supreme court of the united states

[redrock103]

supreme court to take up issue weather a jack booted thug(a.k.a cop) can stop a person to check their identity weather driving or walking anytime they choose.

[Divegeek]

Is this the case about the cowboy in Nevada that was standing next to his parked truck on his property near the road, and refused to give the cop his ID? If so I am really hoping that the cowboy wins.

[redrock103]

Is this the case about the cowboy in Nevada that was standing next to his parked truck on his property near the road, and refused to give the cop his ID? If so I am really hoping that the cowboy wins.it is part of this story,but this will affect all of us!

[enfield]

Redrock, have you ever met Deputy? :shock:

[Toxie]

Yeah, because we all know how jack-booted we are. What bridge did you crawl out from under?

I just don't get it. Is this the case about the cowboy in Nevada that was standing next to his parked truck on his property near the road, and refused to give the cop his ID? If so I am really hoping that the cowboy wins.

It's a lot more complicated then that. Unless you think that domestic assault is no big deal. (On a side note, remember that domestic disturbance calls are one of the most dangerouscalls you can get)

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.


So he had a GOOD reason to demand ID.

Alot of the websites I read when looking at this case ignore the fact that he was being investigated for a crime (a serious crime none-the-less). They simply state that he was minding his own buisness and was asked for ID. That is NOT the case. I agree that it would be unreasonable to just be demanded to show ID for absolutely NO reason.

However: Its obviously a huge problem, since we have heard so much complaining about it in the past. :p

[Jim Simmons]

Actually, in this case both parties agreed that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest, or even search the car. So the issue squarely before the Supreme Court is whether police may demand that a person ID themselves, where the police have no probable cause to arrest or search. Terry v Ohio didn't answer that question, nor have any Supreme Court decisions since then.

Nevada law, like most states (including, I believe, Michigan) require a person stopped by an officer to identify themselves upon request. That's what he was charged with after the stop.

Given the way that a person's identity now allows LEO to access a great deal of what is supposed to be private information about the person, I hope the court sides with Mr. Hiibel. I think 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment concerns cannot be reconciled by a requirement to reveal one's identity without probable cause. And if this is allowed, there is no constitutional barrier to a federally mandated must-carry federal ID card.

I'm loathe to read unenumerated privacy rights into the constitution; I don't think that's how it should be interpreted. But I do believe that absent probable cause, a LEO should not be able to force a person to reveal information about themselves that could implicate themselves. And nowadays, identity will do that. So I think there are real 4th and 5th Amendment concerns.

There wasn't much press on the arguments yesterday. About all I found was http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_identification

[Divegeek]

Showing ID is basically the same as speaking your name. It just has a picture to back it up. A law that can send someone to jail for refusing to speak violates both Fourth Amendment privacy protections and Fifth Amendment guarantees against being compelled to make incriminating statements. Therefore requiring ID to be presented is essentially the same violation.

I respect what you LEO's do out there every day, but we citizens have out rights. If the officer feared for his safety he could have done a Terry stop pat down, who this guy was wasn't relevant. The office had the duty to find out if any one had been hurt or if a crime had been commited. At no time though should a person be compelled to say anything at all.

Yes the whole situation could have been avoided if Hiibel had just given the guy his name and explained what had happened. If you look into it further you will find out that Hiibel didn't hit anyone. In fact his daughter was the one who hit him. I have actually seen the video and read the transcripts. They are available at www.papersplease.org The whole thing got out of hand, and both parties could have made things go smoother.

[redrock103]

Actually, in this case both parties agreed that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest, or even search the car. So the issue squarely before the Supreme Court is whether police may demand that a person ID themselves, where the police have no probable cause to arrest or search. Terry v Ohio didn't answer that question, nor have any Supreme Court decisions since then.

Nevada law, like most states (including, I believe, Michigan) require a person stopped by an officer to identify themselves upon request. That's what he was charged with after the stop.

Given the way that a person's identity now allows LEO to access a great deal of what is supposed to be private information about the person, I hope the court sides with Mr. Hiibel. I think 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment concerns cannot be reconciled by a requirement to reveal one's identity without probable cause. And if this is allowed, there is no constitutional barrier to a federally mandated must-carry federal ID card.

I'm loathe to read unenumerated privacy rights into the constitution; I don't think that's how it should be interpreted. But I do believe that absent probable cause, a LEO should not be able to force a person to reveal information about themselves that could implicate themselves. And nowadays, identity will do that. So I think there are real 4th and 5th Amendment concerns.

There wasn't much press on the arguments yesterday. About all I found was http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_identificationjim simmons,the man was not stopped by the (jack booted thug) he was standing by his truck. people should know what the agenda is to make the people of the united states afraid to even fart up wind from a cop. john gleen said that if government went by the constitution nothing would get done.

[Scoop]

The vast majority of the people who don't have a problem with identifying themselves or showing an ID to a police officer are law-abiding people who have absolutely nothing to hide.

And as Forrest Gump said "That's all I've got to say about that."

[Scoop]

I have actually seen the video and read the transcripts. They are available at www.papersplease.org The fox guarding the hen house? That's Dudley Hiibel's own website. How, exactly, does an "unemployed" person afford a website, anyway?

In the very first writ and as a matter of record, Dudley's own attorney outlines the "facts":

(1) Deputy was dispatched on a battery call to Grass Valley Rd (no, not "on HIS property near the road" as you originally stated)

(2) Deputy spoke with a citizen who observed the battery and identified (described) Dudley's vehicle, which was found a few miles away, on the side of the road (complete with skid marks, gravel and an abnormal resting position). (Witness confirmation to a crime such as battery IS reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has taken place -- not to mention the potential DUI stands on it's own merit).

(3) The deputy observed signs that Dudley had been drinking. (police ARE trained to be able to identify these things, right?)

(4) The officer asked Dudley for identification and Dudley refused, immediately put his hands behind his back and said, "Take me to jail". In fact, this happened repeatedly, some 11 times before he was actually arrested -- for BATTERY and resisting, not JUST resisting (which seems to be the crux of the SCOTUS argument).

An unemployed drunk commits a crime (battery), then expects to get away with being an asshole (and the battery crime) by refusing to identify himself. Go figure.

So the DB charge was dismissed? Why, because his DAUGHTER refused to prosecute? Surprise, surprise.

Now that the DB charge is dropped, he wants out of the resisting charge, claiming that rulings based on Terry say "no arrest just because you refuse to identify yourself" ?? What a joke.

While I agree that there are probably many cases where harassment or overstepping the boundaries by police officers might be in question, my PERSONAL opinion is that THIS is NOT one of those situations.

Somebody needs to tell Cowboy to "git a job, little doggie".

If we accept this rationale and defense, then criminals will simply have to refuse to identify themselves and those with outstanding warrants will never be prosecuted, so long as the police never see them actually COMMIT a crime. Stupid, if you ask me.

Then again, given today's liberal climate within the judicial system, he'll walk away -- and get a zillion dollar book deal, just for being an drunk, unemployed, domestic battering, belligerent asshole.

[Scoop]

Actually, in this case both parties agreed that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest, or even search the car. Where did you see this?

According to the Dec 2001 writ filed by his own attorney, Dudley's attorney states that "there is no question that the police had an articulable suspicion that a battery had taken place" AND that the officer "had AS that a DUI had taken place" as well.

Regardless ... if Dudley was ID'd by a witness as being the suspect in a reported battery incident (not to mention the DUI issue), why did/does the officer not have probable cause to arrest?

[Scoop]

[quote=Jim Simmons]jim simmons,the man was not stopped by the (jack booted thug) he was standing by his truck. people should know what the agenda is to make the people of the united states afraid to even fart up wind from a cop.

Oh, I get it. As long as you're not IN your truck, you CAN'T be stopped/quesitoned by the police, even if you or your vehicle has been identified as the suspect / vehicle involved in a battery crime?

Makes complete sense to me, redrock103.

Not.

[Toxie]

Given the way that a person's identity now allows LEO to access a great deal of what is supposed to be private information about the person

Now jim, care to articulate? I know that LEIN has no information that isnt pertinent to officer safety/driving records/criminal records. (which Officers are authorized to view)

The officer had the duty to find out if any one had been hurt or if a crime had been commited. At no time though should a person be compelled to say anything at all.

A large part of that is determining WHO was hurt, and who was involved. How are we going to do that if we can't determine WHO you are? It will often determine how a crime will be investigated. What would have heppened if our cowboy was just a neighbor? Thats no longer a domestic crime at all, just an assault. Totally different procedure involved. I can guarantee that if it is struck down, ALOT more people are going to be cooling their heels while they wait to be identified.

without probable cause

well jim- in this case he HAD probable cause. I believe the SC is debating weather an arrest can be made solely on a failure to Identify oneself. He would have still had to ID himself for the domestic assault charges, because he did have probable cause.

Nevada law, like most states (including, I believe, Michigan) require a person stopped by an officer to identify themselves upon request

Well, in michigan the only law I know of is if you are stopped while driving. (Obviously because driving is a privlidge, not a right. You have to have a drivers licence to drive. To not have a drivers licence is to commit a Misdemeanor. I have a funny story about the nation of LaQuefah ill tell sometime later, where LaQuefah issued her own driver's licences.)

I do believe that absent probable cause, a LEO should not be able to force a person to reveal information about themselves that could implicate themselves. And nowadays, identity will do that

See jim I agree. It is that thats the way it already is for all practical purposes. I have never heard of a police officer running around demanding to see your ID for no reason. The higher-ups get complaints when that happens, and poeple get fired over harrassment like that.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) pointed out the court never has given police the authority to demand someone's identification, without probable cause they have done something wrong
She would know better then I.

Problem is that it seems to be slightly confusing exactly WHAT the case is debating. Another problem is the idiot public seeing this on the news and refusing to give over ID because "I saw this on the news! I don't have to give you my ID!" (trust me, it'll happen). Another problem is that when Maude the Fraud down the street gets arrested and has stolen your Identity, your name will be the one on the arrest card. It'll be your difficult time convincing anyone your not a felon. If improperly worded, the opinion could severely damage the ability of Law Enforcement to determine who is who.

Actually, in this case both parties agreed that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest, or even search the car.

Yeah, this is a new one to me also. I haven't heard that anywhere, because if both sides did agree that, there would have been no charges. And just to prove I actually do know something useful- there are several ways to search a car after someone has been arrested that do not need PC (they are administrative and triggered by an arrest)- search incident to an arrest and an invintory search are 2.

Last and least- it's not your ass out there in the wind. It's mine, Deputy's and alot of other good persons. I am not afraid of you, I'm afraid of the guy with 6 assaulting an officer charges who has jumped bail, and I won't know it untill he tries to take my gun.
jim simmons,the man was not stopped by the (jack booted thug) he was standing by his truck. people should know what the agenda is to make the people of the united states afraid to even fart up wind from a cop.

Hey redneck103 isn't a roll of aluminum foil calling your name somewhere? Go troll someplace else.

[redrock103]

Given the way that a person's identity now allows LEO to access a great deal of what is supposed to be private information about the person

Now jim, care to articulate? I know that LEIN has no information that isnt pertinent to officer safety/driving records/criminal records. (which Officers are authorized to view)

The officer had the duty to find out if any one had been hurt or if a crime had been commited. At no time though should a person be compelled to say anything at all.

A large part of that is determining WHO was hurt, and who was involved. How are we going to do that if we can't determine WHO you are? It will often determine how a crime will be investigated. What would have heppened if our cowboy was just a neighbor? Thats no longer a domestic crime at all, just an assault. Totally different procedure involved. I can guarantee that if it is struck down, ALOT more people are going to be cooling their heels while they wait to be identified.

without probable cause

well jim- in this case he HAD probable cause. I believe the SC is debating weather an arrest can be made solely on a failure to Identify oneself. He would have still had to ID himself for the domestic assault charges, because he did have probable cause.

Nevada law, like most states (including, I believe, Michigan) require a person stopped by an officer to identify themselves upon request

Well, in michigan the only law I know of is if you are stopped while driving. (Obviously because driving is a privlidge, not a right. You have to have a drivers licence to drive. To not have a drivers licence is to commit a Misdemeanor. I have a funny story about the nation of LaQuefah ill tell sometime later, where LaQuefah issued her own driver's licences.)

I do believe that absent probable cause, a LEO should not be able to force a person to reveal information about themselves that could implicate themselves. And nowadays, identity will do that

See jim I agree. It is that thats the way it already is for all practical purposes. I have never heard of a police officer running around demanding to see your ID for no reason. The higher-ups get complaints when that happens, and poeple get fired over harrassment like that.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) pointed out the court never has given police the authority to demand someone's identification, without probable cause they have done something wrong
She would know better then I.

Problem is that it seems to be slightly confusing exactly WHAT the case is debating. Another problem is the idiot public seeing this on the news and refusing to give over ID because "I saw this on the news! I don't have to give you my ID!" (trust me, it'll happen). Another problem is that when Maude the Fraud down the street gets arrested and has stolen your Identity, your name will be the one on the arrest card. It'll be your difficult time convincing anyone your not a felon. If improperly worded, the opinion could severely damage the ability of Law Enforcement to determine who is who.

Actually, in this case both parties agreed that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest, or even search the car.

Yeah, this is a new one to me also. I haven't heard that anywhere, because if both sides did agree that, there would have been no charges. And just to prove I actually do know something useful- there are several ways to search a car after someone has been arrested that do not need PC (they are administrative and triggered by an arrest)- search incident to an arrest and an invintory search are 2.

Last and least- it's not your a** out there in the wind. It's mine, Deputy's and alot of other good persons. I am not afraid of you, I'm afraid of the guy with 6 assaulting an officer charges who has jumped bail, and I won't know it untill he tries to take my gun.
jim simmons,the man was not stopped by the (jack booted thug) he was standing by his truck. people should know what the agenda is to make the people of the united states afraid to even fart up wind from a cop.

Hey redneck103 isn't a roll of aluminum foil calling your name somewhere? Go troll someplace else.opinion! your dead from the neck up and don't know it!!!!

[Divegeek]

Now jim, care to articulate? I know that LEIN has no information that isnt pertinent to officer safety/driving records/criminal records. (which Officers are authorized to view)

The Lein system may not have it, but the new MATRIX system that is being implemented, has a whole lot more in it.

As for how an unemployed cowboy affords the website and the fight all the way to the supreme court, a very rich internet tycoon, who is very big into privacy issues, read about the case in the newspaper and decided to fund the guys fight.

[bluethunder]

[ I have a funny story about the nation of LaQuefah ill tell sometime later, where LaQuefah issued her own driver's licences.)


Hey redneck103 isn't a roll of aluminum foil calling your name somewhere? Go troll someplace else.

Two comments.First one:
C'mon,Toxie,I gotta hear this one.PM me,if you prefer, as not to take up board-space.



Second one:
:lol:

[Jim Simmons]

For those who want to read the primary documents:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2003/march.html#03-5554

From here, you can read the Nevada Supreme Court opinion. This is what the Supreme Court is reviewing.

Don't waste your time with the Supreme Court cert. order. All it says is that the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Read the briefs on the merits. They best set forth the parties' positions.

I'd like to respond to one point Scoop made. He said:

The vast majority of the people who don't have a problem with identifying themselves or showing an ID to a police officer are law-abiding people who have absolutely nothing to hide.

By that logic, why bother with search warrants. The only folks who don't want police officers rummaging around in their houses are folks with things to hide. You know . . . like, drugs . . . like porn . . . like guns.

I do have a problem with any law that imposes on me a legal duty to aid in a LEO's investigation of me. Because that's what the 5th Amendment is about. And as far as the stop is concerned, the minute the officer made it clear that Hiibel could not leave, then it's an arrest, whatever else he says.

[M1911A1]

And as far as the stop is concerned, the minute the officer made it clear that Hiibel could not leave, then it's an arrest, whatever else he says.

Jim,

If it is an arrest, wouldn't the arrested person be entitled to know the charges angainst him?

[Jim Simmons]

At some point. The law of arrest does not require that a person be told immediately what they're being arrested for. And, like much involving the legal duties of LEOs, there's no penalty if LEO violates the law.

And LEOs and prosecutors are still trying to argue that there's some nebulous state somewhere between free and under arrest. A status where police can detain persons, but not a custodial situation. Once you get custodial, then things have to happen in a certain time frame. Moreover, questioning where a person is free to leave is conversation. Questioning where someone is in custody is custodial interrogation, which must be preceded by Miranda warnings, for the most part. Cops still don't like those.

[Scoop]

[quote] And just to prove I actually do know something useful- there are several ways to search a car after someone has been arrested that do not need PC (they are administrative and triggered by an arrest)- search incident to an arrest and an invintory search are 2.
Only two? C'mon, Toxie. You can do better than that! Fill in the blanks:

B
E
A
C
H

O

P
Inventory
Search incident to arrest
S

[Scoop]

I'd like to respond to one point Scoop made. He said:

The vast majority of the people who don't have a problem with identifying themselves or showing an ID to a police officer are law-abiding people who have absolutely nothing to hide.

By that logic, why bother with search warrants. The only folks who don't want police officers rummaging around in their houses are folks with things to hide. You know . . . like, drugs . . . like XXXXX . . . like guns.


I intended for that comment to be taken in the context of Dudley's situation.

To make myself clear, I meant that, if an officer showed up in response to a domestic battery call (which he did) where a vehicle fitting the description of the suspect matched MY vehicle (which it had) and I was a law-abiding citizen who was not involved in any such crime (which he now claims he was), I'd have no problem identifying myself to the officer, because I have nothing to hide.

I do have a problem with any law that imposes on me a legal duty to aid in a LEO's investigation of me.
So do most (if not all) people who commit crimes. (Not implying that you are one of them).

And as far as the stop is concerned, the minute the officer made it clear that Hiibel could not leave, then it's an arrest, whatever else he says.
I didn't see anything in the documents that implied that the officer "made it clear that Hiibel could not leave" -- one of the officer's first acts was to ask Hiibel for his identification, whereupon Hiibel IMMEDIATELY put his hands behind his back and said "Take me to jail" -- and did so TEN MORE TIMES.

If case law results that allows a person to ignore a sworn officer's request for identification while he is performing an investigation of a criminal complaint, the entire LE world as we know it will be turned on it's head.

One would be able to commit a crime and, when an officer shows up to question you based on witness ID, you simply shut your mouth and stand mute and, in your opinion, the officer would have no choice but to walk away.

[Scoop]

If it is an arrest, wouldn't the arrested person be entitled to know the charges angainst him?
A person must be formally apprised of the charges against him/her at the initial appearance stage of the criminal justice process. There is no requirement that they be told at the time of arrest, although most are.

At this stage, the judge can also appoint counsel and/or be granted pretrial release (on bond or your own recognizance).

[Scoop]

And, like much involving the legal duties of LEOs, there's no penalty if LEO violates the law.
Really? Which section of the Michigan Compiled Laws contains that particular statute?

I know of 17 Detroit Police Officers who will undoubtedly disagree with you on THAT statement.

[Toxie]

The Lein system may not have it, but the new MATRIX system that is being implemented, has a whole lot more in it.

Huh? First I have heard of THAT one. Must be a federal one.

C'mon,Toxie,I gotta hear this one.PM me,if you prefer, as not to take up board-space.

PM sent :)

Only two? C'mon, Toxie. You can do better than that! Fill in the blanks

Hey now, I can't do all the work. I was just showing that Jim dosen't know it ALL :p. He knows alot though!


If case law results that allows a person to ignore a sworn officer's request for identification while he is performing an investigation of a criminal complaint, the entire LE world as we know it will be turned on it's head.


This is a major worry also. Its difficult enough solving criminal cases, can you imagine how difficult it would be then? I can see the complaining now :p.

Oh yeah, and thanks for keeping it mostly positive. It's the only reason I I keep coming back. Gun-Intilligent people need to stick togther.

[Scoop]

I think these are right

Border searches
Exigencies / Emergencies
Abandonment
Consent
Hot pursuit

Open view/Plain view (smell)

Protective sweep
Inventory
Stop & Frisk (Terry)
Search incident to arrest

[Jim Simmons]

Scoop: That's a pretty cool neumonic to remember the exceptions. And it covers the exceptions to the probable cause requirement for vehicle search AND the exceptions to the Miranda rule. I'll have to memorize that one.

And Toxie: what I meant by

And, like much involving the legal duties of LEOs, there's no penalty if LEO violates the law.

is that if LEO violates the statutory rights of others in the ordinary course of their duties, there is no penalty and they are shielded by governmental immunity from liability.

Example: The search warrant statute requires (actually, required until last year's amendments) that the affidavit be provided with the warrant and return to the person who's abode was to be searched. Some departments didn't provide it. After the Court of Appeals said that failure to provide the affidavit does not result in suppression of the fruits or other penalty, every department wrote it into their procedures, even though the statute still required it. Same with the "knock-and-announce" statute. And so on and so on.

The 17 officers you refer to went further than that. They committed criminal acts on others, and they are getting what they richly deserve.

[Toxie]

is that if LEO violates the statutory rights of others in the ordinary course of their duties, there is no penalty and they are shielded by governmental immunity from liability.

Hmm, wasn't me. Maybe you have me N' Scoop confused. I agree that its a cool way to remember it though :)

[bluethunder]

C'mon,Toxie,I gotta hear this one.PM me,if you prefer, as not to take up board-space.

PM sent :)

:?: Well.............................. I haven't got it,yet. Please try again.