Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court 1636
Pemdas writes "On March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case involving an arrest for lack of producing ID on the demand of a police officer. Dudley Hiibel was parked off the road, and was asked 11 times to show ID to the police officer, who gave the justification of 'investigating an investigation.' Finally, he was arrested, and eventually convicted of delaying a police officer,' and fined $250. The incident occurred in Humboldt County, Nevada; Mr. Hiibel's side of the story includes a good section on Terry stops, and has a video of the incident for download. The parallels to the previously covered Gilmore v. Ashcroft case are striking, and the ruling will be an interesting precedent on the issue of requiring ID's. The ACLU, EPIC, and EFF, among others, have filed Amicus briefs in the case."
Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
for people to pay the fuck attention!
V
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The police officer did NOT have the right to ask his name. His name had no bearing on determining if a crime had been committed or even if there was probable cause. How is it better for your Constitutional rights to have the police demand your identity by voice rather than by paper? The whole point is that you do not have to identify yourself to the police simply because they want to know who you are.
Then if the answer was suspicious, ask for his ID
Suspicious? How can giving or not giving you name be suspicious? Is "Donald Duck" a suspicious name - or is what Mr. Hiibel answered ("Why?") suspicious enough?
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
No luck involved. His daughter had been driving the truck.
As for why it's on Slashdot, I've noticed that the folks here have a fondness for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Here's [epic.org] the amicus brief the EFF filed in support of Mr. Hiibel.
RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Informative)
The cop had probable suspicion to investigate the claim that Hiibel and his daughter had been fighting, but he:
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation? Sure, if he has probable cause that something illegal happened, he'll need to ID the person, but that can wait until he's taken back to the station. Probable suspicion is not enough to arrest a person, or even ask for an ID.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
Better yet, watch the video (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. However, to become a cop you accept a higher level of responsibility. If you're a citizen, and you kill someone in self defense, there aren't any problems. If you're an officer, people immediately question whether deadly force was required, and whether the officer followed every procedure properly from the start, and whether the officer had neglected trainning that may have ended the situation peacefully.
Is it a double standard? Yes, of course, as it should be. We are empowering these armed individuals, with our own tax dollars, to enforce the law against ourselves. They better follow procedure. They better be well trained and alert. We hold surgeons to a different standard because we need to trust them. When they violate that trust, that's a serious problem. Citizens can go about their lives normally and all we ask in a self defense case is "did they THINK their life was in danger and did they THINK that the only way to avoid it was to use deadly force?". That doesn't cut it with cops, sorry. People can make mistakes, surgeons and lawyers and cops CAN'T.
These high law enforcement standards we hold are more valuable than the supposed reduced crime you might get from unaccountable officers.
Oh, and nobody can waste an officer's time. They can only waste taxpayer money. The officer is being paid, so as far as he's concerened, he's working no matter how many delays he's faced with.
Asking for ID should be perfectly legal and fine, just like it's legal to ask if you can search someone's house. But when they refuse, take a hike unless you've got probable cause. There better be some real CHARGES.
Re:RTF Web page, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That brown shirt fits you well. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
If you watch the video, the cop made no attempt to even verify that a fight/crime had occurred before he demanded ID and arrested Hiibel. I think that's really the crux of the debate.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Informative)
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p*48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Re: Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you are allowed to ask this. That doesn't mean anyone has to comply. Just don't impersonate a police officer when you ask, now that'd be illegal.
A police officer is able to legally ask anything that an ordinary citizen can ask. The thing I don't like is that because police officers have a visual authority and act and use a voice which conveys that they have the authority to ask what they ask, they get alot of people to comply with their requests to the detriment of the people when the police don't have the legal authority to enforce compliance.
The repeat offenders, the dangerous criminals, are not the ones likely to get caught like this. The ones who get caught are likely the younger ones, the high schoolers out drinking and such.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Body language is not probable cause for arrest.
Re:Wear the yellow star (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Silly me, and I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Kjella
Welcome to the Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Welcome to the Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Welcome to the Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
You think if Hiibel had defended his rights with a gun he'd still be alive?
I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:5, Interesting)
thank you John Asscroft! (Score:5, Informative)
In 1952, the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act mandated 3 million non-citizens to carry ID cards and threatened 11 million naturalized citizens with deportation if they were charged with being communists. A bus drivers' union official was grabbed from the bargaining table where he was successfully negotiating a wage increase and shorter hours and held at Ellis Island, New York for deportation to Canada. Harry Bridges, for decades the leader of the San Francisco Longshoremen, was harassed with repeated deportation efforts. source [lrna.org]
Don't worry though the USA PATRIOT ACT's will take care of all your problems.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:5, Funny)
dude we know your lying.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:5, Interesting)
one evening, i was riding with a few friends to go pick up some computer parts from someone. we get to our destination and the driver - who knew the guy, ran in to grab the stuff, just a couple of drives and some ram. while he was in there, a police officer pulled up, asked me and my friend (sitting in the back seat) what we were doing there. We told him - he demanded ID. Following the guise of "Well, I have nothing to hide - here." He procedes to check our ID's. He comes back after seeing that I had minor history, says he wants to check the car. Not knowing that the driver had a 'bud' of marijuana under his seat (note: under the driver's seat) He sees that, puts me in cuffs. Takes me down to the station, and doesnt even bother with the driver. After about an hour of asking for a phone call to call a lawyer, as well as trying determine just why I -was- there, he proceeded to tell me to shut up or he would make me. I said "I'm just trying to excercise my rights." Well, I guess he took that as "being smart" so he came, open the cell, back handed me across the face twice and said that I'd better just shut up. I decided to get "smart" at that time, telling him: "I hope you feel more like a man for hitting someone you know isn't going to hit you back." He turned red and walked away....waited about 15 minutes (for the redness of my face to go away, I assume) and took a 'mug shot' (with no numbers, mind you) and told me to leave. Shame of it is, the best I could get out of the department was a written apology. Even more shamefull is that this isn't the first time I've been harassed by an officer of the law. On another occasion, I was targetted for having a 'Phish' sticker on the rear glass of my car. I was broke down, waiting for a tow truck. They searched me, searched the car. They never offered any assitance, asked if I need to call for a tow, nothing, it was straight to the point: "Where's the weed?" they asked. They felt there was something missing since they didn't find anything.
Walking back to their car to leave, the one officer jeered with a snicker, "You might want to take that sticker out of youer window..." and then he proceeded to peel out onto the road from behind me.
From those nights, I've lost most of my regard that I once had for police officers. Luckily, I have not lost my regard for my fellow man.
I may not have a completely clean record, but I'm no criminal by any stretch - I'm merely trying to get past my follies and live life. I'm an Eagle Scout, Assistant Scoutmast, and a deacon at my church - go figure.
Sorry for being off topic, but I just felt like sharing.
Re:I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:5, Funny)
just give it awhile, you'll get there.
note to moderators: not funny.
waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
For anyone who truly believes you have a fighting chance
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:I spent 8 hours in jail for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting a stop to this now. (Score:5, Informative)
Thus this case really is about whether or not it is legal to require people to show ID.
I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case.
Re:Putting a stop to this now. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
His webserver must not have shown ID (Score:5, Funny)
Probable Cause? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a similar issue arise recently in which I was stopped while driving to a shooting range and suspected of possibly having a stolen vehicle. I was searched and the gun I was taking to the range was found and confiscated (I live in California where just owning a gun is typically considered a crime). Thankfully, I showed proof of legal ownership of my truck *before* the search which removed the probably cause (not that transporting a gun was a crime anyway). The judge realized this and dismissed the case. But again, its an example of cop on a power trip. Once you refuse to cooperate, they act like the judges themselves instead of just the peace officers they're supposed to be.
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers [nccomp.com]
Just don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
I fail to see what's so horrible about this system. I'm not trolling, I really don't see it. Comments are most welcome.
Please board the train for relocation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
One point of difference is probably the political system you've been raised in vs. the one in which US citizens have been raised. I don't know what the panamanian constitution looks like, but I imagine that its very different from the freedoms provided in the US constitution, particularly in the area of the Bill of Rights.
The concern that some US citizens have is that the US government is devaluing personal privacy, which some view as an infringement of the rights provided in the constitution. The US legal system, for instance, is based on presumed innocence. i.e. law enforcement is expected - no, mandated - to presume citizens are innocent, not guilty of commiting crimes. There is not, to my knowledge, any federal law mandating that US citizens carry identification. It appears (I do not know for certain, as I cannot get to the article) that the individual in question was not in the act of committing a crime - or even suspected of committing a crime, but the law enforcement officer demanded that the individual identify himself as the officer was 'investigating an investigation.' This would appear to be insufficient reason to detain and fine the individual in question.
The US is different (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Just don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
The question of the case then, I guess, is whether the Nevada law requiring a person to give their name to an officer is Constitutional. I'm hoping they vote no and the ruling overturned.
Not papers, just a name (Score:5, Insightful)
According to courts, you don't have a reasonable expectation to not have to give your name, because you use it all the time. You probably do, however, have a reasonable expectation of not having to rattle off any ID number that's private.
What's so wrong about giving a cop your name if you give it to everyone else?
Re:Not papers, just a name (Score:5, Informative)
Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".
The standard advice from ANY lawyer is to not say anything when accosted by cops. Not even your name. And the mass of court decisions, e.g. Kolender v. Lawson, concurring opinion of Brennan [usff.com] state that nobody has to answer ANY of the questions a cop asks of them -- even IF the cop suspects them of a crime:
"... States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer."
Here's another one, Terry v. Ohio [findlaw.com], concurring opinion by White: "[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." 88 S.Ct., at 1886 (White, J., concurring).
Happened to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Cop: Hey pal, whats going on?
Me: Nothing, just out for a walk.
Cop: Kind of late for that.
Me: Well I just got home from work and I'm still really awake.
Cop: Got any ID?
Me: Um sure..whats going on? (fumbled for wallet, gave license)
Cop: (mutters into radio with my info)
Me: Is there some problem, has there been a crime reported?
Cop: Um yes, we've had reports of someone walking around.
At this point, a truck LOADED with lawn furniture, to the point where it's mounded up in the back, with ropes holding it in, drives by. Driver and passenger of said truck watch carefully. Eventually, I was released, after being asked if I was wanted for anything. Had I been old (was 24 at the time), or walking a dog, or female, I'm sure none of that would have happened.
Re:Happened to me (Score:5, Funny)
Nice. Work in a dig at Microsoft. Ah, Slashdot.
This was on Kuro5hin (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope not carrying ID, or not giving it out w/out good reason, stays legal, but I also hope that drunk, obnoxious jerks get regulated on.
Re:This was on Kuro5hin (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously now, is saying "I have right sided tendencies" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) supposed to pacify us and make us think "Well gee, if this guy is generally a Republicrat and he approves of the cops doing this, it must be ok?"
I'd post a link to the video, but I can't find it anywhere on the net and I forget what newsgroup post I originally found it in. The file is called no_id_arrest_SMALL.mov for anyone who cares to search around on their own. And from what I could understand being said on the tape the subtitles were pretty damned accurate. In fact, many times they only printed "(garbled)", when I could in fact plainly make out what was being said. I think they just wanted to air very much on the side of caution about captioning what was being said.
Anyhow, this guy seemed out of it, but beyond that did nothing at all to get arrested. In fact the cop started giving him trouble and the guy just told him not to touch him, and asked pretty plainly why it was that he was being harrassed. When the cop said something along of the lines of "I'm investigating... stuff" the guy then asked why that made him have to give ID. In the end this guy just gave up and told the cop he wasn't going to give id, but if the cop wanted he could go right ahead and arrest him. Which the cop then did.
Then comes the best part... 2 more cops show up, run up to this guys truck and start harassing the passenger. They held the door shut for awhile, and when they finally let it open they literally grabbed the girl inside and slammed her to the ground. Fairly small girl, not nearly a match for these 2 cops, and as far as I could tell she did nothing more than perhaps yell at them. She certainly wasn't resisting anything.
These guys are just a bunch of backwater fucktards on a power trip. I hope they get their asses in a sling for this. Cops should spend their time arresting criminals, not harassing semi-argumentative old guys.
I was arrested for this offense in Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I plead not guilty and the deputy didn't show up at trial. I'm currently in the process of having the arrest record expunged.
The bottom line on this is: Constitutionally, every search or siezure must be reasonable, which the courts have decided means that reasonable suspicion must exist. If you're just walking down the street (like I was), and you don't match the description of a person wanted for a crime, and you're not committing a crime, there's no reason you should be compelled to identify yourself. Period.
Re:I was arrested for this offense in Texas (Score:5, Funny)
I write a weekly newspaper column (Score:5, Informative)
People equate the "papers please" line to movies about Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia but I think we are closer than most of us would admit.
btw, if you've got a good way to rebut this that doesn't include fuck or asshole, I'm all ears biatches...:)
Re:I write a weekly newspaper column (Score:5, Insightful)
-or to take a step back-
If you have nathing to hide, you won't mind if we put cameras in the bathrooms right?
With the state of legislation these days EVERYONE has SOMETHING to hide. Most laws are written by folks who think "their way is best", and through force of law feel the need to cram it down the throats of the rest of us.
There are many laws that I think MOST of us can agree on: murder, rape, etc...
There are far more laws that MOST of us don't agree on: prohibition of drugs, abortion, j-walking, etc...
The first defence we have against the "stupid" laws is some level of privacy, protected by NOT having to submit to this kind of intrusion..
Re:I write a weekly newspaper column (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.
Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?
Why not?
Now, why it is OK for a cop to do this to an adult?
Re:I write a weekly newspaper column (Score:5, Funny)
Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.
Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?
It's certainly not a crime, but I think that any child that ages from 10 to 12 years old within the span of one Sunday afternoon would arouse some suspicion!
Re:I write a weekly newspaper column (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I have a moderately good defense of privacy: the foundation of our criminal code is based on external acts, that is acts against another person or entity. The proof for an external act would then be public material, or material provided ("made public") by the harmed party. Therefore, privacy is a restriction on the encroachment of law: if you can't be shown to be doing it, you can't be convicted of it. Thus privacy is a good thing can be derived from the idea that "if you didn't harm another, it's not a crime"
Another way to say all this is: If you didn't hurt anyone, you didn't commit a crime. If you did commit a crime, the person hurt (or a person witnessing or affected) would come forward with evidence: you don't have to prove you didn't do it. Privacy is your right to an accuser.
Many of the problems we've had in recent years with the law have been 1) "victimless crimes" or "societying-wronging" (drugs are the classic example), and 2) where the state is the accuser.
Both of these are in part because there is no concrete person wronged, so it's difficult to defend yourself. Even worse is when the state is the accuser, because the state is An Authority: what they say is true. Very hard to prove otherwise, and the individual clerks process so much information each day that things are just assumed to be true because they're written: no one remembers writing them.
These fears are often dismissed as being kafka-esque, but anyone who has ever delt with a large corporation that has a "it's written so it must be true" problem can understand what the problem is. Now imagine where the result is not paying an extra $100, but having 5 years of your life taken away. High stakes. And beaurocracies don't get any better when they're played at those stakes.
That's a basic defense of privacy. I'm still struggling with the "ihre papieren, bitte" (sic?).
While it's bad, it's not as bad as implied (Score:5, Informative)
Which is overstating.
The cop never said he was "investigating an investigation" from watching the video. He did, however, say to the man as soon as he got there something along the lines "I'm investigating reports of a fight between you two" indicating the man and the woman in the car.
And the person asked for ID was fairly belligerent. He kept on asking the officer to arrest him.
The charge isn't specifically a law that makes it illegal to present ID, I think (though I'm not sure), it's a charge of obstructing a peace officer. Which may be from aforesaid law, but I didn't see that when I looked before.
Duh! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Informative)
DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer, just a law student
No.
Follow that rule, and you may well end your ass up in jail. The rule in most jurisdictions is that you do not have a right to resist arrest unless one "reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect against an arresting officer's use of unlawful and deadly force"
Essentially, you cannot resist arrest unless you're in fear of your life or grevious bodily injury -- EVEN if the arrest or use of force is unlawful. The way to deal with unlawful use of force is a civil action later. It is not up to the man on the street to decide whether an arrest is legal or illegal -- that is a matter for a judge and jury.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Biagini (655 A.2d 492) is a good example (and coincidentally where I stole the above quote from). Man is arrested without sufficient cause. During the arrest he assaults an officer. Man is found not guilty of original crime, but does time on the resisting arrest charge.
I don't think I can state it clearly enough -- you do not have a right to resist arrest except when in immediate fear of death / near death.
Not "investigating an investigation" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not "investigating an investigation" (Score:5, Informative)
This case is Extremely Important. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since all of the the people in the world are having to have fingerprints and eyescans to enter the USA, other countries will use the same biometric technology to control who comes into their countries. If you do not have a biometric passport, you will eventually be scanned say, when you enter Canada or the United Kingdom or any other country.
This means that Americans will either have to have biometric passports issued by their own government (meaning that the government routinely fingerprints and eyescans innocent citizens) or, Americans will be fingerprinted and eyescanned when they travel to other peoples countries.
Paper based passports are going to become a thing of the past; all passports will be reduced to a machine readable card. Once this happens, your drivers licence can be your passport AND your drivers licence at the same time. This means that your fingerprints, taken by the governemt so that you can travel, will be available to the police when they ask you for your drivers licence.
This case is crucially important to the rights of American citizens. If Mr. Hiibel loses this case in the Supreme Court, it means that any policeman can ask for your ID, which will eventually mean that he can demand that you put your thumb into a portable fingerprint reader - on a whim. If he wins the case, the police will not be able to ask to see your ID, and the deployment of the national biometric ID system will be at the very least, delayed at best it will be destroyed completely before it starts.
If you want to read the reasons why ID cards are a non starter, try this [privacyinternational.org].
And read this [bbc.co.uk] about the man who single handedly brought down the British ID Card system.
I hope he wins, because this will be a win for the entire Amercan public, and it will also be a clear sign to all other countries in the world that claim they are free democracies; ID cards violate your rights. They are bad for democracy, and should be shunned.
torrent of video (Score:5, Informative)
A Couple of things... (Score:5, Interesting)
Should have got their ID (Score:5, Informative)
Fight back is a good idea. You missed one important point: get their id. By law they must give you their badge ID. When they stop you for no reason all you need is a lawyer to file charges against them.
BTW, while technically they are not required to help you in getting that id, if you don't have a pen handy and they refuse to lend you their's, write a formal letter of complaint to the police chief. Might or might not result in anything, but it will go on his record. (In most areas you can and should check that record to make sure it is there)
Try being black! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
ACLU membership (and some advice) (Score:5, Informative)
I have never had a problem in the big cities. This is most probably because I am white. The police there have focused their efforts on hispanic and Af-Am people. If you want to hear about civil rights violations, how about the kid who was just shot and killed for walking on the roof of a housing project in NYC?
But when I go down to the beach in small town Long Island, I often run into cops. Either rent-a-cops who will watch me as I walk down a long, empty avenue, or the real police.
Here are your rights (as understood by the court up until now):
1. The police have a recognized right to try to stop and talk to you. (i.e., don't get all like "hey, you have no right to bother me. I ain't doing nuffing wrong.") Argue with it if you like, agitate to change the system, but don't bother to try to change it right there.
2. The police have a (generally) recognized right to ask you where you're going and where you're coming from. This is a bit fuzzier.
3. You do not have to show them identification if you don't want to. This does not apply if you are in your car and driving, and are pulled over: then you must produce Driver's ID. If you are a cyclist, like me, you have to have some kind of ID if you a cycling on the road, but it does not have to be a Driver's license.
Watching this video, this guy is making a lot of mistakes. Look, I don't like dealing with the police, but if your real intent is to be left alone to exercise your freedoms (and not to just cause trouble), you are well advised to:
1. NOT make any sudden movements, jump around, act agitated, or get nervous. Look, I know you want to exercise your rights, and if you're (like me) a white male who's never been in trouble with the law you are probably the most likely to succeed, but calm the hell down. If you can't calm down, you have lost. Bzzt. Sorry, Constitutional Crusader.
2. Do not elaborate. Repeat what you have said. Refuse to show your id. Expect the officer to play mind games.
3. Once you have repeated your refusal not to show your id, ask, very calmly, "am I free to go?" If the officer says, "no," ask "am I under arrest?" Repeat this question until you get a firm answer. If he says "no," then say "as I am not under arrest, I wish to go. Am I free to go?"
4. If questions of searching, "helping out" or otherwise obliging come up, repeat "I do not consent." This is robot time, people, don't get involved in a debate.
This is the ACLU 'Bust Card.' [aclu.org]
It's the way it works. If you really care, give $100 to the ACLU. They work on these things, and they really have been effective in a huge number of national, state and local cases. They don't just cover the big ones.
Where it all leads (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
The Cato amicus brief says best what's wrong here (Score:5, Informative)
Cato also discovered that more than 20 states have laws like this on the books (it's in the appendix of their brief).
You can read any or all of the briefs in the case (including my own [epic.org], which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel [epic.org].
As a police officer (Score:5, Insightful)
Concerning this case: I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience. Unfortunately I believe that he could have handled this call in a better way. This is an example of how I like to think I would handle a call of this nature. (If I was ALONE WITHOUT backup on the scene)
D: Sir, step back here and talk to me. H: Ok D: Listen, I'm here because we got a call about some fighting out here, what's going on? H: Nothing I'm not parked illegally. D: Ok sir can I see your driver's license please? H: Nope, no way, no how. D: Do you have any ID on you? H: None that I'm going to show you. D: Ok listen, I want to know who you are and I want to go check on that person in the truck. I want to make sure your not going to run off so please give me your ID. H: Why? D: I'm not going to leave you back here without knowing who you are or having some other way of making sure your not going to attack me or run off. You know who I am, but I don't know you from a mass murderer. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but for my safety I like to know who I'm dealing with. H: Not showing you nothing! D: Ok sir if you don't cooperate with me I'm going to place you in investigative detention, which means for my safety while I figure out what is going on, I'm going to put some cuffs on you and sit you down while I conduct my investigation. H: What are you investigating? D: A call for an assault or domestic violence. H: Why don't you just take me to jail now? Here. (Holds out hands) D: Ok sir put your hands behind your back, understand that your not under arrest but being detained. (cuffs and sits him on the ground) D: (approaches truck and talks to daughter)
At that point I figure out that their has PROBABLY not been an assault because both stories (obtained seperately from the two parties) seems to match up. However, as a good law enforcement officer, it does not end there. There could be something going on here that is not readily apparent. Daughter could be not talking because she thinks dad is going to beat her (it does happen!) Daughter could not be daughter at all, but kidnapped or a runaway being harbored by this guy. Somebody called the police for a reason! I will not end my investigation until I check both names for local warrants and the national computer for warrants, missing, etc, etc. Once I am satisfied that everything is on the up-and-up, I release pops from the cuffs and everyone goes on their way. With a proper warning to pops not to drive since he is intoxicated.
Again, it's easy for me to say what I would have done having ALREADY SEEN what happened. This officer was trying to do the right thing although perhaps got a little too caught up on the whole ID thing.
The moral is: Fine, if you don't want to tell me anything about anything, you will sit there in cuffs till I figure out what is going on. If nothing, your free to go. If something, THEN your under arrest. People tend to assume as soon as cuffs go on that you are under arrest. This is not always the case, and as an officer I always tell people: you're not under arrest yet, but you're also not free to go. You are in what's called investigative detention. At this point it's basically for an officer's safety, and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. An officer can hold a suspect there on the scene for a "reasonable" amount of time to figure out what's happening.
In this case, I believe that the deputy has reasonable suspicion to detain the father. 1st- the call for domestic battery. 2nd- intoxicated, somewhat belligerent man s
Re:What is there to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is there to hide? (Score:5, Informative)
Everything else is trivial.
One of the few things that distinguishes America as a free country is the absense of checkpoints and "papers please" where your very existence is presumed to be a crime until YOU demonstrate that you have a right to exist and that you are free to go.
No Checkpoints?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?
Re:No Checkpoints?? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?"
Unfortunately you are correct. There's a gray area between rights and privileges. The people who interrogate you at the airport are not police, do not have police powers, and pretty much are not able to do anything except decide whether to let you enter the private property which is the terminal or the aircraft. They can also notify the police if they suspect you of a crime, which is not any sort of exclusive privilege that they have, and you do not.
Yes, the whole system is that way because federal agencies require it. The theory is, those federal agencies have created regulations under public review and scrutiny, and that the people who make decisions in those agencies are in their position of authority because they were appointed by people you elected. And yes, the people at the airport terminal happen to have a real quick way to get the attention of the police, who happen to be on site. But you are NOT passing a checkpoint that is actually operated by a police agency. Not yet anyway.
Government operates with the consent of the governed. By not voting, you voice your consent...
Drawing the line. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. What's your name?
2. Can I see some ID?
3. What is your reason for being here?
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
Where shall we draw the line, if not at #1 or #2?
I mean, heck, if you've got nothing to hide, and teh ID check came up clean, just let the cop look in your trunk and find nothing wrong. You may as well just let him have a quick look in your pockets, also, because he'll find nothing wrong unless you have something to hide. If the officer is conducting an investigation and you have nothing to hide, then there's no reason to not let him look in your garage at home, either, unless you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to not let him look at the contents of your hard drive either, since he'll find nothing wrong.
Re:Drawing the line. (Score:5, Informative)
1. What's your name?
It's on my license
2. Can I see some ID?
Yes here is my drivers license
3. What is your reason for being here?
I prefer not to discuss that with you
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
I do not consent to a search of the vehicles storage compartments
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
I do not consent to a search of my person
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
I do not consent to a search of my dwelling
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
I do not consent to a search of my personal computer
Remember also "Can I leave now?" "Am I under arrest?" "Why am I being detained?" and "I do not wish to speak with you now."
Re:it's called refusing a resonable request. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was "no way", then they wouldn't hear it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If there was "no way", then they wouldn't hear (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court is a court of limited appelate jurisdiction* so cases rarely start there and thus they generally hear appeals from other courts. The "limited" part means that they decide if they want to hear any case. They are only obligated to hear cases over which they have original jurisdiction (which is defined in the Constitution, and which is narrow enough that it almost never happens).
To be considered by the court, four of the nine justices must decide that they want to hear the case. There are several reasons why a judge may want to hear (or why they may NOT want to hear) any given case. I forget the exact statistics, but they only hear something like one in one hundred cases. I remember some figure of less than 10,000 cases being appealed to them and a figure of something on the order of 100 actually being heard by them. They can rule either by just reading all the material supplied by both sides and then ruling on it, or they may do the rulings after having oral arguements from both sides. In oral arguements, they ask lots of hard questions and can interject or go on a rant at any time whatsoever. The Chief Justice (currently Rhenquest) is charged with keeping them on task (some of them have a habit of just talking to each other during the arguements, others are more engaged...) The judges aren't very constrained, but the lawyers for both sides are very much on their toes. God help you if you don't have a ready answer; they're not there just to have you restate what you said in all your briefs...
Sometimes, the justices want to hear a case to affirm some precident. This isn't all that common--there just usually isn't any reason to hear something just to affirm it (though this does happen for various reasons). Statistically (and this is part of what my university course was on!), they intend to reverse or vacate any case they hear. When they reverse it, they decide in favor of the person who lost the last round in the court system. When they vacate a ruling, they send it back to the previous judge with instructions about what that judge should not have done. Usually, it doesn't direct the judge to come to any particular conclusion, but it tells the judge how they may or may not arrive at their conclusions (e.g. directing them to ignore/take into account certain evidence, etc.).
There are also reasons why they may not want to hear any given case. Perhaps some justice is afraid that "their side" will "lose" and set a bad precident.
When I say "their side" I should qualify that. If you do the statistics (as my prof did both in class and in the book he wrote, which was a class text), some justices tend to agree with each other more often than the others, whereas others are nearly polar opposites (agreeing in only something like 20% of the cases). Dividing the Supreme Court into "liberal" and "conservative" will get you a fair correlation, but it doesn't really represent a sharp distinction concerning their judgements. The justices certainly have their own political views, but they're not slaves to them and everything depends on the respective merits of the case--you can't just sit back and figure that the five of nine "conservative" justices will win you your case. There are several "swing" justices, in any event, who will muck up any predictions you try to make about any particular case. The statistics just aren't the whole story.
So this is a wild tangent, I know, but if you're wondering, this should have given you a better insight into how the Supreme Court makes decisions. I know that it comprises much of what I learned in that class...
* The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction--usually only over things like treaties the US has signed. Original jurisdiction means that they get to hear a case before and instead of any other court, by the way. Generally, they get cases ap
Re:why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you dramatically underestimate Antonin Scalia. He's written some very stupid opinions.
Re:why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:why ? (Score:5, Interesting)
About the ONLY time you get them to give it willingly is when they have just HELPED you, and you've said thank you, and tell them you'd like to write a thank you letter for their files
BTW - if you local PD has citizens councel, show up, be polite, listen, and say hello. Aka, become known to the cops as "a good guy". Like it or not, once your local beat cops get to know you, you have less hassles - you don't get the evil eye. You get a nod. Just human nature - it's not supposed to play a role, but it DOES
Other things, if you don't feel like doing that? Join you local community board, or SOME social organization. The guys who run the charity parade, etc. The cops get to know these people - so do the local business men, and the local pols. THEN when you call you local Pol with a position on some bill, your not just "Joe Schmoe", your "Jim on the Parade committee"
Re:why ? (Score:5, Informative)
In each of those cases I ALWAYS asked for (and received) identification and badge numbers from the police officers involved. It's only affected me in a positive way. When you ask for bade numbers and identification you are basically letting the police officer know 'I know your limits, and I'm going to hold you accountable.'
I've known several police officers in a social sense, and I've discussed this with all of them. They all, to a man (and one woman), have the same response. They don't begrudge a citizen looking out for themeselves, and asking for ID has the affect of raising THEIR awareness that they need to be careful.
The exception to this however is when people use bade requests as a delaying tactic or a method of not answering questions. As with most things in life, you need to know the right TIME to ask for this information.
Re: a possible solution to the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Happily, that is, until you call them an asshole.
or (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Read up a bit (Score:5, Interesting)
I have personally been assaulted by a gang of criminals while an armed, on duty cop watched and did nothing. Then, after I had been held down and kicked by the group, more cops arrived and accused ME of causing trouble.
I have been walking down the street in NYC with a friend and, since he is black, had 3 cops throw him against a wall and stick a billy club in his kidneys, call him 'nigger' repeatedly, and toss him to the sidewalk, all on his way home from work, at his taxpaying, law abiding job.
I have been riding in a car in Beverly Hills and pulled over and asked to show ID because the driver was black.
I don't hate all cops, my brother-in-law is a State Trooper, but I don't trust cops. I obey the law. I hate people who break the law, and I hate punk-ass chumps who get jobs as cops because they have been weak, pussies their whole lives and being a cop makes them feel like a big bad ass.
So why don't you check that 'virtually all people' crap and read up a bit yourself, dillweed.
Not charged with a crime? (Score:5, Informative)
If they want to arrest your ass, then they should arrest your ass. If they're not going to arrest your ass, then they should leave you well enough alone.
Did you know that you can say "no" if the police ask you if they can do something? Probably not - and the cops will jump all over you if you do that. But it's your right not to consent to a search.
Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can they do that? (selective Editing) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:How can they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
For What it's Worth (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're not thinking this through.
Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement.
Really? Big marbles statues that speak, or something? If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
People (read: me, but I am not the only one) get upset about this kind of thing because it sets precedent. The path from a free society to a Police State (where all your movements are tracked and must be justified) is lined with stepping stones, and this is one of the bigger ones.
Re:Did you notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
A concerned citizen called 911 to report a possible domestic violence situation, saying they had seen punches thrown.
The officer arrives to find the vehicle had been stopped in an erratic, sudden, and aggressive manner.
The man is immediately belligerent.
If you're saying the officer should have NO RIGHT to identify that person in the course of attempting to determine what is going on, e.g., to check for prior domestic violence arrests, then that simply represents a fundamentally different philosophical position from mine.
I take offense that you'd imply that I somehow don't deserve to call myself a US citizen simply because I believe that police officers should be able to identify persons when they arrive at the scene of a possible crime because of a dispatch by a 911 call.
Re:Uh. (Score:5, Insightful)
>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.
Yes, this is news for nerds. (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not relate to the internet, but every geek has a vested interest in not allowing privacy and due process to slip.
Re:Here is the situation (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know what an APB / BOLO is? What it includes? How it's sent out?
If you do, you'll be aware that an APB / BOLO will generally have more information than just a name. In fact, they don't usually have names. It'll be something more like:
"Be on the lookout for a middle aged white male, approx 5'9, weight approx. 200 lbs, last seen driving a late model blue sedan, travelling north on NC-58 near the South Carolina line. Suspect is wanted for questioning related to a double murder in SC, and is to be considered armed and dangerous", or something to that effect.
Now if your hypothetical cop pulls over a late model blue sedan being driven by someone of that description, and he won't show ID, I'd think you're into the area of "probably cause" for an arrest.
Some time later, after he got away, he went out and mudered another innocent family. Damn, how I wish I could live in your "utopia." It sure does seem a lot safer.
A couple of comments on that:
Life is dangerous. Do it long enough, you die. That's a fact of life. Living in a very free country may be slightly more dangerous than living in a more tightly controlled country. That's a trade-off. We in the U.S. generally prefer liberty and freedom over perceived safety.
I say "perceived" safety because giving in to more of a "police-state" type environment doesn't *necessarily* make things any safer. What if the guy in your scenario had a fake ID which identified him as some upstanding, law abiding citizen from far across the country, and the cop let him go? He still commits your hypothetical double murder. Face it, cops exist primarily as a deterrent to crime, and to investigate crimes after they happen. In general, cops do not routinely interrupt crimes in progress, and prevent double murders, except by blind luck.
Then there's the issue of safety as a personal responsiblity. If I was the husband / father in the innocent murdered family you describe above, wouldn't I have a responsiblity to have locks on my doors and windows, and make sure they're locked at night? Would I not have a responsiblity to have an alarm system to alert me if my house is broken into while we sleep? Would I not have a responsibility to own a firearm or other weapon for self-defense, and take action to protect my family if need be? And if I'm not home, should my wife and/or kids not be trained in using such a weapon as well?
The question is, who is fundamentally more responsible for my family's safety, me or the government? I would argue that the answer to that question is quite obviously "me."