And in the case of a jury trial, the jury can rule the law unenforcable as well. The principals of "jury review" and "jury nullification" are well established, and it's a shame that more Americans aren't aware of them.
I just became aware of the incident that occurred with Mr. Dudley Hiibel a few years ago, and which is going before the US Supreme Court soon. I just wanted to e-mail and let you know that I fully support Mr. Hiibel, and I hope most fervently that he wins his Supreme Court challenge, for the sake of all Americans.
What happened that day was a travesty of justice. I cannot believe that in America in 2001, you police types believe you are allowed to behave in such a manner. This is America, not Nazi Germany, and you are a Sheriff's Department, not the Gestapo.
Your entire Department, and the Nevada State Highway Patrol should be ashamed of what happened to Mr. Hiibel. If you had any integrity or belief in the principles this country was founded on, you all would immediately offer him and his daughter a public apology for this incident, and fire Deputy Dove.
Your department has brought shame and disgrace to the state of Nevada, and made this law-abiding American citizen very happy to say that he lives in North Carolina and not Nevada.
Thank you for your time,
Phillip Rhodes
-- When the 1st Amendment no longer protects your voice. And when the 4th Amendment no longer protects your privacy or your stuff. Thank God we have the 2nd Amendment to tell our elected representatives that enough is enough. It's time to put "... from my cold, dead hands" back where it belongs.
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
Here's a good article that does a nice job of summarzing why it would be a Bad Thing for the Supreme Court to find against Mr. Hiible.
Text mirrored here without permission:
--- Must Americans Carry Identification, or Else Risk Arrest? This Term, The Supreme Court Will Decide By DANIELLE SUCHER ---- Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003
In France and many other countries, citizens and travelers alike are required to have their identification on their person at all times. In the U.S., however, that is not the case. We live in a society that prizes the right to privacy, of which anonymity is a facet.
This may soon change. This Term, in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court will decide a case that asks the following question: Does the Constitution permit a police officer to arrest someone simply because, when stopped under reasonable suspicion, that person fails to produce identification?
The federal judicial Circuits have split on this issue. The Tenth Circuit has upheld a similar statute in Oliver v. Woods, while the Ninth Circuit has struck another down in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Nevada Supreme Court -- which issued the decision the Supreme Court is reviewing -- has already held that this type of arrest does not violate the Constitution.
It would be a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to agree. Because the standard for reasonable suspicion is very low, the upshot of such a decision would be to require all citizens, immigrants, and travelers in America to carry identification at all times -- and to be prepared to produce it for inspection.
The Low Standard of Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low standard -- even lower than probable cause. In practice, it merely requires the police officer to be able to articulate some reason why he found you suspicious -- which is generally very easy to do, particularly under the vaguely defined "totality of the circumstances" test that is used.
Under the leading Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio, passing by the same storefront too many times can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Under the recent Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Wardlow, it may trigger reasonable suspicion if, in a dangerous area of town, a person runs when he sees a police officer approaching. Under a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Cruz, simply walking alongside the wrong acquaintance can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Racial profiling can be factor when articulating reasonable suspicion, as can the crime rate of the neighborhood you are in or the activities of people you know.
In sum, no one can be sure he or she will not trigger "reasonable suspicion," in the eyes of a police officer (and in the eyes of the law). Suppose that the Supreme Court affirms the decision in Hiibel that "reasonable suspicion" plus the failure to produce identification can constitutionally lead to arrest. If so, all Americans will be well-advised to carry I.D. at all times.
Otherwise, they may risk unwittingly triggering "reasonable suspicion," and thus being arrested merely, in effect, for failure to produce identification.
Why It Would Be Wrong To Force All Who Travel in America to Carry I.D.
Being required to carry I.D. may not seem to be a problem. Many people carry identification with them at all times already -- carrying a driver's license in their purse or wallet, or if they are younger, a student I.D. card. For them, having to show I.D. would be only a slight inconvenience.
Moreover, in this age of the "war on terrorism," some may consider it to be a good idea for the police to be able to "card" anyone on the street about whom they have a hunch. There are those who believe that the inconvenience is somehow balanced by an increase in the safety and effectiveness of the police.
The probably cause was the witness who reported seeing Mr. Bhagat speakinging to a man of Middle-Eastern decent in hushed tones. That is MORE than enough probable cause for a police officer to ask for identification.
Get real... a "witness" can call and report ANYTHING. Crackpots call 911 and "report" seeing UFO's land, day in and day out.
The officer was on the scene, and from what we can see and hear in the video (which is presumably the same thing(s) the officer saw and heard) there is absolutely no probable cause to suspect criminal activity.
What happened to Mr. Hiible was a travesty of justice, and plain illegal. If you disagree, I politely invite you to check your citizenship at the border, and move to Germany and volunteeer to chair the Gestapo Reformation Committee.
I do hope he wins, since the law itself is ridiculous, but I hope they re-arrest him for being drunk in public, disrespectful to an officer, and his daughter for assault.
Since when is disrespect illegal???? Can you say "First Amendment????"
And who exactly did his daughter "assault?" I've watched the tape, and I don't see any assault going on. I see a police officer preventing a young lady from exiting her vehicle (thereby interfering with her right to "carry on with her business"), and then tackling and pinning her to the ground when she does exit the vehicle.
No doubt, people lie to cops. The way many cops behave, they probably should - it's safer.
Our government was founded on the belief that stopping a criminal is less important than presenting certain inalienable rights to all of it's citizens - innocent or guilty. If you'd like to live under a different set of laws, where it is illegal to lie to authority, you'll either have to change the ones we have or live elsewhere.
EXACTLY!!! Somebody give this man a cookie! This sums it up perfectly.
Very sad state of affairs i must say. It makes you realize that with each passing day, the US is becoming more and more of a police state. I hope you are all ready for 1984, because its becoming more of a reality with each passing day. R.I.P - Here lies democracy, the dream we once had.
As a wise man once said... somebody should attach a turbine to George Orwell's body... you could solve the energy crisis with the power generated by him turning over in his grave.
From what I can tell, Mr. Hiibel instigated the confrontation. He could have easily complied but chose not to.
How did he instigate anything? He cooperated with the officer, other than not producing his ID. One interesting question is whether or not Nevada has one of those "id on demand" laws, but even if they do, there has to be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify arresting somebody under one of those laws. The Supreme Court clearly made this point in the Brown V. Texas decision.
No, all Mr. Hiibel did was stand up for his Constitutionally protected rights... and for his efforts he got harrassed by a typical power-mad, egotistical, "wannabe tough guy" cop.
The problem with cops is that too many of you guys are watching that damn "Cops" TV show and thinking that doing something "worthy" of an appearance on there, to demonstrate what a bad-ass you are, is a good thing somehow.
One also has to wonder why the cop in this video didn't just go talk to the daughter and ask her what was going in. A few minutes of casual conversation with the two "suspects" could have cleared everything up, and avoided all this.
You might also notice that the cop is the one who starts getting physical by reaching out and grabbing Hiibel's arm. Of course I'm sure police do that shit hoping to antagonize somebody into lashing out in anger, therefore justifying whatever happens next. Again, they've got to get some good video for "Cops."
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. l
ONLY if he has reasonable / probable cause to suspect that you are involved in a crime. That seems to have been pretty well established the in Brown v. Texas decision. Even in a state (like Texas) with a law requiring you to produce your id for the police, they can't invoke that unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in something criminal.
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.
They can already ask. At issue is whether or not you HAVE to produce ID on request for the police. This partly depends on state law, but even in states where there are such laws, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't be arrested and charged under those laws without probable cause.
Did probable cause exist with Mr. Hiible. Hell no. What cause was there? Did you watch the tape? Mr. Hiible did nothing "suspicious" EXCEPT refuse to show his ID. And you might note that the cop arrested Mr. Hiible before ever even speaking to the daughter in the truck and getting the situation clarified.
This thing with Mr. Hiible is a clear cut case of the police abusing their authority... I don't see how any rational person could see it otherwise, really.
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.
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.
Some quotes from Illinois v. Wardlow (emphasis added)
Respondent Wardlow fled upon seeing a caravan of police vehicles converge on an area of Chicago known for heavy narcotics trafficking. When Officers Nolan and Harvey caught up with him on the street, Nolan stopped him and conducted a protective pat-down search for weapons because in his experience there were usually weapons in the vicinity of narcotics transactions. Discovering a handgun, the officers arrested Wardlow. The Illinois trial court denied his motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. He was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. In reversing, the State Appellate Court found that Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion to make the stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. The State Supreme Court affirmed, determining that sudden flight in a high crime area does not create a reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop because flight may simply be an exercise of the right to "go on one's way," see Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491.
Held: The officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case, involving a brief encounter between a citizen and a police officer on a public street, is governed by Terry, under which an officer who has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot may conduct a brief, investigatory stop. While "reasonable suspicion" is a less demanding standard than probable cause, there must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for the stop. An individual's presence in a "high crime area," standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location's characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147--148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow's unprovoked flight that aroused the officers' suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is another pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, and headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion. In reviewing the propriety of an officer's conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences from suspicious behavior, and this Court cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty when none exists. Thus, the reasonable suspicion determination must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418. Officer Nolan was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further. Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of "going about one's business." While flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U.S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. But in this case the officers found that Wardlow possessed a handgun and arrested him for violating a state law. The propriety of that arrest is not before the Court. Pp. 3--6.
This case doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on the Hiibel case. Hiibel didn't flee, and he wasn't found to be posessing a handgun, afaik. He did have a knife but nothing we saw on the video indicates that there was anything illegal about his knife.
The part about "can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct" seems like the strongest argument for saying this decision supports the cops in the Hiibel case, but I don't buy it, based on the next highlighted section "If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. " Clearly they can't just keep you there forever, and nothing here suggests that failure to show an ID constitutes evidence of criminal activity.
Oh, and just to elaborate further on one detail... you might be tempted to counter my statements above by asking "ok, but what if the guy has a warrant for his arrest out... that would have him identified by name, for sure."
And you'd probably be correct. If a warrant for the guy's arrest exists, presumably his name is associated with it. However... there's a glitch with this argument. All the sheriff's departments and police departments in the world, aren't completely and seamlessly integrated. Yes, there is NCIC / DCI / PIN, but the thing is, there's no easy way to search arrest warrants from all jurisdictions simultaneously. In fact, not all arrest warrants are even in NCIC / DCI / PIN.
So, if the guy is wanted in the local jurisdiction, then yeah, running a 10-27/10-29 search on him by name would turn up the warrant. But if the warrant is in a different jurisdiction, it would likely go unnoticed. Yes, the dispatcher has the option to PIN message or call or fax other jurisdictions and ask them to run a 10-27/10-29 check, but the thing is, unless you have a reason to think somebody is wanted in a particular jurisdiction, how would you know where to ask them to check?
So, FWIW, even in the hypothetical suspect has a warrant out for his arrest, there's no guarantee that getting his ID and running it will find the warrant. Once again, illustrating that police are fundamentally limited in their ability to actually prevent crimes in that fashion.
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."
For that matter, even if the guy was not wanted, and he killed the woman the cop would rightly have been at least fired for not getting a complete story and knowing who to look for. I understand we are heading down the slope to the national number stamped on our foreheads, but honestly; lets get real here...
We are being real. Reality is that what happened to Mr. Hiibel is clearly a violation of his Constitutional rights, under at least the 4th and 5th amendments.
As for your "if he was a murderer" supposition... did you watch the video??? The cop arrested the guy, ***WITHOUT EVER EVEN SPEAKING TO THE ALLEGED "VICTIM"***
All the cop had to do was go over to the daughter, ask her "what's going on??" and get the story straight before trying to play "I want to be on the Cops TV show" or "Mr. Tough Cop" or whatever, and all of this could have been avoided.
Ya know, I'm sick of people who approve (even tacitly) of the freakin' cops abusing their power like this. If you people want to live in a police state, complete with Gestapo, KGB, etc., please move somewhere else. You and your gestapo are not welcome here.
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.
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...
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.
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?
No, absolutely not. What does identification have to do with anything? Either there is probable cause, based on the statements of the persons present, or not, to arrest someone. Either someone there wants to volunteer their information to be a witness for later, or not. There is absolutely NO reason, ever, period why a U.S. Citizen should be arrested for simply refusing to show identification.
Now I'm not saying there are or aren't other reasons to arrest the persons involved.. that's another issue. But to arrest somebody for **not other reason** than not showing ID is absolutely, totally and completely wrong...
And any U.S. citizen who feels otherwise should, IMHO, renounce their U.S. citizenship, and move out of the country. Move to Germany and see about helping reform the Gestapo or something; cause you're damn sure not needed here.
How anybody can not be outraged at these absuses absolutely boggles my imagination. This is the fucking U.S.A., people... not Soviet Russia, Red China, or Nazi Germany. This shit is not supposed to happen here. Anybody American who RTFA'd this story and isn't angry as hell, does not deserve to call themselves an American.
The line taken by the Under Secretary of State was that the US constitution forbids negotiating a treaty to limit small arms. Apparently the Second Amendment also covers child soldiers in Africa, and gun runners in Colombia.
More importantly than all that is; why is the U.S. mucking about in the private internal affairs of these other nations in the first place? Do they need us to help them dictate their policies? Did they ASK for our help?
This is something that irks me. I can understand why filing a patent costs a lot of money.
Really? Then would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?
I for one do NOT understand why it's so freakin' expensive to file a patent. It seems to me that this defeats the very purpose of patents. I mean, if I as a (hypothetical) independent inventor invent something new, but can't afford to file the patent, how is the patent system helping?
Right now, due to the costs involved, the patent system only helps the wealthy, and large, well-funded corporations, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
As bad as CVS *might* be in some ways, it's 2000000000 times better than that load of shit, SourceSafe.
Any judge can say a law is not enforcable.
And in the case of a jury trial, the jury can rule the law unenforcable as well. The principals of "jury review" and "jury nullification" are well established, and it's a shame that more Americans aren't aware of them.
Dear Humboldt County Sheriff's Department:
I just became aware of the incident that occurred with Mr. Dudley
Hiibel a few years ago, and which is going before the US Supreme
Court soon. I just wanted to e-mail and let you know that I fully
support Mr. Hiibel, and I hope most fervently that he wins his
Supreme Court challenge, for the sake of all Americans.
What happened that day was a travesty of justice. I cannot
believe that in America in 2001, you police types believe
you are allowed to behave in such a manner. This is America,
not Nazi Germany, and you are a Sheriff's Department, not the
Gestapo.
Your entire Department, and the Nevada State Highway
Patrol should be ashamed of what happened to Mr. Hiibel.
If you had any integrity or belief in the principles this
country was founded on, you all would immediately offer
him and his daughter a public apology for this incident,
and fire Deputy Dove.
Your department has brought shame and disgrace to the state
of Nevada, and made this law-abiding American citizen very
happy to say that he lives in North Carolina and not Nevada.
Thank you for your time,
Phillip Rhodes
--
When the 1st Amendment no longer protects your voice.
And when the 4th Amendment no longer protects your privacy or your stuff.
Thank God we have the 2nd Amendment to tell our elected representatives that enough is enough.
It's time to put "... from my cold, dead hands" back where it belongs.
FREE AMERICA
Vote Libertarian
www.lp.org
Bravo! Well spoken, my friend... glad somebody here "gets it."
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
Here's a good article
that does a nice job of summarzing why it would be a Bad Thing for the Supreme Court to find against Mr. Hiible.
Text mirrored here without permission:
---
Must Americans Carry Identification, or Else Risk Arrest?
This Term, The Supreme Court Will Decide
By DANIELLE SUCHER
----
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003
In France and many other countries, citizens and travelers alike are required to have their identification on their person at all times. In the U.S., however, that is not the case. We live in a society that prizes the right to privacy, of which anonymity is a facet.
This may soon change. This Term, in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court will decide a case that asks the following question: Does the Constitution permit a police officer to arrest someone simply because, when stopped under reasonable suspicion, that person fails to produce identification?
The federal judicial Circuits have split on this issue. The Tenth Circuit has upheld a similar statute in Oliver v. Woods, while the Ninth Circuit has struck another down in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Nevada Supreme Court -- which issued the decision the Supreme Court is reviewing -- has already held that this type of arrest does not violate the Constitution.
It would be a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to agree. Because the standard for reasonable suspicion is very low, the upshot of such a decision would be to require all citizens, immigrants, and travelers in America to carry identification at all times -- and to be prepared to produce it for inspection.
The Low Standard of Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low standard -- even lower than probable cause. In practice, it merely requires the police officer to be able to articulate some reason why he found you suspicious -- which is generally very easy to do, particularly under the vaguely defined "totality of the circumstances" test that is used.
Under the leading Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio, passing by the same storefront too many times can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Under the recent Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Wardlow, it may trigger reasonable suspicion if, in a dangerous area of town, a person runs when he sees a police officer approaching. Under a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Cruz, simply walking alongside the wrong acquaintance can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Racial profiling can be factor when articulating reasonable suspicion, as can the crime rate of the neighborhood you are in or the activities of people you know.
In sum, no one can be sure he or she will not trigger "reasonable suspicion," in the eyes of a police officer (and in the eyes of the law). Suppose that the Supreme Court affirms the decision in Hiibel that "reasonable suspicion" plus the failure to produce identification can constitutionally lead to arrest. If so, all Americans will be well-advised to carry I.D. at all times.
Otherwise, they may risk unwittingly triggering "reasonable suspicion," and thus being arrested merely, in effect, for failure to produce identification.
Why It Would Be Wrong To Force All Who Travel in America to Carry I.D.
Being required to carry I.D. may not seem to be a problem. Many people carry identification with them at all times already -- carrying a driver's license in their purse or wallet, or if they are younger, a student I.D. card. For them, having to show I.D. would be only a slight inconvenience.
Moreover, in this age of the "war on terrorism," some may consider it to be a good idea for the police to be able to "card" anyone on the street about whom they have a hunch. There are those who believe that the inconvenience is somehow balanced by an increase in the safety and effectiveness of the police.
If we do not g
The probably cause was the witness who reported seeing Mr. Bhagat speakinging to a man of Middle-Eastern decent in hushed tones. That is MORE than enough probable cause for a police officer to ask for identification.
Get real... a "witness" can call and report ANYTHING. Crackpots call 911 and "report" seeing UFO's land, day in and day out.
The officer was on the scene, and from what we can see and hear in the video (which is presumably the same thing(s) the officer saw and heard) there is absolutely no probable cause to suspect criminal activity.
What happened to Mr. Hiible was a travesty of justice, and plain illegal. If you disagree, I politely invite you to check your citizenship at the border, and move to Germany and volunteeer to chair the Gestapo Reformation Committee.
I do hope he wins, since the law itself is ridiculous, but I hope they re-arrest him for being drunk in public, disrespectful to an officer, and his daughter for assault.
Since when is disrespect illegal???? Can you say "First Amendment????"
And who exactly did his daughter "assault?" I've watched the tape, and I don't see any assault going on. I see a police officer preventing a young lady from exiting her vehicle (thereby interfering with her right to "carry on with her business"), and then tackling and pinning her to the ground when she does exit the vehicle.
No doubt, people lie to cops. The way many cops behave, they probably should - it's safer.
Our government was founded on the belief that stopping a criminal is less important than presenting certain inalienable rights to all of it's citizens - innocent or guilty. If you'd like to live under a different set of laws, where it is illegal to lie to authority, you'll either have to change the ones we have or live elsewhere.
EXACTLY!!! Somebody give this man a cookie! This sums it up perfectly.
Very sad state of affairs i must say. It makes you realize that with each passing day, the US is becoming more and more of a police state. I hope you are all ready for 1984, because its becoming more of a reality with each passing day. R.I.P - Here lies democracy, the dream we once had.
As a wise man once said... somebody should attach a turbine to George Orwell's body... you could solve the energy crisis with the power generated by him turning over in his grave.
From what I can tell, Mr. Hiibel instigated the confrontation. He could have easily complied but chose not to.
How did he instigate anything? He cooperated with the officer, other than not producing his ID. One interesting question is whether or not Nevada has one of those "id on demand" laws, but even if they do, there has to be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify arresting somebody under one of those laws. The Supreme Court clearly made this point in the Brown V. Texas decision.
No, all Mr. Hiibel did was stand up for his Constitutionally protected rights... and for his efforts he got harrassed by a typical power-mad, egotistical, "wannabe tough guy" cop.
The problem with cops is that too many of you guys are watching that damn "Cops" TV show and thinking that doing something "worthy" of an appearance on there, to demonstrate what a bad-ass you are, is a good thing somehow.
One also has to wonder why the cop in this video didn't just go talk to the daughter and ask her what was going in. A few minutes of casual conversation with the two "suspects" could have cleared everything up, and avoided all this.
You might also notice that the cop is the one who starts getting physical by reaching out and grabbing Hiibel's arm. Of course I'm sure police do that shit hoping to antagonize somebody into lashing out in anger, therefore justifying whatever happens next. Again, they've got to get some good video for "Cops."
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. l
ONLY if he has reasonable / probable cause to suspect that you are involved in a crime. That seems to have been pretty well established the in Brown v. Texas decision. Even in a state (like Texas) with a law requiring you to produce your id for the police, they can't invoke that unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in something criminal.
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.
They can already ask. At issue is whether or not you HAVE to produce ID on request for the police. This partly depends on state law, but even in states where there are such laws, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't be arrested and charged under those laws without probable cause.
Did probable cause exist with Mr. Hiible. Hell no. What cause was there? Did you watch the tape? Mr. Hiible did nothing "suspicious" EXCEPT refuse to show his ID. And you might note that the cop arrested Mr. Hiible before ever even speaking to the daughter in the truck and getting the situation clarified.
This thing with Mr. Hiible is a clear cut case of the police abusing their authority... I don't see how any rational person could see it otherwise, really.
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.
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.
Respondent Wardlow fled upon seeing a caravan of police vehicles converge on an area of Chicago known for heavy narcotics trafficking. When Officers Nolan and Harvey caught up with him on the street, Nolan stopped him and conducted a protective pat-down search for weapons because in his experience there were usually weapons in the vicinity of narcotics transactions. Discovering a handgun, the officers arrested Wardlow. The Illinois trial court denied his motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. He was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. In reversing, the State Appellate Court found that Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion to make the stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. The State Supreme Court affirmed, determining that sudden flight in a high crime area does not create a reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop because flight may simply be an exercise of the right to "go on one's way," see Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491.
Held: The officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case, involving a brief encounter between a citizen and a police officer on a public street, is governed by Terry, under which an officer who has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot may conduct a brief, investigatory stop. While "reasonable suspicion" is a less demanding standard than probable cause, there must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for the stop. An individual's presence in a "high crime area," standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location's characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147--148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow's unprovoked flight that aroused the officers' suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is another pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, and headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion. In reviewing the propriety of an officer's conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences from suspicious behavior, and this Court cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty when none exists. Thus, the reasonable suspicion determination must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418. Officer Nolan was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further. Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of "going about one's business." While flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U.S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. But in this case the officers found that Wardlow possessed a handgun and arrested him for violating a state law. The propriety of that arrest is not before the Court. Pp. 3--6.
This case doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on the Hiibel case. Hiibel didn't flee, and he wasn't found to be posessing a handgun, afaik. He did have a knife but nothing we saw on the video indicates that there was anything illegal about his knife.
The part about "can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct" seems like the strongest argument for saying this decision supports the cops in the Hiibel case, but I don't buy it, based on the next highlighted section "If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. " Clearly they can't just keep you there forever, and nothing here suggests that failure to show an ID constitutes evidence of criminal activity.
Oh, and just to elaborate further on one detail... you might be tempted to counter my statements above by asking "ok, but what if the guy has a warrant for his arrest out... that would have him identified by name, for sure."
And you'd probably be correct. If a warrant for the guy's arrest exists, presumably his name is associated with it. However... there's a glitch with this argument. All the sheriff's departments and police departments in the world, aren't completely and seamlessly integrated. Yes, there is NCIC / DCI / PIN, but the thing is, there's no easy way to search arrest warrants from all jurisdictions simultaneously. In fact, not all arrest warrants are even in NCIC / DCI / PIN.
So, if the guy is wanted in the local jurisdiction, then yeah, running a 10-27/10-29 search on him by name would turn up the warrant. But if the warrant is in a different jurisdiction, it would likely go unnoticed. Yes, the dispatcher has the option to PIN message or call or fax other jurisdictions and ask them to run a 10-27/10-29 check, but the thing is, unless you have a reason to think somebody is wanted in a particular jurisdiction, how would you know where to ask them to check?
So, FWIW, even in the hypothetical suspect has a warrant out for his arrest, there's no guarantee that getting his ID and running it will find the warrant. Once again, illustrating that police are fundamentally limited in their ability to actually prevent crimes in that fashion.
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."
For that matter, even if the guy was not wanted, and he killed the woman the cop would rightly have been at least fired for not getting a complete story and knowing who to look for. I understand we are heading down the slope to the national number stamped on our foreheads, but honestly; lets get real here...
We are being real. Reality is that what happened to Mr. Hiibel is clearly a violation of his Constitutional rights, under at least the 4th and 5th amendments.
As for your "if he was a murderer" supposition... did you watch the video??? The cop arrested the guy, ***WITHOUT EVER EVEN SPEAKING TO THE ALLEGED "VICTIM"***
All the cop had to do was go over to the daughter, ask her "what's going on??" and get the story straight before trying to play "I want to be on the Cops TV show" or "Mr. Tough Cop" or whatever, and all of this could have been avoided.
Ya know, I'm sick of people who approve (even tacitly) of the freakin' cops abusing their power like this. If you people want to live in a police state, complete with Gestapo, KGB, etc., please move somewhere else. You and your gestapo are not welcome here.
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.
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...
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.
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?
No, absolutely not. What does identification have to do with anything? Either there is probable cause, based on the statements of the persons present, or not, to arrest someone. Either someone there wants to volunteer their information to be a witness for later, or not. There is absolutely NO reason, ever, period why a U.S. Citizen should be arrested for simply refusing to show identification.
Now I'm not saying there are or aren't other reasons to arrest the persons involved.. that's another issue. But to arrest somebody for **not other reason** than not showing ID is absolutely, totally and completely wrong...
And any U.S. citizen who feels otherwise should, IMHO, renounce their U.S. citizenship, and move out of the country. Move to Germany and see about helping reform the Gestapo or something; cause you're damn sure not needed here.
How anybody can not be outraged at these absuses absolutely boggles my imagination. This is the fucking U.S.A., people... not Soviet Russia, Red China, or Nazi Germany. This shit is not supposed to happen here. Anybody American who RTFA'd this story and isn't angry as hell, does not deserve to call themselves an American.
The line taken by the Under Secretary of State was that the US constitution forbids negotiating a treaty to limit small arms. Apparently the Second Amendment also covers child soldiers in Africa, and gun runners in Colombia.
More importantly than all that is; why is the U.S. mucking about in the private internal affairs of these other nations in the first place? Do they need us to help them dictate their policies? Did they ASK for our help?
This is something that irks me. I can understand why filing a patent costs a lot of money.
Really? Then would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?
I for one do NOT understand why it's so freakin' expensive to file a patent. It seems to me that this defeats the very purpose of patents. I mean, if I as a (hypothetical) independent inventor invent something new, but can't afford to file the patent, how is the patent system helping?
Right now, due to the costs involved, the patent system only helps the wealthy, and large, well-funded corporations, IMHO.