Slashdot Mirror
Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court
Pemdas writes "On March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case involving an arrest for lack of producing ID on the demand of a police officer. Dudley Hiibel was parked off the road, and was asked 11 times to show ID to the police officer, who gave the justification of 'investigating an investigation.' Finally, he was arrested, and eventually convicted of delaying a police officer,' and fined $250. The incident occurred in Humboldt County, Nevada; Mr. Hiibel's side of the story includes a good section on Terry stops, and has a video of the incident for download. The parallels to the previously covered Gilmore v. Ashcroft case are striking, and the ruling will be an interesting precedent on the issue of requiring ID's. The ACLU, EPIC, and EFF, among others, have filed Amicus briefs in the case."
Slowly, slowly, we slide down this long road. Don't close your eyes, you'll miss the whole thing.
I have been pwned because my
just because the innocent have nothing to hide, means that there is no reason for giving up our rights of privacy.
Produce your papers, comrade.
Always carry your papers, comrade.
Do not question us, comrade; that, of course, is our job.
Did I just wake up in 1950s Communist Russia?
I quote Michael Moore: "Dude, where the hell did my country go?!?!"
Don't be a zoa (zealous overbearing ass), be happy!
I was coming home from a party in LA thrown by CRAPTV (the folks who brought us 'Orgasmo') and I made the mistake of getting a ride from a fellow party goer who was slightly tipsy. The cops stopped her after she made a right turn from the left lane. At the time, all I had was a Hawaii state ID. The cops couldn't find me in the computer system, so they said, "Well, legally, we can hold you for up to three days while we try to find out who you are." I was in a cell for eight hours. Finally they came in and said, "We found you. You're free to go." No apology, of course. Welcome to Kalifornia, may we see your papers?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No doubt there will be posters who are want to argue the facts in the case, to argue the internet does'nt tell boths sides of the story. But to pre-empt them: it doesn't matter! The case is going before the Supreme court because the courts based their rulings on a state law that requires ID to be shown when requested by an officer. None of that other stuff matters a wit; it was after all only a $250 fine anyway.
Thus this case really is about whether or not it is legal to require people to show ID.
I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case.
Apparently it's been arrested.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
I ended up working late on some Microsoft catastrophe at work.
Nice. Work in a dig at Microsoft. Ah, Slashdot.
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.
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
I found the site contents somewhat ironic:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
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.
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.
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.
Happily, that is, until you call them an asshole.
"Driving an automobile"
His daughter had been driving, not him.
"since this guy was parked IN a car"
Actually, he was standing outside, leaning up against it when the police arrived.
"Also, according the the laws (at least in my state), if you FAIL to produce an ID, as requested by an officer, then you may be arrested for "failing to obey a resonable request by an officer""
Then you must have been the only one not either laughing or offended when seeing movies depicting Soviet troops demanding that civilians "show me your papers!".
"We have laws for a reason, and when someone doesn't like one, they whinnnnneeeeee and complain instead of using the system to get the law changed."
He is currently challenging the constitutionality of the law at the Supreme Court. How is this not working within the system?
" I don't like a lot of the laws on the books, but I'm not going to break them, I'm going to work within the system to get them changed, leagally."
Then you must really hate the entire civil rights movement, which engaged in mass civil disobedience protests.
What would you have this man do if he didn't have any ID? What if he didn't drive, didn't have a bank account, didn't have any bills sent to his house, and didn't get a state ID? There are indeed many who do not want the government tracking their every move, and thus choose to live a simpler life. That, at least for the time being, is their right. You and John Ashcroft may indeed one day get bar codes tatooed on every newborn's skull, but for now, there's nothing wrong with living outside the 'world'.
Tell you what, even though this is slashdot, if you're going to put together such a longwinded and self-righteous post, how about reading at least PART of the article? Otherwise, your post will, as this one does, simply ooze ignorance.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
If 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..
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
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.
And asking a cop for his badge number is a GOOD way to find yourself with the stainless bracelets on. Even obviously LOOKING at his badge number if he's in a bad mood.
About the ONLY time you get them to give it willingly is when they have just HELPED you, and you've said thank you, and tell them you'd like to write a thank you letter for their files
BTW - if you local PD has citizens councel, show up, be polite, listen, and say hello. Aka, become known to the cops as "a good guy". Like it or not, once your local beat cops get to know you, you have less hassles - you don't get the evil eye. You get a nod. Just human nature - it's not supposed to play a role, but it DOES
Other things, if you don't feel like doing that? Join you local community board, or SOME social organization. The guys who run the charity parade, etc. The cops get to know these people - so do the local business men, and the local pols. THEN when you call you local Pol with a position on some bill, your not just "Joe Schmoe", your "Jim on the Parade committee"
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I'm amused by how shocked you all are. I'm black, and to make matters worst I've lived in Wisconsin most of my live. Milwaukee is a nice city with very few racial issues, but as soon as you step foot out of the city limits, it's a whole new world. These types of things have happened to me countless times. If there is a cop behind me and I am outside the city limits there is a 90% chance I will be pulled over. They will simply follow behind me until I make a little mistake, or I have left their jurisdiction.
I've been pulled over for going 3 mph over the speed limit, pulled over for "looking suspicious" (AKA being black in a white neighborhood), pulled over for "matching the description" (black male about 5' 10", isn't that like 70 of black men?), pulled over for "running a red light" (that was clearly still yellow after i cleared the intersection), the list goes on and on. Each time my car is searched, I'm searched, they find nothing and I go away without as much a warning because they know they had no reason to stop me in the first place.
Here's a good story...
My cousin and I were cementing the base of my aunts garage. I went in the house to get more cement. When I came back out I find two officers, with weapons drawn pointed at my cousin. Now to draw the proper mental picture my cousin is of course black, the officers are white, one is holding a shotgun, the other is holding his sidearm. My cousins hands are covered in cement, he has a bucket of cement at his side, and a spatchel (or whatever its called) in his hands. I say "what the heck is going on here?". Cop1 "we got a report of break ins in this area". Me "Are you blind? We live here, we have for 10 years! We're fixing the garage." cop2 "Sir put your hands up!" I put my hands up, this exchange goes on for 5 minutes. They get a radio call, and proceed to their car. I request the officers badge number to file a complaint. He slams the car door in my face and they drive away.
The sad thing is I have many more stories like this, and so does pretty much every black person I know. Maybe from now on I will start video taping myself everywhere I go.
The past is just the present only older -me-
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
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.
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.
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).
"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.
>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.
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.
The cop had probable suspicion to investigate the claim that Hiibel and his daughter had been fighting, but he:
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation? Sure, if he has probable cause that something illegal happened, he'll need to ID the person, but that can wait until he's taken back to the station. Probable suspicion is not enough to arrest a person, or even ask for an ID.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
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
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
I am a police officer in the State of Georgia, in DeKalb County. You said "The police officer did NOT have the right to ask his name," and also "The whole point is that you do not have to identify yourself to the police simply because they want to know who you are."
/do/ have the right to ask the name and information of any person in any public place (the roadway is considered a public place) at any time, for any reason. We don't need probable cause. We don't even need reasonable suspicion. You can like this or not, but the law has been upheld.
I don't know about the particulars of this case, however, I will tell you that in the State of Georgia, we
The definition of public place, according to Georgia State Law is:
(15) 'Public place' means any place where the conduct involved may reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than members of the actors family or household.
Furthermore, specifically in regards to a driver's license, the law says this:
(b) Every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. A refusal to comply with such demand not only shall constitute a violation of this subsection but shall also give rise to a presumption of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and of Code Section 40-5-20.
This applies to not only drivers, but also passengers of motor vehicles. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court. I know this because it was on our recent legal update. It also applies to pedestrians.
Asking for ID is not a violation of the fourth amendment, or any search and seizure laws. You do not have the right to refuse to show a police officer your ID. You have the right to refuse to allow them to search you, your vehicle, your home, etc. without probably cause, that is certain.
Again, I don't know the specifics of this case, or what state this person was traveling in, though I'm reasonably certain most states have similar laws.
However, I would make very sure that in your state (or country, etc.) that you know the specifics of the law, because in my county, if you refuse to show me your ID, I will take you to jail. I have done it twice so far in my career, and both times the conviction was upheld.