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.

Re:Read the full story by QuickSilver_999 · 2004-02-19 16:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, this part DOES make sense. The officer was responding to a possible domestic violence situation. The gentleman, if you wish to call him that, in question appeared agitated (Hmmm... I think /. needs a spell checker... That doesn't look right.), refused a simple request for information, paced back and forth, repeatedly mentioned being taken to jail, and was extremely non-cooperative.

In such a situation, the first thing an officer does is attempt to seperate the parties. This was done by requesting that the gentleman step away from the vehicle and remain by the front hood of the cruiser. This also manages to get him on the camera in the cruiser. I couldn't watch the whole clip however... Something is wrong with my QuickTime, and the WMV version would not download at all.

At some point, another officer arrives. He sees the first responder working with an aggressive individual. At this point, the other occupant of the vehicle attempts to exit. In this situation, this is an immediate trouble sign. Usually in this case, the officer in question will quickly have 2 people attacking him. The second officer attempts to prevent the driver from leaving the vehicle. When she succeeds, she is placed under arrest. This is to prevent the two from teaming up on the cops.

Had he arrived, and the father was calm and rational, answered questions, remained in the area the officer asked him to, didn't start showing signs of aggression, and yes, simply produced a driver's license if he had it on him (most cops would completely understand a "I don't have my license on me"), then he probably would have proceeded to speak with the daughter, and gotten things squared away. Instead, due to the reactions of the father, he quickly became suspicious, and felt a need to protect himself from the father.

Did he have probable cause? Yes. There was a report of a domestic violence incident, the truck was identified, as well as the father. Did he start by calmly asking questions? Yes. Did he act in accordance with his training? Probably.

As for some of the other comments spouted off, such as "Innocent until proven guilty..." that is inside a courtroom. The court, and the jury, must at all times believe the defendant in innocent, UNTIL THE STATE HAS PROVEN GUILT. This does NOT mean that a cop has to assume you're innocent. If I have a report that a 6 foot 6 redhead wearing a purple T-Shirt just shoplifted a Sony Boombox, and I see you standing there on the corner, a 6' 6" redhead, purple t-shirt, holding a Sony Boombox to his ear... Well, my presumption is going to be you're the guilty party. However, to the jury, you're innocent until I trace that boom box back to the Walmart it was stolen from using serial numbers, id tags, etc. This is why cops don't make good jurors.

Now, there's one more point to consider. The 2 highest incidences resulting in fatalities to cops are... Ready? Traffic Stops and Domestic Abuse calls. We have a vehicle on the side of the road that has been called in as a possible domestic abuse. Are we going to be a little more tense than normal answering this call? I don't know about you, but I'm sure I would be.

--
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.

A better solution by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 16:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Better yet, watch the video by JoeNotCharles · 2004-02-19 16:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around ...)

Of course he didn't. As soon as he pulled up, Hiibel walked up to him. Obviously he's going to deal with the guy who's standing right in front of him first before turning his back on him to stick his head in the truck and check on the daughter. And based on his response to, "Can I see your ID?" it's pretty obvious, "Can I look in your truck," would have made him just blow up. At least, if I was the cop, that's what I'd have assumed.

Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate

It was the first thing he said. It was on the video and the transcript. I have no idea why the summary claims otherwise.

Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID

He should have repeated what he was investigating, sure. But Hiibel was being pretty deliberately obtuse himself. He responded, "I don't know about that," when the officer first mentioned the fighting report, so it's obvious he heard him. But then he kept repeating, "But I'm parked legally," pretending he thought it was just a traffic stop.

What does an ID give a cop in an investigation?

The ability to check for outstanding arrest warrants? He's investigating a possible domestic abuse. Now if he walks up to the girl and she has a bruise on her arm, but says she just whacked it on the door getting in, should he believe her or not? Well, if there's no reason except the vague report of "a guy in a pickup with a cowboy hat", probably he does. But if he runs the ID and finds out there have been a dozen prior complaints in this family, that makes a big difference.

Sure, if he has probable cause that something illegal happened,

Which he did...

he'll need to ID the person, but that can wait until he's taken back to the station.

But the results of running the ID affect whether he'll be taken back to the station. Say it's a relatively minor crime, and the cop gets enough evidence to arrest him. A normal guy with just this one offence might go quietly, but if he's got an outstanding murder conviction the cop doesn't know about, he's gonna want to stay out of custody at all costs. The cop's gotta know this, or the first he'll realize there's something out of the ordinary is when the guy turns on him.

Probable suspicion is not enough to arrest a person, or even ask for an ID.

I don't know US law, but in my opinion it's not enough for an arrest but it's certainly enough to ask for an ID. A much more interesting question is, what is probable suspicion? An anonymous tip? A profile match? A black man in a posh neighbourhood? (Before you flame me, those are all examples of things that aren't good enough but cops will try to get away with.)

Re:Better yet, watch the video by Ateryx · 2004-02-19 20:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

The ability to check for outstanding arrest warrants? He's investigating a possible domestic abuse.
I was rather disturbed at my first read of Mr. Hiibel's website, but after watching the video, I realized there was a lot more to this story.
JoeNotCharles really kicks home the key point--Mr. Hiibel was not just simply sitting on the road minding his own business. The officers were inspecting a report, granted they should have informed Mr. Hiibel of their investigation more clearly when he asked them what they were investigating (they did ask him if he was fighting, but Mr. Hiibel avoided furthering the conversation). End of story.

--
"The truth suffers from too much analysis"
Re:Better yet, watch the video by Arker · 2004-02-19 20:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Which he did...

No he didn't. The state isn't even claiming he did.

I don't know US law, but in my opinion it's not enough for an arrest but it's certainly enough to ask for an ID.

To ask for an ID? Don't need any reason at all. I can ask you for your ID anytime I want, without even being a cop.

The point is that refusing to supply ID is not a crime, nor is it probable cause. Anyone can ask you for ID, but you are not under any obligation to supply it. This guy was arrested on a thinly veiled charge of failing to supply ID, and failing to supply ID is not a crime - in fact it's a constitutionally protected right.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Better yet, watch the video by ConversantShogun · 2004-02-20 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyone can ask you for ID, but you are not under any obligation to supply it.

Well, the bigger point is, you are never under any general obligation to even carry an ID. Sure, you have to carry your license to drive, but only in connection with that specific activity. Recall that the daughter was the one driving.

It used to be that in some states, Ohio one, e.g.,--and I don't know whether this was by statute or by court decision--you actually had a grace period of a day or two to produce your license if you were pulled over without it being on your person. I don't know if that has since changed, but when I was a teenager, I was pulled over on two separate occassions without my wallet. Neither time did I get a ticket (of course the officer did ask for my name and checked it out in his car's computer).

--

--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) by TKinias · 2004-02-19 17:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

scripsit nursedave:

I was hoping the SS would take him out back

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.

Re:Learning your rights by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-19 17:30 · Score: 2, Informative

The ACLU has 'quick cards' for this kind of things. ACLU.org has them. By the way, the answer to both of those questions of yours are, No. You don't have to consent to search of your car, ever. If they have 'probable cause' then the will still search it, but then they don't need your consent. In fact if you give it then, they have even more rights when searching. So NEVER give consent. And you can talk to the cops outside your house, if they want to talk. They can't come in unless you invite them (or you don't complain when they walk in) or they have a search warrant for that exact location or an arrest warrant for someone on the premises.

Yes, this is news for nerds. by StarKruzr · 2004-02-19 17:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Your best bet is to get over it by incom · 2004-02-19 17:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Here is the situation by psykocrime · 2004-02-19 17:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Suppose you're a police officer. Every day of your life is filled with danger; not only on the job, but also at home, from vengeful and spiteful people like the ones here who lurk and unfortunately, sometimes post. Then, the day comes when you pull someone over who may have been on one end of a domestic dispute. You ask for an ID, but he doesn't give it to you. In your "perfect utopia," the suspect wouldn't have to give an officer an ID, so you let him go. Later that night, you're at home, watching the news and the top story is a double family homicide. As it turns out, the suspect you let go had murdered a family earlier that day and had an APB out. Unfortunately, without seeing his ID, you didn't know and he got away.

Do you know what an APB / BOLO is? What it includes? How it's sent out?

If you do, you'll be aware that an APB / BOLO will generally have more information than just a name. In fact, they don't usually have names. It'll be something more like:

"Be on the lookout for a middle aged white male, approx 5'9, weight approx. 200 lbs, last seen driving a late model blue sedan, travelling north on NC-58 near the South Carolina line. Suspect is wanted for questioning related to a double murder in SC, and is to be considered armed and dangerous", or something to that effect.

Now if your hypothetical cop pulls over a late model blue sedan being driven by someone of that description, and he won't show ID, I'd think you're into the area of "probably cause" for an arrest.

Some time later, after he got away, he went out and mudered another innocent family. Damn, how I wish I could live in your "utopia." It sure does seem a lot safer.

A couple of comments on that:

Life is dangerous. Do it long enough, you die. That's a fact of life. Living in a very free country may be slightly more dangerous than living in a more tightly controlled country. That's a trade-off. We in the U.S. generally prefer liberty and freedom over perceived safety.

I say "perceived" safety because giving in to more of a "police-state" type environment doesn't *necessarily* make things any safer. What if the guy in your scenario had a fake ID which identified him as some upstanding, law abiding citizen from far across the country, and the cop let him go? He still commits your hypothetical double murder. Face it, cops exist primarily as a deterrent to crime, and to investigate crimes after they happen. In general, cops do not routinely interrupt crimes in progress, and prevent double murders, except by blind luck.

Then there's the issue of safety as a personal responsiblity. If I was the husband / father in the innocent murdered family you describe above, wouldn't I have a responsiblity to have locks on my doors and windows, and make sure they're locked at night? Would I not have a responsiblity to have an alarm system to alert me if my house is broken into while we sleep? Would I not have a responsibility to own a firearm or other weapon for self-defense, and take action to protect my family if need be? And if I'm not home, should my wife and/or kids not be trained in using such a weapon as well?

The question is, who is fundamentally more responsible for my family's safety, me or the government? I would argue that the answer to that question is quite obviously "me."

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig

Re:Unfortunately he doesn't have a case by psykocrime · 2004-02-19 18:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

And for a look at the other side of the coin, take a glance at Brown V. Texas

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

idiot, it's his daughter by bratgrrl · 2004-02-19 18:27 · Score: 3, Informative

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 probable cause by bratgrrl · 2004-02-19 18:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

RFID is a potential answer. by openmtl · 2004-02-19 18:46 · Score: 2, Funny

You need to be implanted with RFID chips. That way you can transmit a unique ID. The trick is to store the ID codes in a database (TIA like) and have it flaged as either issuing the details immediately or have the database raise a court order asking permission to issue the name details. That way peoples rights are kept with out all the hassle of carrying around little bits of paper.

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.

--

I'm not sure about this by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-19 18:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Courtesy is the word I'd use by The+Tyro · 2004-02-19 19:43 · Score: 2

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.

Torrent for the hi_res quicktime movie by phUnBalanced · 2004-02-19 19:49 · Score: 2, Informative

This is a movie of the incident in question.

http://tracker.apt202.net/no_id_arrest_LARGE.mov.t orrent

Please keep your downloads open. Thanks!

Anyone with any contact to the webmaster please tell them to provide that link if they would like.

As a police officer by Tiny+Rhino · 2004-02-19 20:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is probably a bad place to post my opinions after looking at the feeling of the majority here. But everyone is entitled to their opinions, and everyone bases their opinions about police officers on their personal experiences. Unfortunately many things that officers routinely do is often misunderstood by those interacting with them. But I don't really have the time to get into that.

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

Re:As a police officer by fuzzybunny · 2004-02-19 23:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience

You argue well, young jedi, and my general experience with cops meshes with yours (although I have known many who could get a bit over-enthusiastic about their view of the "law" as an immutable, nearly religious concept.)

However, one of the finer points of a democratic society based on the rule of law is that it should not depend on the professionalism, dedication and reasonableness (is that a word?) of individuals tasked with its enforcement. I'm not trying to set up a straw man argument here, but what you see with a lot of monarchists is that they support the concept of an absolute ruler based on the ideal of a "benevolent tyrant". That is, one who means well and who has the power to do good things despite the opposition of idiots and evil men.

That said, what happens when said power falls into the hand of someone who's not-so-benevolent? No security mechanism in the world can guarantee that this will not happen. Likewise, even if 99% of cops are good, what's stopping you from hitting the one bad apple, or maybe even just a guy having a bad day?

Perhaps I'm stretching a bit here, but I find the title of this /. article extremely appropriate. Pragmatically speaking, I, as a (generally) law-abiding citizen don't have a problem with having my papers checked. It doesn't really harm me, even if I may believe that its impact on everybody's safety is miniscule. However, I do not want this to become the standard, as I fear the prospect of a nazi or soviet or islamic or whatever state arising, with the powers (obtained under the premise of good, responsible police using them only when appropriate) to check my ID, detain me, take it from there.

And YES some cops have a sense of humor.

Yes, who doesn't, but alas, this "sense of humor" could also be applied to a bunch of cop buddies of a UK friend of mine who made a sport of playing 'car check bingo' (i.e. pulling over drivers based on the color of their cars--"oop, I need a red one. There's one! Let's check his license!") Sounds hilarious, I agree, but not if I'm the driver.

the Supreme Court will NOT uphold any law that requires showing ID to law enforcement for NO reason.

Probably right too--however, define "reason". Never forget that there have been and are countries where "probably cause" includes "he looks like an enemy of the state". Or arab. Or jew. Or whatever.

You'd never do that, you say? You know what, I believe you. I honestly do. Nor would the guys who helped us chase the drug-addict trying to kick down our door, or the cops who brought my girlfriend home when she had an accident, or the ex-cop who ran one of my IT projects. But the 20-something combat-booted cocksuckers who wanted to impress their female colleagues (okay, I would too, I have something for cute chicks in uniform carrying submachine guns, sue me) by picking on the guy in a sports car, well, I don't hesitate to believe for a second that they would. And they're just immature, badly-trained idiots. I shudder to think what happens if were that aforementioned, purely hypothetical one-in-a-hundred bad apple who really is a card carrying member of the Michigan militia in his free time.

Oh, and as an aside, you shouldn't rule out replying to flames and trolls--they're sometimes the most amusing ones :-)

--
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Re:As a police officer by Queuetue · 2004-02-20 00:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's interesting to see how a cop thinks about this sort of situation - and interesting to see how you ignore a citizen's rights, probably just because whoever trained you did.

If you ask me to show you papers, and I say no, then the answer is no. I'm not required to testify against myself - thats the fifth amendment. I'm also not required to give you permission to search and sieze anything in my "persons, houses, papers, and effects". That's the 4th amendment, and the law of the land.

If you have cause to arrest me, then go ahead. Seeing my ID won't make any difference in cause. Otherwise, I'm innocent until you can prove me otherwise, and you should go about your business.

Cops should keep in mind that every one of them is just another citizen, not one of the the "King's Men." I have no requirement to allow you to violate my rights, and you have no power to "detain" me beyond the gun that you will threaten me with.

Public servant positions, like police officers and presidents, need a serious overhaul - Start serving the public again, instead of yourselves and your own opinions of how the world should work. Read the constitution, and if you accept the job, live by it.

Shame on you for stating that demending my rights is a sign of guilt. It does not point to probable cause. Shame on you thinking that you are allowed to decide if a crime is being committed based on somoene's willingness to excercise those rights, as guaranteed by the constitution.

What should have happened there? I'll play next-day quarterback, since you did too.

d: Please step away from the vehicle.
h: Ok.
d: There has been a report of domestic abuse going on here. Is there any going on?
h: No.
d: Can I see your papers?
h: No.
d: Ok, I'm going to ask these same questions of the lady in the truck. Please stay where I can see your hands, for my own safety.
h: Ok.
d: Hi. Young lady, can I see your papers?
h: No.
d: Ok, what happened here?
g: My dad and I got in a fight because he doesn't like my boyfriend.
d: How big fo a fight? Did your dad hit you?
g: No, I hit him.
d: Are you sure? You can tell us, and we'll keep you safe.
g: No, really. I hit him - I was driving.
d: Sir, is this what happened?
h: Yes.
d: Do you intend to press charges against your daughter?
h: No.
d: Ok, then. Please move along here - cars on the side of the road make people nervous and can cause accidents. You could continue your conversations - calmly - at the resturaint a few miles up the road. As long as no one is hitting anyone else, I'm sure they'd be happy to let you guys work this out. Young lady, here's my card, just to be sure. You two have a nice day, and for all our sakes, try to be more civil.

Cops have the possibility to regain th epublic trust they once had. When I was a kid, we'd think nothing of going to a street cop to ask for help . Now, I'd teach my kids to steer clear - cops are mean and badly trained, concerned more for thier own safety and protecting business interests than upholding thie rights of others.
Re:As a police officer by MImeKillEr · 2004-02-20 00:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're new around here, eh?

That was possibly one of the most intelligent responses and posts in general that I've read on slashdot in a while.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:As a police officer by Queuetue · 2004-02-20 06:33 · Score: 2

Or the guy would have shot you before you got out of the car. Or slapped you with an AIDS infected needle when you went to cuff him. Or had the girl drive over you when you walked behind the car.

It's a tough job. Pulling someone's ID doesn't make it any safer. It does make him testify against himself, so your humble opinions notwithstanding, it absolutely does violate his fifth amedment rights. It also seizure without cause or a warrant - therefore it does absolutely violate your fourth amendment rights.

The constitution is the law of this land. Change it or accept it, because as of now, your safety isn't as important as my freedom.
Re:As a police officer by Tiny+Rhino · 2004-02-20 10:00 · Score: 2

In practical terms, a Terry stop is much different from an investigative detention. First, no citizen felt compelled to call the police about a crime in progress. An officer on patrol observes something out of the ordinary, and decides to stop and basically say, "I'm watching you, who are you and what are you up to today?" If there is a reason like a bulge in a jacket or some other information leading the officer to believe there might be a weapon on the person, they may pat down the exterior of someone's clothing. It is considered much less of an invasion of privacy than a search. Terry stops are useful mostly to PREVENT crimes by letting potential suspects know they are being watched. It is NOT a custodial situation, and the person is free to leave.
However, in an investigative detention, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has ALREADY happened, and that the person stopped is likley involved. This is different because it IS a cutodial situation, but only up until the point where it is determined that a crime has not occurred.
A different example of this would be if a shooting had just occurred, and witnesses gave the responding officers a description of the suspect. Other officers in the area are going to be looking for people matching this description, and stop them. These people are NOT immediately free to leave -- if they were then officers would certainly be unable to solve anything. They will be placed in investigative detention until it is somehow determined they are not involved. (Often by driving a victim to them to see if the victim can ID them - that's when PROBABLE CAUSE is then established to arrest) That is a much more cut-and-dry example of investigative detention. These suspects cannot be tranported to the station or jail, and cannot be held for an "unreasonable" amount of time. But it is ridiculous to say that an officer should let this potentially violent subject stand around not in handcuffs. So it is mostly for everyone's safety.
The case in question though is admittedly a borderline case of when investigative detention should be used. However in my experience, if I am alone as an officer and have an intoxicated individual who I believe may have assaulted someone, I don't feel comfortable having them at my back while I question potential victims or witnesses. Like I said, it's often in the phrasing of your reports and statements -- I'm a reasonably intelligent person and can articulate reaons why I would place someone in investigative detention in this case.
Also your statement that Terry only allows for a modicum of questions, etc is true... however in this case it's not really a Terry stop. But beyond that, even if I determine that no ASSAULT has occurred, I have still not determined that no crime has occurred. I will hold the dad in investigative detention for really what would amount to about 5 minutes afterwards to determine that nothing else is going on. Because it is an unusual situation. I can't hold dad for hours or anything. It's all about what's reasonable.
And finally, yes I'll probably be sued. Any officer can stick their head in the sand and sit on their hands and not do anything to fight crime. Any GOOD officer will be proactive and observant and use tools like Terry stops, etc. Those officers are more likely to be sued. There's a reason cases like Terry and others go to the Supreme Court; they are on the edge of legality... Are they unreasonable search and seizure??? So any good officer gets sued. It's a pain personally but a necessary part of the job; and I will prevail if I can state the reasons for what I did and not violate people's rights. The only problem is that we live in such a litigious society that most people are just suing to get some money, not because they actually feel their rights were violated.
Re:As a police officer by Tiny+Rhino · 2004-02-20 10:05 · Score: 2

I will agree to that. I think ultimately arrest based solely on failure to produce ID is unreasonable.

That brown shirt fits you well. by Onan · 2004-02-19 20:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.

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.

Re:That brown shirt fits you well. by i-Chaos · 2004-02-20 03:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

... 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 have good intentions, but really bad analogies, and you contradict yourself. Taking your "Driving one mph over the speed limit" example, then either there should be enough Police Enforcement resources to monitor every single car on the road, or there should be no traffic laws, as many people commit infractions on a regular basis. In fact, 95% of the drivers I know usually drive at least 5mph over the limit, and there are times when I've known people who drive home a little intoxicated. It's really not known whether or not it's considered impaired driving unless you have a breatholizer test kit.

Essentially, you're saying, "Enforce the rules properly, or not at all." If our society were to have proper enforcement, you would cry about your "civil liberties" being violated, and taxes would have to be VERY high (install a tracking device on each vehicle, as well as all kinds of sensors that relay info to the government).

Face it, Pigs suck at times. Yes, they can be very unfair, and very prejudiced, but one can't start screaming "civil liberties" every time a cop comes around, or "plead the fifth" everytime a cop asks a question, because some of them are really trying to do a job. Just like a Systems Developer or Programmer will ask a client about their requirements, or some specs, for a project, a cop needs certain details to ascertain the "specs" of their current working environment. It really sucks that there's this range of cops from nice ones, to assholes who abuse the law as they see fit. I hope that this turns out well.

--
...I am proof that intelligent beings are not always intelligent...

another story about why you need to be careful by rynthetyn · 2004-02-19 21:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...

True colors by Vexinator · 2004-02-19 21:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.

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 not the only issue. by obyrne · 2004-02-19 21:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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--

Re:We may bag on cops but... by MImeKillEr · 2004-02-20 00:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

Being a cop yourself doesn't necessarily help by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2004-02-20 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative

The only way to get a cop to treat you like a person is to either be a cop, or a rich white guy.

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.

Dudley Hiibel will lose by Anita+Coney · 2004-02-20 01:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Right to request ID by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 01:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

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."

I don't know about the particulars of this case, however, I will tell you that in the State of Georgia, we /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.

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.

Re:Right to request ID by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 03:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to a person who wishes my death, or even if I should, but none-the-less, I will try to do so to the best of my ability.

Georgia is not a police state. As a police officer, I am held to higher standards of conduct than ordinary citizens. I have no more right to use deadly force than anyone who does not wear a badge. There are only three situations in which deadly force is warranted -- to defend your own life, the life of another, or to stop the commission of a forcible felony.

To curse at, tease, or be disrespectful of a police officer is not a crime. People curse at me in the most foul manner imagineable every day. I ask them to stop, but I don't arrest them for it. One lady told me that she hoped all of my children were born crippled and died of cancer. She then called me a "motherf** pig slug, nigger-loving, white cracker, bitch ho." I'm reasonably certain I've heard just about every insult that could be leveled at me.

Like all professions, there are some police officers who behave better than others. The bad ones seem to make more of an impression than the good ones, unfortunately, and given the highly public nature of the job, that is not surprising.

Yes, sometimes I write people tickets for speeding and not wearing their seatbelt. I have the power to take away a person's freedom, and that is never something to be taken lightly.

Understand however, that if you are bleeding in the street, I will try and save your life. If someone is holding you at gunpoint, I will try and take the bullet instead of you. If your husband (or wife) is beating you, I will do everything in my power to ensure that you escape from that situation. I chase after the people who want to steal your cars, break into your homes, and sell crack to your children. I stop child abuse, and prevent suicide. I teach kids lessons on how to remain safe, to prevent abduction, accidents, and other dangers. I will continue to do this for every citizen, regardless of race, sex, religion, political affiliation, sexual preference, economic station, or any other 'class' into which people are grouped. I will continue to do this regardless of whether or not a particular citizen wishes my death.

I am not God. But neither am I the Gestapo, or a nazi. I try very hard to treat every citizen with the respect that I would like them to show me, even if they want nothing more than for me to die in the most slow and painful way possible.

I don't think that any of my words are likely to convince you to change the impression that you have of police officers. I'm not sure what exactly caused the violent hatred you profess, but it saddens me.

For what it is worth, I do not always vote Republican. In fact in the three elections for which I have been old enough to vote, I have voted Republican only once.
Re:Right to request ID by bradkittenbrink · 2004-02-20 03:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

I will tell you that in the State of Georgia, we /do/ have the right to ask the name and information of any person in any public place

I have no doubt that your interpretation of Georgia law is correct, but the officer in this case acted legally under Nevada law as well. The point of this case is the argument that such laws are unconstitutional. The aclu brief argues that while officers have the right to ask for identification, people cannot be compelled to reply to their inquiries without probable cause.

I bet you're right though, the laws in most states are probably similar and will all be affected by the result of this case.
Re:Right to request ID by nharmon · 2004-02-20 03:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

7. Do all cops vote Republican? Just curious.

Very few do, actually. Many vote the way their unions tell them, which tends to be democratic. Many vote for politicians who bath them in pork barrel spending (no pun intended).

The individualistic, anti-Federalist stance of the Republican party runs contrary to the thoughts and feelings of many people in law enforcement.
Re:Right to request ID by MrDingusMcGee · 2004-02-20 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative

I realize I may be feeding the troll, but this is something definitely worth knowing:

4. Would giving the cop the finger, making pig noises, and speaking in intimate terms about his mother, constitute a crime as well?

Actually, I already know the answer to this. Cops are treated as Special Citizens in our republic. While it is legal to tease, insult, or be disrespectful of a regular citizen, to do so to a POLICE OFFICER is a serious, serious crime.

ACTUALLY, this is not at all a crime. See the following summaries of two court cases which have upheld your right to verbally abuse a police officer as part of your constitutionally protected speech: (originally seen on the smoking gun some time ago in regards to this case.)

4. A juvenile telling a police officer "fuck you" was held to be constitutionally protected speech. R.I.T. v. State, 675 So.2d 97 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995) (conviction for disorderly conduct overturned). The R.I.T. court reasoned that police officers are specially trained to deal with vulgarities and situations when others may be verbally abusive towards them, and thus "fuck you" was not likely to provoke a violent response.
5. A juvenile calling a police officer a "fucking pig, fuckin' kangaroo" and telling the officer "fuck you" during a traffic contact was found to be constitutionally protected speech. State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980). Just like the R.I.T. court, Id., the John W. court also reasoned that police officers deal with these types of situations on an every day basis and therefore "fucking pig, fuckin' kangaroo and fuck you" were not likely to invoke a violent response.

--
My Sig is Sauer.
Re:Right to request ID by instarx · 2004-02-20 04:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

First and foremost I want to apologize for the pathetic and stupid reply to your post by "111 0110". Attitudes like that only make things worse and creates an "us v. them" attitude amnong all parties. But it is also true that acts like those by the officer in Wyoming go a long way to creating mistrust of the police by the public.

I will tell you that in the State of Georgia, we /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

I assume that "right" has been upheld only in Georgia courts. I hope that the Hiibel case in the US Supreme Court will put a stop to that particular abuse of law. Remember, in Nazi Germany carting Jews off to the gas chambers was perfectly legal, but that clearly didn't make it right. And before the flames start - it was just an example.

I do know that Federal authorities have the ability to search bags at-will in airports and bus terminals without probable cause, and that may extend, unfortunately, to roads and police in general. I think it goes way too far if the police in Georgia have the right to demand my identity in any public place just because they want to know.

I once made the mistake of getting lost in a rural Virginia town late one night and calling the local police department to ask directions to the Interstate. I was young then and still naively thought "the police were my friends" as I had been taught by my parents. Five minutes later I was surrounded by police cars, stood by the side of the road, questioned, and given a sobriety test - just because the police decided they wanted to. I learned that night that I may have friends who are police, but the police are not my friends.

The next time you are in a group of people who are not law enforcement get a conversation going about police powers. Then ask for a show of hands by anyone who has ever been stopped for no reason by police and have had to undergo questioning when they had done nothing wrong. I think the number of hands will surprise you.
Re:Right to request ID by Alsee · 2004-02-20 04:50 · Score: 3, Informative

driver's license / motor vehicles
I don't know the specifics of this case, or what state this person was traveling in

He wasn't traveling, he was standing. Everything you wrote about driver's licenses and motor vehicles is off-point.

I am a police officer in the State of Georgia, in DeKalb County... in the State of Georgia, we /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.

Well, that Georgia law is most likely about to be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court usualy doesn't waste time accepting an appeal just let a lower ruling stand.

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

Then you oughtta pay attention to this case. If the Supreme Court acts on this appeal you may just get slapped with a lawsuit the next time you haul in someone merely for declining you ID request.

Not answering questions is not a crime.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Right to request ID by Officer23 · 2004-02-20 05:50 · Score: 4, Informative

The law applies to pedestrians, as well as anyone traveling in a motor vehicle. It applies to anyone in a "public place," which I defined in the previous entry. If the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional, then it will be repealed and I will no longer enforce it. I don't make the laws, that's not my job. I enforce them to the best of my ability under the circumstances I am given. I don't recall making any statement as to my particular feelings about the law. I am interested, as many are, to see what the Supreme Court says about the matter. In the past, the law has been held up as constitutional. For now, however, not answering questions -- specifically, not answering the question of your identity -- /is/ a crime. Even your right to plead the fifth amendment does not preclude you from having to state your own name.
Re:Right to request ID by Officer23 · 2004-02-20 05:56 · Score: 2, Informative

If an officer uses force on a person without cause, not only does the department suspend, if not terminate, us, but you also have the right to sue us in state and federal court. The county will not raise a finger in our defense in said courts if we have violated policy. Kicking the crap out of someone just for verbal abuse isn't worth my spending the rest of my life in a federal prison, making your family wealthy. (difficult as it may be to make anyone wealthy on an officer's salary).
Re:Right to request ID by redog · 2004-02-20 09:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

"not answering questions -- specifically, not answering the question of your identity -- /is/ a crime."

If that is so and this is a public place, I demand to know:
What is your name and address?
What you drive?
Who do you work for?
What are you doing here?
What brand is your computer?
What operating system is installed in it?
Has it been used to view pornographic material of any kind?
If not may I search it?
If you don't give me permission to search it I think I can provide a Judge in your county with enough information to show that a substantial amount of ISP customers in your county with similar ip address' have DL'd substantial amounts of kiddie porn from my honeypot. Are you willing to cooperate?
How can you expect privacy if the public(police or imaginary police) has the right to know everything or anything?
Where do you draw the line?
Its also a crime in New Orleans for a woman to drive a car unless her husband is waving a flag in front of it.
In Lexington, Kentucky, it's illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.
In New Hampshire, law forbids you to tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe.
In Florida, oral sex is illegal.
HA, Spring break oughta be a fun time to play police officer.
Re:Right to request ID by graphicd00d · 2004-02-20 10:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

How do the Jack boots feel? They comfortable?
Out of all people you should know the Constitution. You took a oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Let me show you where you are in the wrong.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If Deputy Dove was a "Peace Officer" instead of a "Police Officer" he would have asked questions and got a feel on what was going on and saw there was noting to investigate and leave but he had to be an ass and violate someones 4th ammendment right.
This is the problem today. We have guys wanting to be police officers instead of peace officers and running amok.
What's the difference between police officers and peace officers you say?
Peace officers are there to keep the peace in the community and know and follow the Constitution. Police officers follow the orders of the city, county and state and are not followers of the Constitution.
My advice to you is to read the Constitution and not be a drone of the state!
Re:Right to request ID by Officer23 · 2004-02-20 10:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. A certified peace officer has the right to ask you to display your ID when you are in any public place within that officer's jurisdiction. I don't have the right to ask you any question that I want, nor do you have to answer any question that I ask you. The only thing you are legally obligated to provide is your identification (or, lacking that, your name and date of birth). I certainly never stated that the police have the right to know everything. You have the right to refuse consent to search and even if you originally give consent, you can revoke that consent at any time during the search.
Re:Right to request ID by vadar86 · 2004-02-22 03:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

im sorry you think someone wants you killed.most adult males have been hassled by some cop who put on a uniform and gun and immediately has become a power hungry bully, unfortunately for us citizens,the good cops like your self ,do not help get rid of the morons that are in our police departments,crooked judges and crooked lawyers.the minute all good policemen stand up for common good of the public and uphold the laws,all the laws, and follow the constitution,then that will be the time all law abiding americans will once again trust policemen.

I once talked my way out of a vandalism charge by Pig+Hogger · 2004-02-20 02:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

One day, I was crossing on a green light when I was nearly ran over by a woman in a minivan. I naturally kicked hard at the side door, only to have the slut disappear on the horizon.

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.

Re:ok, this is crap by Ancient_Hacker · 2004-02-20 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's several issues being muddlesd together here. Do you have to give a cop your ID? ... You're probably within your rights to not volunteer that information. Does any cop have a right to take whatever steps he has to to figure out who you are? Most certainly YES, otherwise every criminal could just walk around without ID and just walk away from any cop that asks him for ID. In the Cowboy's case, it might have helped if the cop had said, "Ok, you can refuse to show me ID, but then you'll be standing here until we can find somebody to ID you, or until we fingerprint you and wait for the results. " That bit of simple explanation of the Cowboy's options may have helped the Cowboy mull over the consequences and thereby resolve the impasse.

Re:Police Perjury - bring witnesses by HeavenlyWhistler · 2004-02-20 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:Star of David by Bob+Uhl · 2004-02-20 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

The people who were persecuted and murdered other than jews were few in number, not nearly as many as the Jews themselves.

The commonly-accepted number is 6 million Jews, 2 million others. That's 1 other killed for every three Jews killed; hardly a few.

The Holocaust Museum in Washington is nicely balanced, I thought.

Nevada Supreme Court - Dissenting Opinion by psykocrime · 2004-02-20 06:28 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Slashdot Mirror

Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court

299 of 1,636 comments (clear)