Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court

Pemdas writes "On March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case involving an arrest for lack of producing ID on the demand of a police officer. Dudley Hiibel was parked off the road, and was asked 11 times to show ID to the police officer, who gave the justification of 'investigating an investigation.' Finally, he was arrested, and eventually convicted of delaying a police officer,' and fined $250. The incident occurred in Humboldt County, Nevada; Mr. Hiibel's side of the story includes a good section on Terry stops, and has a video of the incident for download. The parallels to the previously covered Gilmore v. Ashcroft case are striking, and the ruling will be an interesting precedent on the issue of requiring ID's. The ACLU, EPIC, and EFF, among others, have filed Amicus briefs in the case."

Wear the yellow star

[ObviousGuy]

Slowly, slowly, we slide down this long road. Don't close your eyes, you'll miss the whole thing.

Re:What is there to hide?

[Borealis]

If you're a cop, why harass somebody for no good reason? There's no reason to abuse your authority by forcing somebody to give you id if there's no real reason to investigate them.

Re:What is there to hide?

[tsunamifirestorm]

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

Welcome to the Police State

[madMingusMax]

Produce your papers, comrade.
Always carry your papers, comrade.
Do not question us, comrade; that, of course, is our job.

Did I just wake up in 1950s Communist Russia?

I quote Michael Moore: "Dude, where the hell did my country go?!?!"

Re:What is there to hide?

[asklepius]

I agree that you shouldn't be stubborn in front of a cop, but that doesn't mean that cops can do whatever they want. The officer needs a reason to find out your identity, etc. They can't pull you over on the highway for nothing, why can they ask for ID for no reason if you are just hanging out on the side of the road. Sounds a little scary to me.

Not papers, just a name

[bentini]

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

According to courts, you don't have a reasonable expectation to not have to give your name, because you use it all the time. You probably do, however, have a reasonable expectation of not having to rattle off any ID number that's private.

What's so wrong about giving a cop your name if you give it to everyone else?

Re:How can they do that?

[GigsVT]

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

They can do it because no one fights back.

Re:What is there to hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:why ?

[nomadic]

The Supreme Court has over the past two decades become far more accepting of searches, thanks primarily to the court's shift to the right, and the perceived threat of the "drug epidemic".

Re:Just don't get it

[GigsVT]

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

Drawing the line.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have nothing to hide, show your damn license.

1. What's your name?
2. Can I see some ID?
3. What is your reason for being here?
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?

Where shall we draw the line, if not at #1 or #2?

I mean, heck, if you've got nothing to hide, and teh ID check came up clean, just let the cop look in your trunk and find nothing wrong. You may as well just let him have a quick look in your pockets, also, because he'll find nothing wrong unless you have something to hide. If the officer is conducting an investigation and you have nothing to hide, then there's no reason to not let him look in your garage at home, either, unless you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to not let him look at the contents of your hard drive either, since he'll find nothing wrong.

The EFF?

[JoeBaldwin]

While it's nice to have them on his side, why would the EFF want to be in this case? I thought their brief was *electronic* rights.

Re:What is there to hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please bend over while the nice officer pulls on his latex glove for your cavity search. After all, he's investigatin an investigation.

If I'm parked somewhere doing no wrong in the US, I don't need to prove who I am. Now, if this were Soviet Russia 20 years ago, occupied Germany 60 years ago, etc. Sure. But I'm trying to remember what the diference there is...

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

[G4from128k]

You'll see them come up to some guy who seems like he's just minding his own business, and they'll totally abuse his rights -- although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something. No one sees the COPS footage were the innocent person was abused, found to be innocent, and then let go -- that would not make good TV.

Re:What is there to hide?

[Will242]

Did y'all read the article?

What everyone here seems to be missing is the fact that the officer was responding to a report (eg, some other citizen called the police) of domestic violence after seeing this guy argue with his daughter in the truck, and in fact, there had already been a physical exchange between the guy and his daughter.

Then, once additional officers arrive and the arrest is in progress the daugher tries to *phsyically force her way* past one of the cops. I just can't feel for the supposed "victims" in this case even after having read only their side of the story...

Re:Just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

When people aren't concerned about their liberties before it's too late, when it's too late, well, it's too late.

Please board the train for relocation

[Gothmolly]

And when masses of people were herded onto trains for 'relocation', or into ghettos, because the State told them to do so, they were just obeying too. You don't see whats so horrible about it because you've been brought up in a State where this level of massification is accepted. I'm not trolling either, its just something thats very important to a people who (until recently) did not expect this sort of behavior from their police.

Re:don't do the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

That is funny...

Well, I'm not a criminal, but I'm concerned about this issue. I don't have the time if a cop decides I need to stop and display ID at his whim. I have things to do, I'm not committing any crimes, don't waste my time with your insecurities and need to push your authority on someone (which in most cases is what it's really about).

Re:How can they do that?

[Tassach]

the guy always ends up being guilty of something

Well, there are so many laws on the books that it's almost impossible for anyone go through a normal day without breaking a few laws. Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to play "spot-the-stoner". And of course we're talking about TV... all the stops they make that don't result in an arrest wind up on the cutting room floor

This seems like as good a time as any to ask - how CAN they do that?

Because we let them.

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, and you pick Michael Moore to quote?
How easy will it be to force people to do things against their will when we have no guns to defend ourselves?
but, of course, that can't happen here, right?

Re:Just don't get it

[SparafucileMan]

Actually, its not that they're willing to live under it. It's just that Panama has a habit of getting invaded by the United States, who always supports the military, who are the ones with the guns, who run the country. I mean christ, ever heard of the PANAMA CANAL?

Re:Not papers, just a name

[onewing]

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

A police officer without any probible cause should be treated as just another citizen and should not have special privilages to access any information.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[fishbowl]

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

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

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

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

Re:why ?

[iminplaya]

I think you read that backwards it was the citizen who would not show his ID to the cop, not vice versa.

Yes, but this brings up another point. If a u.s. citezen asks a cop to show id in order to verify that he/she is a legitimate policeman, shouldn't the cop have to show id? There are a few fakes out there. This brings up another question. Is there such a thing as self defense against a cop? It seems that the police have been given pretty much unlimited authority when it comes to people in their cars, judging from recent court rulings.

Re:Just don't get it

[at_kernel_99]

I live in Panama (in Central America, not FL) and here, like in most other places in Latin America, you have a Cedula, basically a national ID. When a law enforcement agent asks you for your ID, you show it to them. If you don't it means that A) you don't have one because you're an illegal immigrant or B) you're a convicted felon and have escaped from prison...or something to that extent.

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

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

If there was "no way", then they wouldn't hear it.

[Kelmenson]

The very fact that the Supreme Court has decided to hear it, means that the Court thinks there are legitimate questions that need to be answered. The court is quite happy to just refuse to hear cases that it feels don't need to be heard.

What would everyone prefer a policeman to do?

[i)ave]

I understand that everyone wants their right to exist peacefully without being harassed. However, there are occaisional occurances of wanted individuals being caught simply because their car broke down. Let's be honest: If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them. Anyone must be able to deduce that it is not unreasonable to expect that at some point, they may be questioned by an officer... so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise. Do we really want law enforcement to just start turning a blind eye to any car they see occupied that has a passenger inside? It seems to me that refusing to give one's name or ID is very unhelpful and almost antagonistic. People are always observing that Police don't spend enough time stopping real serious crimes, but when individuals like this person refuse to be helpful, it takes that officer's time away that he could have spent on a serious crime. The point is the officer was just doing what he felt was the right thing for him to do and it is possible he ended up getting angry, but being angry over someone who's wasting your time and the gov't's time isn't so abnormal a reaction, is it? Would we really be better off if we made it illegal for an officer to expect someone to give them their name? I don't see how. If someone has a better idea on how the police should react when a person refuses to identify themselves, I would be keen to listen.

Re:why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way the Supreme Court will allow the officer to get away with this.

I think you dramatically underestimate Antonin Scalia. He's written some very stupid opinions.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No Checkpoints??

[rueger]

One of the few things that distinguishes America as a free country is the absense of checkpoints and "papers please" where your very existence is presumed to be a crime until YOU demonstrate that you have a right to exist and that you are free to go.

Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?

Re:How can they do that?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

You'll see them come up to some guy who seems like he's just minding his own business, and they'll totally abuse his rights -- although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.

The show needs access to police departments. The police depts. want to be shown in a favorable light. The show has editors. How many clips ended up on the cutting room floor of the times have they abused the rights of someone when they don't end up being guilty?

Re:why ?

[rcw-home]

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

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

Re:This was on Kuro5hin

[ThomK]

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

Re:it's called refusing a resonable request.

[Anonymous Coward]

One way of working within the system to get an _unconstitutional_ law changed is to challenge it in the courts. The courts are an important and integral check in the system. In order to have a test case for a law, someone needs to be tried for breaking it.

Of course, there is the danger that the law will be upheld, however many times people had to take the risk of breaking a law to allow a challenge. This is how the laws prohibiting condom sales in the US were struck down.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How can they do that?

[morkeld]

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

Of course the ones you wind up seeing on TV are guilty, what about all the incidents you do not see that never make it on TV? Also, all the car chases you see on TV end in the death or capture of the criminal ... they never show anyone getting away. Of course, I'm not advocating criminal behavior, just pointing out the subtle conditioning that's going on with these shows.

The US is different

[Sycraft-fu]

For better or worse. We don't HAVE a national ID. There is no card that identifies you as a US citizen. Closest thing is a passport, and that is an optional travel document.

The reason is that we feel it is a privacy and freedom issue. Why should the police have a right to demand we show proof of identity? That means if I ever want to leave my house, I'd better have my ID with me or I can get in trouble. That seems to many Americans to be very Big Brother-ish (as in fomr 1984 by Orwell) or Soviet Russia-ish.

There is also the simple fact that since we don't have one national ID, they have less of a claim.

Re:Probable Cause?

[nodwick]

I wasn't aware that "

parking off the road" was probable cause to "investigate an investigation".

I think the "probable cause" would be the call from the witness claiming they saw some domestic violence going on. Both the story and the cop in the video mention it. So it's not a case of where the police cruiser just pulled over because they thought the guy's face looked funny.

Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department came on the scene - siren a-wailing - in response to a domestic violence report. Someone saw Mimi arguing with her dad and thought it had come to blows. The witness said that he saw "a man with a black cowboy hat" who "slugged the female". Dove was there to investigate the report.

Not being an expert on legal matters, I can't really say anything from a rights standpoint, but I do feel obliged to point out that from a pragmatic standpoint a little bit of calm and courtesy probably would have prevented things from escalating the way they did. On the video it looks like the man started getting visibly agitated and shouting pretty easily, when he could have just calmly stated his case. Unfortunately when you get right down to things, if you start by being hostile and loud it usually doesn't help things. This is true regardless of whether you're talking to a cop, a secretary, airport security, or whatever. (On a side note, I've seen what I'd consider much more aggressive tactics given much less provocation every time I pass through the airport.)

Re:it's called refusing a resonable request.

[Loki_1929]

"Driving an automobile"

His daughter had been driving, not him.

"since this guy was parked IN a car"

Actually, he was standing outside, leaning up against it when the police arrived.

"Also, according the the laws (at least in my state), if you FAIL to produce an ID, as requested by an officer, then you may be arrested for "failing to obey a resonable request by an officer""

Then you must have been the only one not either laughing or offended when seeing movies depicting Soviet troops demanding that civilians "show me your papers!".

"We have laws for a reason, and when someone doesn't like one, they whinnnnneeeeee and complain instead of using the system to get the law changed."

He is currently challenging the constitutionality of the law at the Supreme Court. How is this not working within the system?

" I don't like a lot of the laws on the books, but I'm not going to break them, I'm going to work within the system to get them changed, leagally."

Then you must really hate the entire civil rights movement, which engaged in mass civil disobedience protests.

What would you have this man do if he didn't have any ID? What if he didn't drive, didn't have a bank account, didn't have any bills sent to his house, and didn't get a state ID? There are indeed many who do not want the government tracking their every move, and thus choose to live a simpler life. That, at least for the time being, is their right. You and John Ashcroft may indeed one day get bar codes tatooed on every newborn's skull, but for now, there's nothing wrong with living outside the 'world'.

Tell you what, even though this is slashdot, if you're going to put together such a longwinded and self-righteous post, how about reading at least PART of the article? Otherwise, your post will, as this one does, simply ooze ignorance.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

[iminplaya]

If the program were to show that, they would no longer be invited to film the action. Just like you never see critical reporters in white house press conferences.

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

[LoveMuscle]

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

-or to take a step back-

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

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

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

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

The first defence we have against the "stupid" laws is some level of privacy, protected by NOT having to submit to this kind of intrusion..

Re:Just don't get it

[Josh Booth]

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

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

Could someone enlighten me some too?

Re:Republicans 5-4

[boobsea]

So not being able to air a political attack ad on radio or TV 60 (or is it 30 ?) days before an election is not anti-free-speech?

Even worse is the fact that news outlets are exempt from this law, and its not like news outlets are exactly fair or balances in their reporting.

I'm sorry, but political speech is one of the most important rights we have, and even that is being chipped away.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[Eric Smith]

The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law.

The state might have that authority. Or it might not. That will be decided by the Supreme Court. States do not have the authority to do absolutely anything not prohibited by Federal law; the U.S. Constitution limits States as well.

I think a convincing argument can be made that the police demanding an ID for no legitimate reason is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the right to privacy. (The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a right to privacy, even though it is not a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.)

A person should have the right to peaceably and lawfully go about their business without having to present identification.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Anonymous Coward]

I weep for our species.

I weep for those who continue to browse at threshold 1 after Taco made it the default. But I guess anonymity is something to be feared and trampled on.

Re:it's called refusing a resonable request.

[Jo3sh]

"when someone doesn't like one, they whinnnnneeeeee and complain instead of using the system to get the law changed."

It seems to me that Mr. Hiibel *is* using the system to get the law changed; he's using the Contitutional system of checks and balances. If you remember your Jr. High civics classes, there are (in the US) three braches of government specifically so that one or another can't get too powerful. Mr. Hiibel is simply using the Judical branch's power to attempt to check and balance thejudicial branch.

RTFA

[j0s)(]

I just read through all these replies and its completely obvious no one has read the article. Even at k5 a bunch of dumbasses just starting ranting about their rights, author included. the blurbs are sensationalist and try to make it sound as if were in a police state. this took place in 2000 and the guy had it coming. he was reported to the cops, at which point the cops approached him. i could completely understan id he had been walking his dog and the cop came up and tackled him or arrested him becuase he was in "the same place at the same time", but this is none of those. an intoxicated dumbass mouthed off to a cop because he was pissed and the cop finally had enough. under these circumstances the guy is lucky he got off with a 250 dollar fine. 4 years later, the supreme court is going to use this as an excuse to say cops can demand id when they approach with the suspicion or report that you committed a crime.

had he been sitting on his porch minding his own business, id be outraged. ive been approached by cops and detained, cuffed, becuase i was walking at night. they give you some bullshit excuse, and becuase of that excuse, they are allowed to stop you. its not right, but the police are going to be believed over some random person. maybe we should be more outraged that cops can get by with making up excuses and "bending" police reports. just becuase you get arrested for something doesnt mean that the cop had probable cause or any justification to approach you in the first place.

Re:don't do the crime

[malchus842]

Sounds like Ed "If they aren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects" Meese.

In America, we are not supposed to be subject to random police action. Sure, the courts have permitted some, but the courts are wrong in those cases. Unless the police have probable cause that I am party to some illegal act (either as suspect or witness), or am involved in some activity which necessitates police(*) surveilance (eg getting on an airplane), then the the police(*) have no right to interfere with my business in any way! If I don't want to talk to them, I shouldn't have to. Period. And that in and of itself is not and should not be cause for them to arrest, detain or otherwise interfere with whatever it is I'm doing.

The US isn't supposed to be a police state, John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act notwithstanding.

(*) In this case, police does not mean police force, but police authority, which includes any government agent such as security screeners, etc.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[d34thm0nk3y]

The Supreme Court can rule it un-constitutional and have the law stricken. Which is the only acceptable answer, and is what any sane person wants. Also, it is the most likely outcome, I think. There is no way they are going to let this stand, even with the shift to the right.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[djmurdoch]

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

You think if Hiibel had defended his rights with a gun he'd still be alive?

Re:Not papers, just a name

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give my name to someone else just because they request it. Show me the benefit to disclosing my identity, and I'll consider doing so.

Devil's Advocate...

[Whyte]

I honestly don't see police requirement of ID as the problem here. Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement. There are a number of good reasons for this.

First, it allows law enforcement to QUICKLY know if you are the person they are looking for. If you look similar to a wanted felon, and the police stop you. How are they to know you are not the felon unless you identify yourself somehow? If you don't ID yourself, they have to take you to the police station and put you in a line-up or find some other man-hour intensive task to find out who you are.

Secondly, every time that your ID is run through the FBI's CIC, a record is added to your file that says that this specific law enforcement branch checked your identification at such and such a physical location. There may be a legitimate privacy issue that I can not perceive, but primarily this has become a legitimate tool for law enforcement investigations. It allows law enforcement to do "offline" checks to see what stops were made in an area. Its especially useful in serial offender situations where often a blanket police action may have contact with the serial offender in the area of a crime, but at the time they didn't know he is the cause. But after three different officers in three different police agencies stop the same person in the area of crimes with similar MO's, they can narrow their investigation. This has been used successfully and legally to all of our benefit in the past.

That being said, police don't need probable cause to stop someone, they need reasonable suspician. A lot of times, police define reasonable suspician as something they call Just Don't Look Right (JDLR). It might not be the most reasoned way to do police work, but a well intentioned police officer can use this to his advantage to elimitate social chaos in his community.

I haven't examined this particular case in any kind of detail yet, but it sounds like the "individual" conduct of the police officer is what should be investigated. Not whether or not law enforcement needs to have the right to require you to ID yourself.

Law enforcement in the U.S. is mostly localized. As such, community input into policing policies is very strong today. You as a ciitizen need to decide if you want your police given the tools they need to ensure that felons are not walking the street. Taking this away from will definitely make it a major burden to perform this service for us.

Belligerence is irrelevant

[Atario]

...you will be assimilated.

Just kidding.

Doesn't matter how rude or belligerent or whatever you are to a cop -- it ain't illegal. Some cop comes up to you and demands ID, or even asks your name, you should be able to tell him "What's it to ya, ya lousy screw?" and flip him off, if you want, without repercussion.

It's a cop's job to deal with every kind of situation. If you're so thin-skinned that some meanie insulting you or being rude to you causes you to alter your behavior in any way, you shouldn't be a cop.

Re:To the Supreme Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

You can't exceed the speed limit.

You can't run red lights.

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

You can't drive without a license.

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

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

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

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

Re:I don't get it, what is the problem here ?

[malchus842]

Ben Frankling got it exactly right:

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

Truer words have never been spoken.

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

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[sabat]

I think you're not thinking this through.

Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement.

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

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

People (read: me, but I am not the only one) get upset about this kind of thing because it sets precedent. The path from a free society to a Police State (where all your movements are tracked and must be justified) is lined with stepping stones, and this is one of the bigger ones.

Read up a bit

[The Tyro]

and then decide... the original link is a fairly slanted version of what happened (if it wasn't already dead you could check it... feel free to verify it when their site comes back up). I tried another link and found this site [epic.org] to be much more complete.

In short, the police officer got a call for a potential domestic violence or assault, attempted to question the man at the location who fit the description of the individual reportedly involved, and was met with a totally uncooperative attitude.

Let me tell you how a cop views this: virtually all of the people who hate cops have had prior run-ins with them... ie. they are some kind of scofflaw, or associate with such folks. When a cop gets a "f*ck you pig" attitude, his guard instantly goes up, and so do his antennae... you've stupidly just made yourself his adversary. The police officer in this case had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed... and when confronted with a possible suspect who was potentially violent, possibly intoxicated, and wouldn't even give his name, that officer had to act, so he detained the man.

What should he have done? Ignored the possible reported crime and just let him go? "Awww shucks, citizen... if you're not going to tell me your name then I guess I can't arrest you." Nobody gives their real name when arrested... we find out later who they are via fingerprints and witnesses.

Maybe it's my prior law enforcement background talking, but I really don't see the problem here. The law doesn't exist to hassle regular citizens... the officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and if he does, then he can detain to ascertain identity. An officer can ask you for your identity just walking down the street... but if you've done nothing wrong, you can say "no thank you" and keep walking. If he then physically pounces on you, that's being detained or arrested, and he'd better have grounds. If he doesn't, feel free to own him in court... I would.

Sheesh... as long as he's polite and just doing his job, what's wrong with telling a proactive police officer your name? There's something called common courtesy, and police officers should be eligible to receive it. Why is a cop ineligible? Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds? If you're innocent and a cop asks you your name, you could be an ass about it, insult the cop, smirk, and saunter away... but what would that prove? That you can be a smart-ass? Great... I'm sure your mother would be proud.

Re:why ?

[cujo_1111]

Location: Australia

When my wife was working night shift, on her way home one night an unmarked police car tried to pull her over, light on the roof with sirens going. She refused to pull over because she could not verify the car was legit.

She kept on driving until a marked cop car turned up as well. She pulled over and they asked why she didn't stop. She said she thought they were crazy axe murderers or something like that and it was accepted. They gave her a random breath test and went on their way.

They weren't happy about having to bring in a marked car, but if you cannot verify the identity of the person trying to pull you over, you have every right not to stop.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The US is different

[Rick Zeman]

For better or worse. We don't HAVE a national ID. There is no card that identifies you as a US citizen. Closest thing is a passport, and that is an optional travel document.

Eh? I'd submit that it's your Social Security Card/number. How many attempts are there to make that into the de facto standard for ID? You can make it to a ripe age without a passport, but try doing anything without an SSN.

Did you notice?

[daveschroeder]

Sometimes it's easy to forget that the fact this has made it all the way to the US Supreme Court is that EVERY OTHER COURT along the way AGREED that it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to be able to identify persons, especially when the reason the officer came in the first place was a response to a domestic violence call! So you mean to tell me that the police officer has no right to ask for identification from any party when dispatched to a possible domestic violence situation? Somewhere along the line this guy got lucky because all of liberal groups have picked up his flag and milking it for all it's worth.

Get a grip, people. It's not "papers, please". Do you honestly believe that if someone calls in a domestic violence call to 911 to a particular location, when there is in fact in an argument between family members (and the story even admits there was at least one punch thrown; it doesn't matter how weak it was or wasn't), that no one there should have to *identify themselves* at all to the responding police officer(s), under any conditions?

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

...

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

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

Were these checks and balances ultimately to fail 'the people' then that populous scale of check/balance is supposed to happen. The second amendment isn't about shooting cops, it's about preparedness. At least, that's how the writers of the US Constitution saw it. It was a different world then.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

[soft_guy]

Sure it would make good TV, but how much longer do you think that COPS would be allowed to stay on the air? No police would let them do ride alongs if they showed police abuse.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're muslim and in the US, you already wear the yellow crescent.

Try being black!

[Juise]

I'm amused by how shocked you all are. I'm black, and to make matters worst I've lived in Wisconsin most of my live. Milwaukee is a nice city with very few racial issues, but as soon as you step foot out of the city limits, it's a whole new world. These types of things have happened to me countless times. If there is a cop behind me and I am outside the city limits there is a 90% chance I will be pulled over. They will simply follow behind me until I make a little mistake, or I have left their jurisdiction.

I've been pulled over for going 3 mph over the speed limit, pulled over for "looking suspicious" (AKA being black in a white neighborhood), pulled over for "matching the description" (black male about 5' 10", isn't that like 70 of black men?), pulled over for "running a red light" (that was clearly still yellow after i cleared the intersection), the list goes on and on. Each time my car is searched, I'm searched, they find nothing and I go away without as much a warning because they know they had no reason to stop me in the first place.

Here's a good story...
My cousin and I were cementing the base of my aunts garage. I went in the house to get more cement. When I came back out I find two officers, with weapons drawn pointed at my cousin. Now to draw the proper mental picture my cousin is of course black, the officers are white, one is holding a shotgun, the other is holding his sidearm. My cousins hands are covered in cement, he has a bucket of cement at his side, and a spatchel (or whatever its called) in his hands. I say "what the heck is going on here?". Cop1 "we got a report of break ins in this area". Me "Are you blind? We live here, we have for 10 years! We're fixing the garage." cop2 "Sir put your hands up!" I put my hands up, this exchange goes on for 5 minutes. They get a radio call, and proceed to their car. I request the officers badge number to file a complaint. He slams the car door in my face and they drive away.

The sad thing is I have many more stories like this, and so does pretty much every black person I know. Maybe from now on I will start video taping myself everywhere I go.

Re:What would everyone prefer a policeman to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would everyone prefer a policeman to do?

Here's an imaginary exchange with a reasonable officer:

Officer: "Is there a problem here? (to Mimi) Ma'am, are you all right? Do you know this man?"

Mimi: "Yes, officer, he's my father. We're just having an argument."

Dudley: "Just a family argument."

Officer: "Ok, uh, well, we've had some complaints from the neighbors. Would you mind moving along? Maybe take the argument home?"

Dudley grumbles.

Mimi: "Sure, officer. Sorry about that."

Ok, so maybe I'm over-simplifying. But that's the kind of exchange one would imagine. Not "show your papers, prole!"

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Anonymous Coward]

make up a disposable nickname? with a disposable email address? this is the fucking internet, identity is still disposable here.

PS: I'm at school and don't feel like sending my password cleartext through the networking lab. I'm usually logged in.

How's this for a benefit:

[Anonymous Coward]

Show us your papers and you get to spend the night at home.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

[rindeee]

In California they do this in order to determine whether or not you're an illegal, in which case that will give you a drivers license, food stamps, free tuition at the local community college and more. In this case you only received 8 hours of free room and board until such time as they realized that you're a US tax payer. God bless those happy liberals.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[sangreal66]

Just because a law is bad does not make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, and allowing them to do so in cases we favor only grants them the power to do so in cases we don't. This is a fight that belongs in congress, not the courts.

Re:I write a weekly newspaper column

[circusnews]

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

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

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

Why not?

Now, why it is OK for a cop to do this to an adult?

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you had to point out the mis-moderation tells you how bad it already is. The dumbing-down of the youth has been going on now over 25 years. The new youth is being brought up by relatively un-educated older-youth. With the fucked-up ruling in California [google.com] involving Diebold, it's, well, time ...

for people to pay the fuck attention!

V

or

[metalhed77]

Or, he could first try and talk to the people involved. Figure out what's going on. If you read the story it seems that mr. hiibel did nothing wrong. Even if they had enough prior evidence to arrest mr. hiibel they are extremely difficult to deal with. He repeatedly asks them what he's being arrested for with and is repeatedly given the run around. I find it disturbing that the cops just walk up and handcuff him and his daughter for excercising their rights. At the very least they could have spoken to him (without obtaining his ID) and his daughter and sorted out the situation. This is a case of sloppy policework and power hungry or impatient officers.

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

[RodgerDodger]

No one sees the COPS footage were the innocent person was abused, found to be innocent, and then let go -- that would not make good TV.

Actually, it'd make excellent TV, but not for COPS, which depends on keeping good relations with law enforcement agencies to be able to keep making shows.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[abolith]

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

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

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

Re:why ?

[bluGill]

Oh really? I;m going to have to start asking for badge IDs as a matter of course. False arrest and harrassment charges are rather easy for a good lawyer to win. Cops may not like it, but they must give you those IDs when you ask.

IF the cop is less than polite make sure you get that id and file a complaint. Psychology studies have shown that cops are in a position of power that is very easy to abuse, you need to remind them that you are watching.

Where it all leads

[phr1]

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

Things continued in that state of suspended animation for weeks, although some things did happen. Newspapers were censored and some were closed down, for security reasons they said. The roadblocks began to appear, and Identipasses. Everyone approved of that, since it was obvious you couldn't be too careful."

--Margaret Atwood
The Handmaid's Tale [barnesandnoble.com]

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Anonymous Coward]

"what is a trolling group"
A clique comprised of socially inept college-age twats who sit around irc or trolling websites such as kuro5hin.org egging each other on and sharing slashdot torlling techniques and ideas
"And please let me know which group I'm affiliated with"
Since you don't use cut and paste trolls that rules out the GNAA or CLIT; since your posts are not inanely pretentious that would rule out the adequacy crowd. your lack of homosexual content rules out the trollaxor crowd, so that pretty much leaves you belonging smack-dab in with the anti-slash [anti-slash.org] crowd.

Of course, since this isn't SOVIET RUSSIA, why don't YOU tell us which group you belong to?

waste of time

[segment]

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

I would continue on, but alas most people don't understand the politics behind the legal system. Just look at the Martha scam... In case you're too blind to know the truth, she's on trial for going on television and stating "I didn't do anything" nothing more. What does the media and DoJ do? They overhype it to look as if Martha is on the same level as the Enron, Tyco mobsters. Give me a break. Your best bet is to get over it, it happens (legal shaftings) much more than you think I know firsthand.

Re:While it's bad, it's not as bad as implied

[Effugas]

No, the officer actually said he was "investigating an investigation." You can see it and read it here [papersplease.org].

==
D: Because I'm investigating an investigation
==

It's interesting how your memory rewrote what you watched.

--Dan

Sometimes

[The Tyro]

talking works in the appropriate setting... but sometimes you need to get control of the situation quickly, particularly if there's potential violence involved.

I vividly remember one dashboard camera video of a traffic stop that resulted in a huge shootout, but began as a young man standing up for "his rights." The driver is out of the vehicle and off to the side of the road, talking with the officer. He's repeatedly telling the officer that he doesn't want to be frisked, or placed in the police cruiser, because he doesn't want to be "violated like that." The officer was very polite, and tried to explain everything to the young man... but that's not the scary part. The scary part is that on the tape you can see the young man's brother still in the vehicle, out of view of the officer, putting on body armor, retrieving weapons... time is not always on your side.

Conceptually it's similar to what we do with dynamic entries in SWAT; we move in rapidly, take total control, and overwhelm any resistance before they have a chance to think, plan, or regroup. I've not seen the video in this particular case, but I suspect the cop wanted to control as many variables as he could, and that means all parties involved, including the daughter. Additionally, the officer had no way of truly verifying their relationship... could have been pimp/prostitute, prostitute/john... even husband/wife. You'd be surprised how many wives of abusive husbands attack the cops, particularly when it becomes clear their old man is going to jail.

There is such a thing as taking "stand by your man" too far.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[mdwh2]

I set the preferences so that Anonymous Cowards appear at 1 like everyone else, and then view at threshold 1.. makes Slashdot a lot more readable imo.

Re:Did you notice?

[daveschroeder]

What constitutes probable cause?

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

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

The man is immediately belligerent.

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

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

Uh.

[Raven42rac]

Ok. Convenient that in the synopsis, K5 and /. left out the "we heard you guys were fighting". If a law enforcement officer suspects criminal activity, you should shift into "yes sir, no sir" mode, if you turn into Mr. Asshole, then they will put you on the ground and hogtie you. Would you people have us live in Anarchy? If this were a simple case of "let me see your papers" it would be different. RTFA, make your own conclusions, don't get fed this tripe. IIRC, when you are detained by a peace officer, you are under "custodial arrest", meaning you can't leave, but you are not under arrest either. Bottom line, cop thinks these two were beating each other up, told them so, then asked for ID, cowboy turns into cowboy from hell , cop puts him on ground and hogties him. Why the legal system would put up with this garbage is beyond my comprehension, when there is real corruption, like the Texas officers who made up evidence to put poor Black and Latino innocents in jail, then collected a percentage of the money based on the street value of the "drugs". That completely floored me when that came out. Read [after-words.org] Here [alternet.org]

Re:Just don't get it

[UVABlows]

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

Re:No Checkpoints??

[fishbowl]

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

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

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

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

Not Off topic

[Felinoid]

Sorry for being off topic, but I just felt like sharing.
Quite the contrary. Your not the slightest bit off topic.
Your story hilights whe happens when you give law enforcment officers complete disgression.

Police harrasment, assult and battery by a law enforcment office, denial of your right to a lawer.

Re:Uh.

[fishbowl]

>when you are detained by a peace officer, you are
>under "custodial arrest", meaning you can't leave,
>but you are not under arrest either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Read up a bit

[Elwood P Dowd]

Let me tell you how a cop views this: virtually all of the people who hate cops have had prior run-ins with them... ie. they are some kind of scofflaw, or associate with such folks

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

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

Yeah, yeah maybe.

The law doesn't exist to hassle regular citizens... the officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and if he does, then he can detain to ascertain identity.

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

Sheesh... as long as he's polite and just doing his job, what's wrong with telling a proactive police officer your name? There's something called common courtesy, and police officers should be eligible to receive it. Why is a cop ineligible? Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds?

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

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

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

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

Re:Did you notice?

[psykocrime]

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.

Re:Not charged with a crime?

[glk572]

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

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

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

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

Re:I was arrested for this offense in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, "reasonable suspicion" is the only way they get to stop you at all.

From there they try to get to "probable cause" which gets you arrested.

Fortunately, in a free country we are not required to assist in the process; and we have the right "to be left alone."

It's real simple. If you aren't interested in talking to the cop he can either arrest you or let you walk away.

That's as it should be.

Re:Uh.

[Raven42rac]

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

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[fermion]

This really reminds more of feudalism and the kind of society that exists in some third world country, especially in the Americas. We have been sliding down this slope for a while. Fortified castles in the form of gated and guarded communities. People driving around in military and pseudo-military vehicles. People fear being in certain neighborhoods because, even though the roads are theoretically public, the police are owned by those with money.

This has always been true to some extent in the US. It has always been the case that some people were considered better. It has always been the case that if you did not have the proper skin color or proper style or proper accessories, you were subject to police harassment. The scary thing now is that we are reaching a point in which a very few people, those with money and power, are exempted from government abuse. The rest of us are not. The police can no longer look at you and decide if you are protected. The officer must now know your name.

Which is to say, these laws are no ones fault but our own. We are really a democracy. All of us who live in the US are responsible for our country's actions and decisions. We all must willing make the sacrifices necessary to bear or change the policies. We are in fact not a dictorship in which we can be forced to comply, no matter how much our president has stacked the appellate courts in that direction.

Re:waste of time

[JabberWokky]

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

The other 20% are interns, recent law grads who are more spotty in their abilities and motivations, but still contribute.

Good people, working for the legal system.

--
Evan

Re:Uh.

[psykocrime]

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...

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[Zak3056]

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

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

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

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

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

[operagost]

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[gray code]

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

If you watch the video, the cop made no attempt to even verify that a fight/crime had occurred before he demanded ID and arrested Hiibel. I think that's really the crux of the debate.

Re:Welcome to Communism Folks

[Bored Huge Krill]

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

The word you're looking for is fascism

Sorry to be a pedant

Krill

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[Wavicle]

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

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

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

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

And then

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

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

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[duncanatlk]

Am I only one who watched the video, and thinks this guy was drunk on his ass? I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI, and then has the gall to take this to the Supreme Court. And why is this on Slashdot?

Suspicion of being suspicious

[plnrtrvlr]

I grew up in a small town where everyone knew everyone else, and the local cops always pulled the same people in for questioning every time that something happened in town. We coined a new charge for the local cops (not that they appreciated our "attitude") and named it "Suspicion of being Suspicious." This was 20 years ago, and I see that things haven't really changed much in the attitudes of the police, but there's something larger at stake here: this court case risks institutionalizing such behavior by our police. If this case goes the wrong way with the court, it will no longer be a tounge in cheek charge in some rivalry between some small town teens and ego tripping small town cops, but instead a simple fact of un-Ameican life that the cops have a right to do this sort of thing.

Re: a possible solution to the problem

[gaijin99]

1)Try to have as little to do with them as possible

2)Be polite when you do have to deal with them
3)Get to know them, and let them get to know you, in polite, friendly situations

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

Even before USA PATRIOT we knew that if a police officer simply didn't like us they could mess our lives up, after USA PATRIOT its even worse of course. It is a problem, and it must be fixed. I rather like Brin's proposal in "The Transparent Society": make every cop wear a webcam at all times while he is on duty [FOOTNOTE]. Get lots of cameras in the hands of everybody so no cop ever feels that he is unrecorded. If I was a cop I wouldn't like this, and frankly I don't like that its necessary. I'm quite sure that the number of bad cops is quite low, but they do exist and as citizens of a free country we must be assured at all times that the police are not out of control.

The other thing we must do is to recognize that making the police's job easy is not always the best course of action. It would be much easier if the police had DNA records for every citizen, as well as finger prints, retinal prints, body profile, etc. It would make their jobs easier if they didn't have to get warrents, if they could arrest anyone at any time for anything. The point is that they have a hard job and unfortunately it isn't always in our best interest to make it easier.

.

FOOTNOTE: Naturally we'd have to make exceptions for police officers preparing for raids and the like; but I want their webcams simply time shifted so that the feed isn't released until after the raid, not simply turned off for that duration. Allowing the powerful to operate in secrecy is simply a bad idea. We must make the police accountable, thus answering the old question: "Who will watch the watchers?" We all will.

For What it's Worth

[Shakrai]

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

I don't think it's really comparable to that at all. The Police Officer in question was responding to a domestic violence call involving an adult man and a female child. When he arrived he saw two people that matched this description. He made a quite reasonable request to see ID which was refused. The guy never asked him if he had probable cause to ask for ID -- he just refused. His body language wasn't exactly friendly either.

Mind you, that's no defense for what they did to his daughter. I would expect my daughter to be somewhat hysterial if I was in the process of being arrested too. But then I also wouldn't choose to make a political statement in a situation where my daughter could be hauled off to jail as a result of my actions. Maybe he should have thought of her first instead of making his stupid stand.

For the record I've refused to show ID to a police officer once on princepal. For starters he knew damn well who I was (small town) and I wasn't involved in the incident. I was eating breakfast at a small cafe and some drunk guy had an argument on a payphone with somebody (presumably his wife?) -- when he left he kicked the glass door and shattered it. Naturally they called the cops.

The officer who responded had been my DARE instructor many years prior (I love small towns) -- he called me by my first name when he entered the establishment. Then they started asking for witness statements -- I had no statement to give because I didn't witness anything. I was on the far side of the cafe and hadn't seen anything -- just heard it. I told them this and they refused to accept it at face value.

"Are you sure you didn't see anything?"
"I'm positive."
"I find that hard to beilive."
"I was focusing on my newspaper and my breakfast. I'm getting ready to go to work."
[nods as he's taking notes] "Uhh huh. Do you have ID on you?"
"Yes, why do you need to see it?"
"May I see your ID please?"
"No, you may not. Am I a suspect in your investigation?"
"No you aren't. May I please see some ID?"
"No you may not."
"How did you get here?"
"I drove."
"Then you need to have your license on you."
"I do have it on me, but you don't need to see it."
"Sir, may I please see your ID?"
"No, you may not. You know good well who I am."

At this point the Officer gave up. Or so I thought. When I walked out to my car to leave I noticed another cruiser sitting there -- both officers watched me climb into my car. It was obvious they were going to pull me over the minute I started it. Being the stubborn bastard that I am and refusing to concede my point I called a friend and arranged a ride to work. Picked up my car later in the day. Waved to the officers as I left in my ride. Not a damn thing they could do about it.

Check and mate. I win. But I was actually in the right. I don't think this guy has a chance in hell. I'm typically defend him (hell I just spent the whole day arguing against mandatory roadside BAC tests on another story [slashdot.org]) -- but he's obviously in the wrong here. The Police Officer was just trying to do his job.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Tiro]

Yes standing up for freedom deserves getting modded up, but so does real perspective.

As a student of the Politics of Local Justice, let me tell you that this kind of event is a lot more common in Humbolt Co., NV or Anytownship, USA than it is in Chicago or San Antonio. The reason is that police in rural jurisdictions are expected by the townsfolk to keep tabs on everything going on in town. If there is a stranger who isn't just passing through, it'd be good to know who he is.

This happens for two reasons: Constitutional rulings keep getting handed down at a VERY rapid rate from the Supremes, and rural cops don't have the time or the training to keep up with them. Also remember they're less well paid and less educated in general than city cops. Second, rural cops have to deal with a lot of weird shit because of how intimately they're tied to the community. If Johnny and Tony get in a fight, cop takes them home to Mother--an extralegal response, but a lot more efficient/practical than prison.

What you guys need to remember is that there's a big difference between policies enacted at the National level in Nazi Germany and power exercised on the "capillary" level, to use Foucault's term, power and authority exercised beyond what is precisely legally ordaned. This second type of overstepping can be called more harmful, because it happens below the radar--blacks in the South got kept down by the man way after the post Civil War constitutional amendments.

But the way our government is set up, it doesn't lead to Naziism. Local police are subject to local constraints on their behavior, what the townsfold consider right, and that restricts them a lot more than state/fed constitution. Basically the slippery slope argument is null here, because when cops pull stunts like these [not this specific case but other similar abuses] in the Big City, judges don't buy it. Federal judges especially will tell prosecutors to fuck off, and don't come back, if they try the "drugs fell out of his pocket" routine in open court.

But the way things work on the ground in rural America is a bit different--but it generally works out okay. If it makes you queasy, move to the city, and you'll be fine. Nevermind the Nazi FUD trolls.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[NanoGator]

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

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

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

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Prior Restraint]

Are you honestly suggesting we should wait until after our rights are gone to get worried?

Re:Wear the yellow star

[forgetful]

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

Re:Uh.

[psykocrime]

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.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

The REASON it is there is because the british showed up to put down the 'rebels'. They showed up with cannon and guns. Most people were willing to let it be. Till the goverment of the time started showing up at their door and demanding all sorts of things from them. Its almost a check list for the first 10 of what they were demanding.

The 2nd basicly is the 'teeth' of the constitution. Do like we like it, we have GUNS. It was basicly a bunch of religious zelots with guns who came up with the thing. Think about it from their perspective. There is no such thing as a rpg, or a machine pistol, or mortor, or kevlar armor. Most people will have breach loaded rifles. Some dude shows up and demands to riffle through your house to 'investigate'. You have a big ol gun. First one through the door gets it. The goverment of the time would have a hard time finding anyone that would want to go first. There is also no 'mega' hospital for the guy to get treated. It would have been a fatal shot. Also keep in mind these red coat loonies showed up and wanted the guns. Thats how I feed my family, like HELL im giving it up. That is their perspective. From our perspective we would show up surround the house with 10 cops and a swat team and wait em out. It would be on the news for prime time entertainment. Thats our perspective.

Also the word milita has changed. But then it meant basicly everyone in the area registered that they had a gun. That way you could create an army. Standing army? You nuts how do you feed a standing army? What about their families? What about shelter? Where do I put these guys? The army WAS the milita. The milita was everyone around you. That is why you can own a gun. You need to be able to 'come to arms' if needed. But now we have a standing army. The clause is still there. By LAW you must allow people to join. And pretty much the only requirement is you own a gun. But if you can not get guns you can not join. Then by law you are not allowing a militia...

As for the web site basicly the cop screwed up. He did not follow procedure. Him and his partner should have seperated the one dude from the girl while the other guy checks out the girl. Instead he argued about what form of ID the guy had. He should be lucky if he still has a job. Remeber this was pre 9-11 too. It was a cop who was bored found out about a 'disturbance' and went out to mix it up. He screwed up. Now the other dude who refused his ID was well within his rights to do so. However both acted like ass's.

The thing is this has been going on for nearly 3 years and its the first I have heard of it. If it had been a 'racial' thing we ALL would have heard about it back in 2000. Instead it was just some 'red neck' and that doesnt get good ratings.

This is "news for nerds"?

[TrollBridge]

What the hell, I've got karma to burn.

Is Slashdot shifting its focus from computer gadgets and networks and Linux to nothing more than a political commentary board? How is this story 'News for Nerds'?

Sure, it may be 'Stuff that matters', but there's a lot of other non-tech stuff that matters that doesn't make it onto Slashdot because it's not news for nerds. What makes this (decidedly anti-Ashcroft) story special? What does this have to do with "nerd stuff"?

This particular story reeks of an editor foisting a political viewpoint on an audience guaranteed to work themselves into a frothy lather over it (isn't that called trolling?). It belongs on a Political site, not Slashdot.

Oh and yes, I did reply to this thread so that it would actually be read. The parent troll was modded down appropriately. Thanks for reading this.

Re:What would everyone prefer a policeman to do?

[andreMA]

Anyone must be able to deduce that it is not unreasonable to expect that at some point, they may be questioned by an officer... so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise

[...]If someone has a better idea on how the police should react when a person refuses to identify themselves, I would be keen to listen.

I think this misses the point... a demand for identification in this case was never necessary in the first place. Here's how it should have been handled, in my view:

Cop: Afternoon, sir... is everything here alright?

Hibel: No problem, officer... what's up?

Cop: Well, we had someone reporting a fight and need to check things out to make sure everything is OK. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm sure you understand that ww need to look into reports like this... Would you mind waiting over there...

Driver is directed to a place safely off the road where the cop (alone at that time?) can keep an eye on him while interviewing the daughter.

Cop talks to daughter, determines if anything is amiss -- does she seem upset beyond what might be expected from an argument and being a young driver confronted with a policeman, possibly for the first time? Been crying? Any obvious bruises? Does she plausibly deny having been hit? (yes, sometimes domestic violence victims deny having been abused. That dosen't mean you don't ask!)

In all likelihood, he'd have arrived at the truth of the matter in short order -- that the original report called in was an over reaction -- and he'd have shaken hands all around and created good rather than ill-will. In less time than his confrontational approach would have taken even if Hibel had cooperated from the outset.

And guess what? He'd never have needed to ask for IDs or names at all, or even called in the license plate of the pickup truck (though he probably did anyhow as a safety measure when he pulled up - a sane and non-invasive precaution.)

Re:Wear the yellow star

[qtp]

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

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

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

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

And why is this on Slashdot?

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

Re:Not papers, just a name

[guacamolefoo]

Deputy Dove

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

GF.

A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

A better solution is just to ignore the police officer completely. By saying "no" you are asserting your intentions and this constitutes an act. By not responding to the officer you are giving him the burdon of action.

Case in point; one time my car was being illegally towed (the driver hadn't finished connecting my car to his, which is the law here in Eugene OR), when he refused to release my vehicle, I responded by entering my vehicle and locking the doors. Of course it's illegal to tow a car with someone in it, so the driver had to call in the police (yes I'm serious). At first two officers came and asked me to come out... I ignored their request and instead stated my reasons why my car was being illegally towed. Then they asked if I had ID and I presented it. Then they asked me to come out, but this time I ignored them. They said that I didn't come out they were going to break the window and pull me out and arrest me for resisting an officer. "Sounds a little excessive." I said, and that shut him up.

Not knowing what to do, they called in two more police officers so now there is 4. These next two cops pretty much do the same as the first officer, ask me to come out and I ignore them, just staring straight ahead.

Now they call two more officers, so there's six total, and they all get a chance at trying to get me out of my car, and they all get the same treatment.

Well they can't figure it what to do, so they decide to call the sergent, for a total of... 7 police officers.

So the sergent is obviously going to have the final say so I start talking, and when he asks for me to get out of the car, I simply say that I can talk to him just the same sitting in my seat, and that with my car on a tow hitch and 7 officers surrounding me he has my full assurances that I'm not going to try and run away. So he tells me that he's going to have his officers break the window and pull me out.
ME: For what?
HIM: for resisting arrest
ME: what am I being arrested for?
HIM: interfering with a police investigation
ME: how can there be an investigation if no crime has been commited?
HIM: You are resisting a lawful order given by a peace officer, which is a felony
ME: Why do you need me out of the car to talk to me when I can as easly talk to you right now?

on and on... it went like this for about 5 mins, but never did I tell him "no". Everytime he askes me to step out I always respond with "but why is that necessary...". Very sticky situation for him, I'm not disobeying yet I'm not obeying at the same time. Finally it comes down to this.

HIM: are you going to come out of the car?
ME: ...
HIM: this is your last chance to get out or I'm going to have my officer break in and pull you out.

And then I drop the bombshell.

ME: Officer, I want to inform you that this conversation is being recorded, and anything you say or do could be used against you in a civil court of law. (HA! I just read him his rights!)
HIM: It's illegal to record without informing the person. I could have you arrested for...
ME: I have legitimate belief that my car is illegally being towed and if the driver disagrees then he should take it up in civil court. I don't believe that this situation warrents the use of police or the excessive use of force, and I don't believe that your order for me to step out of this car is warrented or lawful, given the fact that I am in a vehicle that is immobile, and that there are 7 officers surrounding me.
HIM: If you don't step out of this car right now, then I am going to arrest you and you are going to have a felony, and you are going to spend time in jail. Do you want to spend time in jail? I'm trying to help you, but you are making this difficult. Do you want a felony because you simply didn't want to pay the truck driver the fee?
ME: ...
HIM: now please step out of the vehicle
ME: ...

And then he just stands there, then goes into his patrol ca

Dont expect anything good from this.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same Supreme court that about 6 months ago ruled that it's OK for a police officer to arrest you for ANY REASON.

Texas case, seatbelt violation, ticketable ONLY offense, took the woman to jail, sent her child to CPS, impounded car etc. Didn't like her attitude.

All perfectly legal.

Expect your notice to show up for mandatory retinal scan any day.

I've always been a Republican, but I'm carefully constructing my tinfoil hat now.

I'm going to vote, and I'm arming myself, while I still can, because I don't trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them either, but for different resons.

Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

If someone else has a better statement please let me know. As far as I can see, saying yes as long as they tell you why is the best route to go.

Re: Wear the yellow star

[bezuwork's friend]

So I'm allowed to ask anyone I encounter for their ID to verify that they aren't dangerous to me if they act "hinky"?

Of course you are allowed to ask this. That doesn't mean anyone has to comply. Just don't impersonate a police officer when you ask, now that'd be illegal.

A police officer is able to legally ask anything that an ordinary citizen can ask. The thing I don't like is that because police officers have a visual authority and act and use a voice which conveys that they have the authority to ask what they ask, they get alot of people to comply with their requests to the detriment of the people when the police don't have the legal authority to enforce compliance.

The repeat offenders, the dangerous criminals, are not the ones likely to get caught like this. The ones who get caught are likely the younger ones, the high schoolers out drinking and such.

Re:RTF Web page, please.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

/sarcasm

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

sweet. /!sarcasm

Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing)

[TKinias]

scripsit nursedave:

I was hoping the SS would take him out back

I prefer to live in a state where there is no SS to take people ``out back''... But maybe I'm just biased after that whole Holocaust business...

Re:waste of time

[segment]

I didn't say everyone was innocent, I was pointing out stats for conviction rates. Now coming from "the hood" as some people would call it, I know offhand many people cop out rather than face a trial because a) their lawyers often advise it rather than go to trial b) don't understand or are fearful of the justice system. So while you can point out how many people are guilty, I would never dispute that, but there are unfortunately a lot of people who get caught up in a viscious cycle of junk justice.

Now without getting into all sorts of detail, let's just say my confidence in the justice system ranks along with my confidence that enron simply made a mistake... Again I guess there are many people who believe the justice system could do no wrong, and that method of thinking is foul. Now if you claim you worked at a public defender's office you would know, or perhaps have heard of the tricks prosecutors use to win cases... You know threatening to imprison an entire family if the accused doesn't cop out, making their lives a miserable hell, etc., I'm sure you have, and again this type of information does not come out, it's a perception problem... The government would never do such a thing... Bullshit. Let's just say I know they do, but coming from me it would be conspiratorial.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Mr. Slippery]

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

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

It's a difficult line to draw. Both arguments seem reasonable.

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

If you are planning on civil disobedience...

Civil disobedience means breaking the law. It does not include standing up for your legal rights. The only law breaking going on here was the actions of the police.

In the video, Hiibel states: "i'm being cooperative"...but many people will look at his body language and decide that he really wasn't.

Body language is not probable cause for arrest.

Yes, this is news for nerds.

[StarKruzr]

Many geeks are extremely concerned with matters of privacy and due process. Witness (for example) the EFF, which is dedicated wholly to the protection of Internet privacy.

It may not relate to the internet, but every geek has a vested interest in not allowing privacy and due process to slip.

Re:Your best bet is to get over it

[incom]

Your best bet is to get over it, it happens

How is that your best bet? If you just accept it things will never change. I for one cannot accept injustice, and stop and nothing to correct situations, even if it takes years, or a lifetime. Everytime you swallow something like this, a little piece of your soul dies.

Re:RTF Web page, please.

[QuickSilver_999]

Thanks for the sarcasm tags.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[Banjonardo]

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

-Ben Franklin

It's a liberties issue.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[instarx]

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

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

Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID

Suspicious? How can giving or not giving you name be suspicious? Is "Donald Duck" a suspicious name - or is what Mr. Hiibel answered ("Why?") suspicious enough?

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[david_reese]

Which is to say, these laws are no ones fault but our own. We are really a democracy. All of us who live in the US are responsible for our country's actions and decisions.

I would totally agree for you except for Diebold [verifiedvoting.org] and their un-auditable [newsmax.com] machines. Guess what, now even if you do vote, your vote might just be invalidated [google.com] or part of a massive miscount.

Oh well, maybe I should just vote absentee ballot? Oh, did we have problems [washingtonpost.com] with those, too??

We're fucked.

Re:Uh.

[indefinite]

I think what was meant here was that if you identify your self, the officer might get a reason to arrest you *after the identification*, where before the identification, he would be just suspicious of what you were doing.

So the jist of it is that you would want to be protected from self-incrimination.

no probable cause

[bratgrrl]

No, Dove didn't. A phone call means he needs to investigate. He did not investigate. He did not even check on the supposed victim, nor did the other thug, er, trooper, he didn't even talk to her. Hiidel was arrested for not showing ID. Well sorry bucko, that's not something you can be arrested for.

What Deputy Dawg and his gang of bullies did was prove once again why we need the Bill of Rights, and more police oversight. Those three morons escalated what should have been a legitimate investigation into a pointless, needless confrontation. Idiots like that should not be cops.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Viggo Fait]

Did you even watch the video? Read the transcript? The daughter didn't call the police. He got a report of a domestic disturbance from someone who saw them. *She* actually punched him!

You could arrest him for suspicion of whatever you want, but if you don't have probable cause of a crime, it would be thrown out. It also doesn't matter if this guy *is* a whatever. He doesn't have to identify himself. That's the nice thing about the Constitution. We have the right to talk and the right to shut up. We can use either right any time we want! Unless they have a warrant or probable cause, you really don't have to comply with any of their requests.

You are right on one thing Tony. Giving your ID isn't a big deal until you don't want to. If the police want to do something they don't have a specific right to do, it would be my advice not to allow them to do it. Things snowball real quick. Maybe you haven't done anything illegal. Maybe they'll find something that can be interpreted that it is. And you let them have it because, it's no big deal. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You also have the right to be a *private* citizen. Private is much the same as *anonymity*, no?

BTW, if he was a rapist/murderer/whatever and this gets thrown out of court, I'm pretty sure they can't hold him. "Fruit of the poison tree". He was obtained illegaly. People have gotten away with worse stuff for stupider reasons though.

Re:RTF Web page, please.

[instarx]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much!

I've been reading all the posts, and not a one has mentioned the blatently obvious: this asshat is a terrible cop.

There are at least a dozen different ways he could have responded to the "prevarications" of the dad, there are also at least a dozen different ways he could have defused the situation. Seems to me that the higher ups are so proud of how politely he cuffed the man and his daughter, that he didn't resort to the "barbarity" of taticks that a "walk tall" sheriff would, that they're blinded to the fact that the situation would have been easily defused if the officer was halfway compitent.

Was the man a menace? Despite all his agitation, he never flouted any of deputy dummy's orders, and he complied with every command succintly. Most officers would pray for that kind of arrest.

What you see here is a complete failure of policework, nothing more, nothing less.

I have not a few friends who are police, and they'd be ashamed to be associated with the moron in charge here.

Media plays a role

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be negligent to forget the media's roal in the downward spiral that we have witnessed since WWII. (And maybe even before that, but I don't want to split hairs here.)

After reading up a bit on how the diamond market has been allowed to pull such a mass marketing lie over the American public it's pretty clear that the powers that be have no desire to see truth in marketing. Now just think about that, if they don't really care that we have been lied to about something as simple as some silly stone that has an inflated value for the greater glory of some very few why would they have the 1st care about how the media spins things to fit whatever purposes that serves them best.

Freedom of the press was once viewed as a cornerstone as part of our freedoms. They would watch out for any sort of acts that might impune upon this country but as of right now they spin whatever the powers that be want them to and don't really look out for the people, except when it might make them a buck.

Of course the Internet has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan and they are doing all that they can to squelch it, but thats a whole other story.

For now, for right now, Joe 6 pack and Jessica box'o'wine gets her news at 11 from CNN/FOX/Local whatever and they dictate what "the world is". They view themselves as "informed" because they have watched the news every day and hell if you try to argue with them about it, what kind of creds can you stack up to Dan Rather? I mean hell, he is part of that Great Generation that Won the War. (Nevermind all the other nasty stuff they did. Those things don't make good books.)

Anyway, I've rambeled on enough about how much the media disgusts me. If you have a clue you allready know this, if you are on the fence well look into it, if you think that I'm some raving loony go back to watching FOX News as there is no saving you now.

(PS. What is the anwser to the problem that exists right now with such things as the lies in the diamond market? Why a constant and unrelenting flogging of the FACTS on every news station 24/7 until even the dimmist of fools understand why those silly rocks have no real value. If we could do even that little thing imo we would be on the road back to honesty in our media but I hold no real hope of ever seeing that in my lifetime.)

Re:Unfortunately he doesn't have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good point. But in Brown V. Texas the court found that the "the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion". In the Dudley case the officers were responding to a "domestic violence report" which gave them "reasonable suspicion".

If the court finds for Dudley the precendent will be that police responding to reports of domestic violence will be prohibited from temporarily detaining the suspect or checking his ID.

I may be wrong but I don't think Dudley will win. Maybe in the 60's he would have had a chance, but with today's court it's unlikey.

Re:Better yet, watch the video

[Ateryx]

The ability to check for outstanding arrest warrants? He's investigating a possible domestic abuse.

I was rather disturbed at my first read of Mr. Hiibel's website, but after watching the video, I realized there was a lot more to this story.

JoeNotCharles really kicks home the key point--Mr. Hiibel was not just simply sitting on the road minding his own business. The officers were inspecting a report, granted they should have informed Mr. Hiibel of their investigation more clearly when he asked them what they were investigating (they did ask him if he was fighting, but Mr. Hiibel avoided furthering the conversation). End of story.

As a police officer

[Tiny Rhino]

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

Concerning this case: I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience. Unfortunately I believe that he could have handled this call in a better way. This is an example of how I like to think I would handle a call of this nature. (If I was ALONE WITHOUT backup on the scene)

D: Sir, step back here and talk to me. H: Ok D: Listen, I'm here because we got a call about some fighting out here, what's going on? H: Nothing I'm not parked illegally. D: Ok sir can I see your driver's license please? H: Nope, no way, no how. D: Do you have any ID on you? H: None that I'm going to show you. D: Ok listen, I want to know who you are and I want to go check on that person in the truck. I want to make sure your not going to run off so please give me your ID. H: Why? D: I'm not going to leave you back here without knowing who you are or having some other way of making sure your not going to attack me or run off. You know who I am, but I don't know you from a mass murderer. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but for my safety I like to know who I'm dealing with. H: Not showing you nothing! D: Ok sir if you don't cooperate with me I'm going to place you in investigative detention, which means for my safety while I figure out what is going on, I'm going to put some cuffs on you and sit you down while I conduct my investigation. H: What are you investigating? D: A call for an assault or domestic violence. H: Why don't you just take me to jail now? Here. (Holds out hands) D: Ok sir put your hands behind your back, understand that your not under arrest but being detained. (cuffs and sits him on the ground) D: (approaches truck and talks to daughter)

At that point I figure out that their has PROBABLY not been an assault because both stories (obtained seperately from the two parties) seems to match up. However, as a good law enforcement officer, it does not end there. There could be something going on here that is not readily apparent. Daughter could be not talking because she thinks dad is going to beat her (it does happen!) Daughter could not be daughter at all, but kidnapped or a runaway being harbored by this guy. Somebody called the police for a reason! I will not end my investigation until I check both names for local warrants and the national computer for warrants, missing, etc, etc. Once I am satisfied that everything is on the up-and-up, I release pops from the cuffs and everyone goes on their way. With a proper warning to pops not to drive since he is intoxicated.

Again, it's easy for me to say what I would have done having ALREADY SEEN what happened. This officer was trying to do the right thing although perhaps got a little too caught up on the whole ID thing.

The moral is: Fine, if you don't want to tell me anything about anything, you will sit there in cuffs till I figure out what is going on. If nothing, your free to go. If something, THEN your under arrest. People tend to assume as soon as cuffs go on that you are under arrest. This is not always the case, and as an officer I always tell people: you're not under arrest yet, but you're also not free to go. You are in what's called investigative detention. At this point it's basically for an officer's safety, and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. An officer can hold a suspect there on the scene for a "reasonable" amount of time to figure out what's happening.

In this case, I believe that the deputy has reasonable suspicion to detain the father. 1st- the call for domestic battery. 2nd- intoxicated, somewhat belligerent man s

That brown shirt fits you well.

[Onan]

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

Trying to find a charge, any charge, on which to "get" someone is one of the more horrifying types of abuse of power around. Deciding that someone is a generally bad person and searching for crimes they might have committed is exactly backward.

People are defined as societally problematic only by the effects of crimes they've committed, not the other way around. If you have to work at trumping up some charges, then they simply don't need to be punished, however much you may dislike them.

This becomes even more problematic because it's virtually impossible to not be enacting at least some tiny infraction at any moment, especially while driving. So people aren't really punished according to their detrimental effects on society, but on the capricious decisions of whatever law enforcement official happens to be nearby at the moment. Driving one mph over the speed limit? Tire treads too worn? Driving recklessly, disturbing the peace, or doing anything else that's defined by officer's discretion? Then your world is in the hands of the temporary feudal lord who happens by.

I think the only solution to this would be removing officer discretion from the enforcement process. Enforcement officials should be legally required to punish every single infraction of every law, however minor.

What's that you say, they could never realistically do that? Then the laws are flawed. If an act is so ubiquitous that you can't keep up with punishing people for it, then it shouldn't be illegal.

Re:bad case for a precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is anyone else concerned that the case of a drunken belligerent sociopath is going to set a precedent for holding up our Constitutional rights?"

You seem to be blissfully unaware that many if not most of the cases that set precedents recognizing or upholding our Constitutional rights involve unsavory, even despicable defendants and usually serious, sometimes unspeakably horrible crimes. Look up Miranda for an example. It's the nature of the system. People whose rights have not been violated have nothing to take to court or on appeal, and most of those who find themselves at the receiving end of abuses do so as a side effect of their proclivity to interact negatively with authority. Also, it's easier and safer for anyone in authority to abuse someone in an inferior, indefensible position, such as a bad actor. The good guys tend to have little contact with authority and, when they do, tend to conduct themselves in ways that do less to invite abuse and more to communicate that abuse may well engender consequences. It's entirely logical that many of the criminal cases that rise to the Supreme Court involve distasteful people and matters.

Re:Putting a stop to this now.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

A cowardly populace won't do it either.

We won't even do so much as vote, or write letters to our *local* politicians. So we damned sure aren't going to lay our lives down to draw the line between right and wrong in government. Not in this generation, and probably not in the lifetime of anyone here today, if ever.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[instarx]

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

That's 100% true.

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

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

When the Roman Emperor Caligula was finally deposed, the Praeatorian Guards installed a horse on the throne of Rome as a clear statement that nothing could be worse than Caligula. After four years of George W. Bush I understand exactly how they felt. Kerry or Edwards (or the horses they rode in on) - it doesn't matter to me.

True colors

[Vexinator]

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

We all know it's easy for cops to trump up charges. Thanks for clarifying where you stand on that issue.

First you seperate them. This he did. Then you question them. This he attempted. Unfortunately, he was not able to leave the father due to his combative and aggressive state.

I've watched the footage, and you are spin-doctoring it. First off, they were already seperated. Hiibel was outside the vehicle and moved to the tailgate when the officers pulled up. Mimi was in the truck. He did not approach the officers in anything close to a threatening manner. He was obviously agitated but arguing with a loved one tends to do that to a person.

The bare bones fact is the officers made mistake after mistake.

Face it, the officers were acting like blowhards. First off, the officer should have repeated what he was there for. Second, he should have been forthcoming in why he wanted the ID (I'm going to need your ID so I can do a routine background check on you while my partner speaks with the young lady in the truck.) Third, he should have been forthcoming in why he was asking Hiibel to move where he was directing (Sir, I'd feel safer if we put some distance between us and the road while we talk.)

Asking an officer relevant questions, especially a request for clarification of the current situation, is every persons right.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[LizardKing]

in most places (Europe, for example) they can hold you for a few days until you produce some

United Kingdom: no
France: no
Germany: no
Italy: no

Well, that covers over half the European population. Get your facts straight next time.

Chris

probable cause is not the only issue.

[obyrne]

Probable cause is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is interested in this case.

The other, probably more important aspect is the right of a person to refuse to incriminate themselves. From the policeman's perspective, being able to check a person's history is a great way to tell whether the person is a threat to their safety. Unfortunately, the act of identifying someone can also make it more likely that the officer will suspect them of a crime, and the 5th ammendment gives us the right to remain silent in a situation where what we say may incriminate us.

--Owen--

Re:Wear the yellow star

[pyrotic]

Where I come from (UK), the police can ask to see your driving licence if you are in charge of a car. As his daughter was driving, I can't see why he should have to have ID. However, it sounds odd (to European ears) that people are freaked out that they need to show ID to police. In France it is illegal not to have ID with you, anywhere. Period.

Re:Wear the yellow star

[adamh]

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

If you don't have it with you they can ask you to produce your Driving license, registration, insurance, and MOT certificates at a police station within a week or so.

Adam

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Oddly_Drac]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[JohnFluxx]

or it could be that people are fed up of having this stupid case being compared to nazi germany.

Read kuro5hin for why this is a stupid case.

Re:As a police officer

[fuzzybunny]

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

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

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

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

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

And YES some cops have a sense of humor.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you brit would talk for yourself instead of other Europeans..

In the Netherlands it has just become mandatory to be able to show an ID on request from the police, and they can only ask for it in very specific cases.

That it took 58 years from the second world war to re-introduce this is very telling, people are VERY suspicious about such a thing. For those who compare this kind of requirement to Nazi Germany, it is simple, it is the people here who lived under Nazi occupation who strongly oppose this for the reason that they have seen it at work and know what it will do.
THEY seem to feel it is similar, who do those US dipwits think they are when saying that it has nothing to do with it?

The problem is twofold:

1. The requirement to carry an ID actually results in more crime, ID cards arew rather favoirite among criminals since it allows them to 'rpove' a false identity. Since the introduction of the requirement to carry an id, robbery and theft explicitly aimed at obtaining ID cards has exploded (since a criminal can be reasonably sure that loot will include an UD card)

2. It does not prevent any crimes, at best it makes it easier to indentify those who happen to be present at a crime, but there are other ways to achieve this, and the ONE AND ONLY reason for arresting someone is whatever the person did, not whatever ID the person happens to have.

Bottomline, such ID requirements are counter productive and cause oppression by giving police a way to randomly harrass people (and that is no theory, it happens daily)

Re:As a police officer

[Queuetue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cops have the possibility to regain th epublic trust they once had. When I was a kid, we'd think nothing of going to a street cop to ask for help . Now, I'd teach my kids to steer clear - cops are mean and badly trained, concerned more for thier own safety and protecting business interests than upholding thie rights of others.

Re:We may bag on cops but...

[MImeKillEr]

The problem here is, the guy was legally parked on the side of the road (read: not blocking traffic). The truck was off, he was out of it and at the passenger window talking to his wife. The cop used the excuse of there being the report of them having a fight. All the cop had to do was put the guy in the cruiser, talk to the wife and see what was up.

At what point did the US turn into Nazi Germany, where the police have the authority to demand identification? How long before anyone's walking down the street, looks "suspicious" (based on the cops' belief) and has the right to "see your papers"?

Equating what happened to this guy with an armed intruder is apples to oranges - he wasn't doing anything wrong. There was no show of aggression on his part, the wife wasn't in any obvious and immediate danger.

Personally, I hope Hiibel wins and sues the cop and county.

Yes, police have the authority to enforce the laws. What law was Hiibel breaking by refusing to show ID?

And, BTW, I saw the video when this was posted to Madville a couple of days ago. The cop says he's "conducting an investigation" not "investigating an investigation" - at least, I didn't hear him say that and don't recall reading that in the captions that were added.

Re:Better yet, watch the video

[ConversantShogun]

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

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

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

Re:Better yet, watch the video

[4of12]

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.

Well said.

But even the ability of a public citizen to fail to supply an identification will become moot before long.

Cops will access to networks of fixed and mobile videocameras linked to headquarters with facial recognition software that will return an audio feed to them telling exactly who you are, where you've been recently recently, if you have any record, etc.

So even if the SCOTUS is screwy enough to rule against this guy's right to not supply an ID, the ruling either way will be practically meaningless within a decade.

Re:ok, this is crap

[Ancient_Hacker]

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

Re:That brown shirt fits you well.

[i-Chaos]

... Enforcement officials should be legally required to punish every single infraction of every law, however minor...

What's that you say, they could never realistically do that? Then the laws are flawed. If an act is so ubiquitous that you can't keep up with punishing people for it, then it shouldn't be illegal.

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

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

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[the_mad_poster]

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

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

Re:Right to request ID

[bradkittenbrink]

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

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

I bet you're right though, the laws in most states are probably similar and will all be affected by the result of this case.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Mr. Slippery]

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

The context for the discussion was state rights versus federal power, and the creation of standing armies versus reliance on militias, so this is hardly surprising. Remeber that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought! However, it is clear that the framers had a armed citizenry (and not standing armies) in mind:

"..but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Hamilton, Federalist No. 29 [loc.gov]

"...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..." -- Madison, Federalist No. 46

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." Hamilton, Federalist 28

The National Guard are militias.

As they are today, the National Guards are more military reserve units than real militias. (See Title 32 U.S.C.)

Yet why did they explain why it was important?

Explaining why something is important is done to give it extra weight. Doesn't your boss ever say things like, "Nomadic, getting this project done is necessary to keep FooBar as a customer, so I need this next week"?

they DIDN'T use that phrase with any other amendments.

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[poot_rootbeer]

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

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

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

Yes, the yellow star reference in the grandparent comment was quite clever... but a little more obtuse than it could have been. That's all.

Re:Star of David

[Bob Uhl]

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

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

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

Re:RTF Web page, please.

[hesiod]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Wear the yellow star

[mindstrm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Right to request ID

[vadar86]

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