Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court 1636
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."
Putting a stop to this now. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Just don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
I fail to see what's so horrible about this system. I'm not trolling, I really don't see it. Comments are most welcome.
Re:What is there to hide? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Read the full story (Score:1, Informative)
This was covered much more in depth on kuro5hin.org days ago!
ACLU (Score:4, Informative)
I think I'm required to here in California anyway. (Score:1, Informative)
Now, that's completely different from being required to carry it at all (Save, of course, while driving). But if I DO have it, I believe I'm required to surrender it.
I don't know what restrictions surround something like a Passport.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
I write a weekly newspaper column (Score:5, Informative)
People equate the "papers please" line to movies about Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia but I think we are closer than most of us would admit.
btw, if you've got a good way to rebut this that doesn't include fuck or asshole, I'm all ears biatches...:)
While it's bad, it's not as bad as implied (Score:5, Informative)
Which is overstating.
The cop never said he was "investigating an investigation" from watching the video. He did, however, say to the man as soon as he got there something along the lines "I'm investigating reports of a fight between you two" indicating the man and the woman in the car.
And the person asked for ID was fairly belligerent. He kept on asking the officer to arrest him.
The charge isn't specifically a law that makes it illegal to present ID, I think (though I'm not sure), it's a charge of obstructing a peace officer. Which may be from aforesaid law, but I didn't see that when I looked before.
This sounds like a good way (Score:2, Informative)
thank you John Asscroft! (Score:5, Informative)
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 [lrna.org]
Don't worry though the USA PATRIOT ACT's will take care of all your problems.
Duh! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not papers, just a name (Score:4, Informative)
Not "investigating an investigation" (Score:5, Informative)
More interesting and less /.'ed site (Score:4, Informative)
Of much interest:
"A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck."
So it would seem he was not 'accosted at random'.
Re:Just don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In the US, people (theoretically) have the right to not have people looking through all of their stuff. The idea being that this would lead to abuses by government officals as per what happened under colonial government. So the question in this case is: was this request "unreasonable"? He needs a legitmate reason for requesting information (which he probably had). It is probably his "investigating an investigation" reason for doing this that caused all of hubub.
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:2, Informative)
torrent of video (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
The question of the case then, I guess, is whether the Nevada law requiring a person to give their name to an officer is Constitutional. I'm hoping they vote no and the ruling overturned.
Re:Slashdot is so predictable (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not "investigating an investigation" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:before everyone gets a little crazy (Score:1, Informative)
The article specifically states that the man was standing outside of the parked car, leaning into a window, talking to his daughter. No driver's license needed for that, I don't think.
Re:Not papers, just a name (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Drawing the line. (Score:5, Informative)
1. What's your name?
It's on my license
2. Can I see some ID?
Yes here is my drivers license
3. What is your reason for being here?
I prefer not to discuss that with you
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
I do not consent to a search of the vehicles storage compartments
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
I do not consent to a search of my person
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
I do not consent to a search of my dwelling
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
I do not consent to a search of my personal computer
Remember also "Can I leave now?" "Am I under arrest?" "Why am I being detained?" and "I do not wish to speak with you now."
Not just Nevada -- also Ohio (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:3, Informative)
I was a bit more concerned when they pulled the girl out of the truck and onto the ground and cuffed her. That seemed totally unnecessary. The view isn't clear, but wasn't she a teenager?
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:1, Informative)
ACLU membership (and some advice) (Score:5, Informative)
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.' [aclu.org]
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.
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Informative)
DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer, just a law student
No.
Follow that rule, and you may well end your ass up in jail. The rule in most jurisdictions is that you do not have a right to resist arrest unless one "reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect against an arresting officer's use of unlawful and deadly force"
Essentially, you cannot resist arrest unless you're in fear of your life or grevious bodily injury -- EVEN if the arrest or use of force is unlawful. The way to deal with unlawful use of force is a civil action later. It is not up to the man on the street to decide whether an arrest is legal or illegal -- that is a matter for a judge and jury.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Biagini (655 A.2d 492) is a good example (and coincidentally where I stole the above quote from). Man is arrested without sufficient cause. During the arrest he assaults an officer. Man is found not guilty of original crime, but does time on the resisting arrest charge.
I don't think I can state it clearly enough -- you do not have a right to resist arrest except when in immediate fear of death / near death.
Should have got their ID (Score:5, Informative)
Fight back is a good idea. You missed one important point: get their id. By law they must give you their badge ID. When they stop you for no reason all you need is a lawyer to file charges against them.
BTW, while technically they are not required to help you in getting that id, if you don't have a pen handy and they refuse to lend you their's, write a formal letter of complaint to the police chief. Might or might not result in anything, but it will go on his record. (In most areas you can and should check that record to make sure it is there)
Dennis Kucinich (Score:4, Informative)
Cops don't have to investigate. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't recall which case, but the supreem court has ruled that cops do not have to protect you. Case came out when one man broke into a house where 3 women lived, trapped them all in a bedroom, and was raping them. One women (under the bed?) managed to call the police. When they came to the door he answered, and said "no, everything is alright. No, you cannot search without a warrent." (or words to that effect) After the police left he went back to the rape.
A commonly cited case when gun control people bring up the police.
Re:If there was "no way", then they wouldn't hear (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court is a court of limited appelate jurisdiction* so cases rarely start there and thus they generally hear appeals from other courts. The "limited" part means that they decide if they want to hear any case. They are only obligated to hear cases over which they have original jurisdiction (which is defined in the Constitution, and which is narrow enough that it almost never happens).
To be considered by the court, four of the nine justices must decide that they want to hear the case. There are several reasons why a judge may want to hear (or why they may NOT want to hear) any given case. I forget the exact statistics, but they only hear something like one in one hundred cases. I remember some figure of less than 10,000 cases being appealed to them and a figure of something on the order of 100 actually being heard by them. They can rule either by just reading all the material supplied by both sides and then ruling on it, or they may do the rulings after having oral arguements from both sides. In oral arguements, they ask lots of hard questions and can interject or go on a rant at any time whatsoever. The Chief Justice (currently Rhenquest) is charged with keeping them on task (some of them have a habit of just talking to each other during the arguements, others are more engaged...) The judges aren't very constrained, but the lawyers for both sides are very much on their toes. God help you if you don't have a ready answer; they're not there just to have you restate what you said in all your briefs...
Sometimes, the justices want to hear a case to affirm some precident. This isn't all that common--there just usually isn't any reason to hear something just to affirm it (though this does happen for various reasons). Statistically (and this is part of what my university course was on!), they intend to reverse or vacate any case they hear. When they reverse it, they decide in favor of the person who lost the last round in the court system. When they vacate a ruling, they send it back to the previous judge with instructions about what that judge should not have done. Usually, it doesn't direct the judge to come to any particular conclusion, but it tells the judge how they may or may not arrive at their conclusions (e.g. directing them to ignore/take into account certain evidence, etc.).
There are also reasons why they may not want to hear any given case. Perhaps some justice is afraid that "their side" will "lose" and set a bad precident.
When I say "their side" I should qualify that. If you do the statistics (as my prof did both in class and in the book he wrote, which was a class text), some justices tend to agree with each other more often than the others, whereas others are nearly polar opposites (agreeing in only something like 20% of the cases). Dividing the Supreme Court into "liberal" and "conservative" will get you a fair correlation, but it doesn't really represent a sharp distinction concerning their judgements. The justices certainly have their own political views, but they're not slaves to them and everything depends on the respective merits of the case--you can't just sit back and figure that the five of nine "conservative" justices will win you your case. There are several "swing" justices, in any event, who will muck up any predictions you try to make about any particular case. The statistics just aren't the whole story.
So this is a wild tangent, I know, but if you're wondering, this should have given you a better insight into how the Supreme Court makes decisions. I know that it comprises much of what I learned in that class...
* The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction--usually only over things like treaties the US has signed. Original jurisdiction means that they get to hear a case before and instead of any other court, by the way. Generally, they get cases ap
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:4, Informative)
Not charged with a crime? (Score:5, Informative)
If they want to arrest your ass, then they should arrest your ass. If they're not going to arrest your ass, then they should leave you well enough alone.
Did you know that you can say "no" if the police ask you if they can do something? Probably not - and the cops will jump all over you if you do that. But it's your right not to consent to a search.
Re:Not papers, just a name (Score:5, Informative)
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 [usff.com] 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 [findlaw.com], concurring opinion by White: "[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." 88 S.Ct., at 1886 (White, J., concurring).
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:1, Informative)
Probable Cause isn't required (Score:4, Informative)
Similar to the difference between trial and grand juries. A trial jury must find that the evidence shows you comitted a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning that there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the facts. A grand jury just needs to find that there is legally sufficient evidence (the law mandidates minimums to go to trial) and reasonable cause to believe. Doesn't mean they have to think you did it, just that they could reasonably believe that you did.
Re:ACLU (Score:4, Informative)
-Ted
The Cato amicus brief says best what's wrong here (Score:5, Informative)
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 [epic.org], which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel [epic.org].
Re:How can they do that? (Score:3, Informative)
>Nice! Consider that stolen for use in my sig. ;)
And when you do use it remember to attribute it to Ed Howdershelt and not the grandparent poster. The quote is in kernel hacker Gene Haskett's sig, where it is happily and properly referenced.
Unwritten Agreement when getting license/permit (Score:1, Informative)
Checking to see if there is the same in other states (as well as if there is provided documentation in handbooks, etc) would be very beneficial.
Personally, refusing to identify yourself is a rather silly thing to do, and creates an atagonistic relationship between the police & public (which is not how it is supposed to be).
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:4, Informative)
NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.
IANAL but I am a citizen. My take is that we are to be consider innocent until proven quilty, and that we have an expectation of privacy. Resonable suspicion is not probable cause. No one says "innocent until reasonably suspected". At what point does their suspicion outweigh my rights? I say they need to more than suspect its possible, they need to have proof that its probable.
RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The EFF? (Score:2, Informative)
(Also, working with me has educated them on some issues around ubiquitous ID demands. Turns out that most of these ID demands are backed by big databases; the ID is used as a key to search them. E.g., a cop radios in your license number and they tell him things about you from the NCIC database [epic.org]. Or the cop uses the multi-state MATRIX [matrix-at.org] web access from the laptop in the police car. Or the TSA's CAPPS-2 [freetotravel.org] looks up your credit records to suspect you if you don't have any credit -- and cross-checks them against your ID when you show up at the airport.)
Re:why ? (Score:5, Informative)
In each of those cases I ALWAYS asked for (and received) identification and badge numbers from the police officers involved. It's only affected me in a positive way. When you ask for bade numbers and identification you are basically letting the police officer know 'I know your limits, and I'm going to hold you accountable.'
I've known several police officers in a social sense, and I've discussed this with all of them. They all, to a man (and one woman), have the same response. They don't begrudge a citizen looking out for themeselves, and asking for ID has the affect of raising THEIR awareness that they need to be careful.
The exception to this however is when people use bade requests as a delaying tactic or a method of not answering questions. As with most things in life, you need to know the right TIME to ask for this information.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:1, Informative)
If a cop asks if he or she can search your car, you say "no." If they tell you that it'll just take a second, you say "no." Keep saying no. The only way they can search that car is to arrest you and to impound it, and (a) this involves a lot of paperwork which they're not gonna want to do just to hassle you, and (b) if they don't find anything and fail to have probable cause for the bust you can sue the department.
Finally, get rid ofditch the Phish sticker. That's just stupid. Yeah, it's not fair and technically it's profiling, but y'know what? Profiling is done for a reason. People with Phish or Grateful Stickers are more likely to have pot on board. Slip under the radar and you're less likely to have to deal with a traffic stop at all.
Re:ACLU membership (and some advice) (Score:4, Informative)
And for Krelden's sake keep your hands someplace visible.
Police have to deal with some really nasty people. They've seen situations go bad really quickly, either in real life or in training films. If you're a stranger they'll think about officer safety when interacting with you.
Don't alarm them. Standing on your rights is one thing, making an officer worry about his safety is a completely different thing.
Re:Read up a bit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:4, Informative)
Re:why ? (Score:2, Informative)
A couple of publicized cases have come down in the last couple years. One said police who find drugs by squeezing soft luggage on busses or trains cannot open the bags. One said infrared on houses for pot lights is an illegal search. So its really a case by case basis thing.
However one thing you must realize is that bad searches happen all the time, because local jurisdictions [captains, the public, DAs] want drug criminals prosecuted because it scores points with the soccer moms.
What they do is perform an illegal search on an ignorant person they suspect, but have no probable cause for. They sometimes find something, and then lie about their rational when they have to justify themselves in court: Your honor, I was talking to this gentleman on the street when the bag just fell out of his pocket .
This doesn't fly in federal courts--judges there will tell you to fuck off, and don't show your face in here again--but state judges buy it because they aren't so removed from the democratic process. The problem is that there are too many incentives in the system for everyone involved to get more prosecutions.
Re:Read the full story (Score:2, Informative)
In such a situation, the first thing an officer does is attempt to seperate the parties. This was done by requesting that the gentleman step away from the vehicle and remain by the front hood of the cruiser. This also manages to get him on the camera in the cruiser. I couldn't watch the whole clip however... Something is wrong with my QuickTime, and the WMV version would not download at all.
At some point, another officer arrives. He sees the first responder working with an aggressive individual. At this point, the other occupant of the vehicle attempts to exit. In this situation, this is an immediate trouble sign. Usually in this case, the officer in question will quickly have 2 people attacking him. The second officer attempts to prevent the driver from leaving the vehicle. When she succeeds, she is placed under arrest. This is to prevent the two from teaming up on the cops.
Had he arrived, and the father was calm and rational, answered questions, remained in the area the officer asked him to, didn't start showing signs of aggression, and yes, simply produced a driver's license if he had it on him (most cops would completely understand a "I don't have my license on me"), then he probably would have proceeded to speak with the daughter, and gotten things squared away. Instead, due to the reactions of the father, he quickly became suspicious, and felt a need to protect himself from the father.
Did he have probable cause? Yes. There was a report of a domestic violence incident, the truck was identified, as well as the father. Did he start by calmly asking questions? Yes. Did he act in accordance with his training? Probably.
As for some of the other comments spouted off, such as "Innocent until proven guilty..." that is inside a courtroom. The court, and the jury, must at all times believe the defendant in innocent, UNTIL THE STATE HAS PROVEN GUILT. This does NOT mean that a cop has to assume you're innocent. If I have a report that a 6 foot 6 redhead wearing a purple T-Shirt just shoplifted a Sony Boombox, and I see you standing there on the corner, a 6' 6" redhead, purple t-shirt, holding a Sony Boombox to his ear... Well, my presumption is going to be you're the guilty party. However, to the jury, you're innocent until I trace that boom box back to the Walmart it was stolen from using serial numbers, id tags, etc. This is why cops don't make good jurors.
Now, there's one more point to consider. The 2 highest incidences resulting in fatalities to cops are... Ready? Traffic Stops and Domestic Abuse calls. We have a vehicle on the side of the road that has been called in as a possible domestic abuse. Are we going to be a little more tense than normal answering this call? I don't know about you, but I'm sure I would be.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
No luck involved. His daughter had been driving the truck.
As for why it's on Slashdot, I've noticed that the folks here have a fondness for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Here's [epic.org] the amicus brief the EFF filed in support of Mr. Hiibel.
Better yet, watch the video (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:3, Informative)
1. Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around
First you seperate them. This he did. Then you question them. This he attempted. Unfortunately, he was not able to leave the father due to his combative and aggressive state.
2. Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate
One of the first things said was there was a report of a fight between the two of them.
3. Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID
OK, looks like he got a little tongue tied, but he DID state why he was investigating earlier. Looks like he got a little tired of dealing with someone that should have been wearing a tinfoil hat.
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation?
Wants a warrants baby... Wants and warrants... First thing an officer does when he gets an ID is calls into the station, requesting a wants and warrants on the individual. He usually also does it on the vehicle registration as well to verify it hasn't been stolen. Had the stop turned up something like an arrest warrant, he would have immediately arrested him. Now, when someone isn't willing to give over an ID, this can cause a suspicion that MAYBE he's wanted for something more than a traffic summons, but you're right, it shouldn't greatly affect the over all picture.
but that can wait until he's taken back to the station
Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.
The problem here was simply an officer responding to a domestic call (ie: Doing his duty), and getting worried and suspicious due to the actions of the accused.
I've always found that if you act calm and composed with an officer of the law, they will usually treat you as a human being. If you immediately start pacing, swinging arms around, talk about being arrested, etc. you're usually going to end up on a ride downtown.
Re:Learning your rights (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:2, Informative)
I just didn't see this as bullying though. He told the person what was going on/why he stopped. He made a simple request. Instead of a simple answer, the suspect started acting in a (what appeared to me from the video) violent manner.
As for the treatment of the female, remember how many officers are attacked, not by the person they're cuffing, but by the person that called in the domestic in the first place! Cops are taught at most academies to remember that the victim is NOT your friend. In many cases, the supposed victim will attack and injure or kill the police officer while he is in the process of arresting the suspect. It's human nature in a way. We may be mad, we may be scared, but if we see someone "hurting" one of our own, EVEN AT OUR OWN REQUEST, we often flip to the other side, protecting one of ours against "them."
As for refusing to talk, you're right, the deputy probably could have handled things a bit better. I don't see that he was "abusing the weapon." however, because he continued to try to talk after the suspect had made it clear through body language and responses that he was not going to be civil about the situation. The only place that he really screwed up was by not asking for a name first. Getting on a name (whether first or last) basis with someone can really help difuse the situation.
idiot, it's his daughter (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Informative)
There are no good reasons for this, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown V. Texas [findlaw.com] that a Texas law of this nature violated the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:3, Informative)
-Detention of citizens without trial or recourse to courts or lawyers
-Detention of citizens without charge for unlimited time
-Secret detentions (the US now has its own "disappeards")
-Declaring people "enemy combatants" and allowing them neither Constitutional protections NOR rights as prisoners of war.
-Torture of enemy combatants (as defined by international law)
-Local police undercover agents infiltrating lawful political opposition groups under the auspices of the Joint Terrorism Task Force
-The ruling party seriously suggesting that the Constitution might need to be suspended after 9/11
No, it isn't "really" Nazi Germany, but it is getting far too close for my comfort.
Re:A Couple of things... (Score:3, Informative)
Because it's a right that, if not defended, can slip away. As demonstrated by the people saying this, it already has to some degree.
If the only people that refuse to show an ID *are* criminals, than refusal to show ID becomes extremely suspicious in and of itself.
For the people saying "If you've done nothing wrong, why not just comply?" -- this is *exactly* the mantra that Orwell used to justify everything in his state. It works well. If you're doing nothing wrong, then why should you object to being monitored by state-controlled cameras in your house or any of the other elements of a police state?
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p*48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Torrent for the hi_res quicktime movie (Score:3, Informative)
This is a movie of the incident in question.
http://tracker.apt202.net/no_id_arrest_LARGE.mov.Please keep your downloads open. Thanks!
Anyone with any contact to the webmaster please tell them to provide that link if they would like.
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:3, Informative)
I think the grandparent is overstating things a bit here: The pain is minimal, but it's unusual to not notice it entirely, and it's almost impossible to give an insulin injection to an uncooperative patient -- the needles are thin enough that any sort of violent movement will break them.
Re:Better yet, watch the video (Score:5, Informative)
No he didn't. The state isn't even claiming he did.
To ask for an ID? Don't need any reason at all. I can ask you for your ID anytime I want, without even being a cop.
The point is that refusing to supply ID is not a crime, nor is it probable cause. Anyone can ask you for ID, but you are not under any obligation to supply it. This guy was arrested on a thinly veiled charge of failing to supply ID, and failing to supply ID is not a crime - in fact it's a constitutionally protected right.
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, and the people who they "ask" are not required to respond. As Shakespeare said in Henry IV:
You are confusing a request with a demand. A cop is free to request anything at any point, with a few exceptions. (And people who have never had good advice from a lawyer are likely to do as they request -- to the peoples' own detriment.) But what a cop can demand is limited by the Constitution. A "request" followed by an arrest if you do not comply is a "demand".
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:4, Informative)
Bull.. it doesn't sound odd at all to my Dutch ears.
We didn't have to show any ID nor have any on our person until about ten years back here in the Netherlands. Since then, the powers that be have slowly eroded those freedoms and they are pushing for an obligation to carry and show an ID everywhere. (See the press release [identificatieplicht.nl] and open letter [identificatieplicht.nl] from Privacy International [privacyinternational.org] to the Dutch government.)
Just about all of the reasons for obligatory ID are unfounded or shown misguided yet they are still pushing for it and the majority of the government supports it.
The mind wonders :-(
Re: Wear the yellow star (Score:3, Informative)
most of the time they are breaking the law themselves in the police car by not obeying traffic laws, and then they break it wildly after work knowing they wont even get pulled over for smoking the tires through a red light if they are in their own turf. (I know 3 cops, yes this is absolutely true... an officer will get written up for writing a ticket to another officer by the union and the station)
the police need to be held to a higher standard... officer crumb was caught speeding? FIRED. officer dan acted in a non professional manner? FIRED.
I'm sick of the cops being populated by the power trip asshats and guys that are generally jerks. police academies need to be re-opened, you should be REQUIRED to prove that you are worthy of being a cop.
unbfortunately today, all it takes is a little college education and a red neck. and in michigan now, no college is needed anymore in several cities....
Being a cop yourself doesn't necessarily help (Score:3, Informative)
I saw a fascinating video clip on one of the US cop camera shows we get over here in the UK. IIRC a couple of state troopers had pulled a car over, alleging that it was committing some minor traffic violation. The driver, who happened to be a senior officer with a neighbouring force, clearly stated that he disagreed. During the following "discussions" he also identified himself as another police officer, and acknowledged that he was armed. He kept his composure pretty well considering, simply denying the charge and requesting that a supervising officer attend the scene.
The state troopers became more and more agitated, muttering things about "He's got a gun" and "Call for back-up" every couple of seconds. Eventually, they sprayed the guy who was pulled over, and managed to restrain him; he didn't actually threaten them verbally, draw his weapon, or otherwise give any indication of impending violence or resistance, mind, just disagreed with the charge and asked for a supervisor to attend, and then sat on a fence at the side of the road waiting.
It's all on tape from the arresting cops' car, but I'd love to know how it turned out; looks to me like two over-ego'd cops picked on the wrong guy, then got aggressive and wrongfully arrested him. They were pretty lucky the reasonable senior officer didn't decide to exercise his legal rights, probably resulting in a firefight (which, given the apparent incompetence of the arresting cops in negotiation, and the rather pathetic skills in unarmed restraint and use of spray that they demonstrated, probably wouldn't have turned out well for them, I'm thinking). The senior guy probably figured it wasn't worth the risk to all concerned, but I hope everyone got what they deserved out of that incident.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
Homosexuals had a pink triangle
Communists had a red triangle
Criminals had a green triangle
Anti-Socialists had a black triangle
Emigrants had a blue triangle
Gypsies had a brown triangle
Jehova's Witnesses had a purple triangle.
The fact is (commonly overlooked) that many more people than just Jews were persecuted and interred in concentration camps under the Nazi regime.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:2, Informative)
I agree with whoever posted that the officer should have first asked the guy's name, and not gone into a confrontation over the ID unless he had suspicion that he was lying.
OK, the officer started off acting irresponsibly. You don't approach drunks antagonistically. You approach them gently so they think there isn't a threat. Then you lead them through.
But this suit is nuts. The guy screwed up in refusing to offer his ID, even as the officer was wrong in his actions.
But, this should be a CIVIL case in a local court over the way the police assaulted the daughter, not a case over whether or not it's reasonable for the officer to have asked for some kind of identification in order to assess whether or not there was any kind of elevated danger presented by this guy.
The web site makes him out to be some nice old fart just having a simple argument with his daughter. They don't mention the suspicion of drinking.
And for those
Yes, there's a lot of injustice in the world. Personally, I think both police officers should be fired with prejudice for the way they handled things. But my reading of this indicates Hiibels screwed up, too, and he's far from the innocent country bumpkin the website seems to make him.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:3, Informative)
A simplified example: TEXT [slashdot.org]
A full (working) example: Stuff the link [cithosting.com] stuff.
-
Re:Right to request ID (Score:3, Informative)
4. Would giving the cop the finger, making pig noises, and speaking in intimate terms about his mother, constitute a crime as well?
Actually, I already know the answer to this. Cops are treated as Special Citizens in our republic. While it is legal to tease, insult, or be disrespectful of a regular citizen, to do so to a POLICE OFFICER is a serious, serious crime.
ACTUALLY, this is not at all a crime. See the following summaries of two court cases which have upheld your right to verbally abuse a police officer as part of your constitutionally protected speech: (originally seen on the smoking gun some time ago in regards to this case [thesmokinggun.com].)
4. A juvenile telling a police officer "fuck you" was held to be constitutionally protected speech. R.I.T. v. State, 675 So.2d 97 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995) (conviction for disorderly conduct overturned). The R.I.T. court reasoned that police officers are specially trained to deal with vulgarities and situations when others may be verbally abusive towards them, and thus "fuck you" was not likely to provoke a violent response.
5. A juvenile calling a police officer a "fucking pig, fuckin' kangaroo" and telling the officer "fuck you" during a traffic contact was found to be constitutionally protected speech. State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980). Just like the R.I.T. court, Id., the John W. court also reasoned that police officers deal with these types of situations on an every day basis and therefore "fucking pig, fuckin' kangaroo and fuck you" were not likely to invoke a violent response.
Re:Right to request ID (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know the specifics of this case, or what state this person was traveling in
He wasn't traveling, he was standing. Everything you wrote about driver's licenses and motor vehicles is off-point.
I am a police officer in the State of Georgia, in DeKalb County... in the State of Georgia, we
Well, that Georgia law is most likely about to be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court usualy doesn't waste time accepting an appeal just let a lower ruling stand.
in my county, if you refuse to show me your ID, I will take you to jail. I have done it twice so far in my career
Then you oughtta pay attention to this case. If the Supreme Court acts on this appeal you may just get slapped with a lawsuit the next time you haul in someone merely for declining you ID request.
Not answering questions is not a crime.
-
Re:Right to request ID (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Right to request ID (Score:2, Informative)
Nevada Supreme Court - Dissenting Opinion (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Right to request ID (Score:2, Informative)