Court debates police right to demand ID

AJC.COM ^ | 3-22-04 | By GINA HOLLAND

[Technoman]

WASHINGTON -- Do you have to tell the police your name? Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the answer could be the difference between arrest and freedom.

The justices heard argument Monday in a first-of-its kind case that asks whether people can be punished for refusing to identify themselves.

The court took up the appeal of a Nevada cattle rancher who was arrested after he told a deputy he had done nothing wrong and didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road four years ago.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, 59, was prosecuted based on his silence and finds himself at the center of a privacy rights battle. "I would do it all over again," Hiibel, dressed in cowboy hat and boots, said outside the court. "That's one of our fundamental rights as American citizens, to remain silent."

The case will clarify police powers in the post-Sept. 11 era, determining whether officials can demand to see ID whenever they deem it necessary.

Nevada Senior Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen told justices that "identifying yourself is a neutral act" that helps police in their investigations and doesn't — by itself — incriminate anyone.

If that is allowed, several justices asked, what will be next? A fingerprint? Phone number? E-mail address? How about a national ID card?

At the heart of the case is an intersection of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches, and the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Hiibel claims both of those rights were violated.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said if Hiibel loses, the government will be free to use its extensive databases to keep tabs on people.

"A name is now no longer a simple identifier; it is the key to a vast, cross-referenced system of public and private databases, which lay bare the most intimate features of an individual's life," Rotenberg told the court in a filing.

[Technoman]

For the most part, police officers in the United States act in a professional manor. However, with more laws on the books that make each and every citizen a law breaker the minute they step out the door, we must realize that there will be some in this profession who will abuse their authority. If the justices--as in the past--trash the Constitution in favor of allowing law enforcement to force all to show identification upon request, I am in favor of mass sting operations against the lawmen who will most assuredly abuse this new power.

The Complaint Center, a non profit organization headed by Diop Kamau, uncovers overzealous cops with a hidden camera. He has angered pro-law enforcement bureaucracies all over America, including former LA Police Chief Daryl Gates--home of the Rampart Division--who referred to Kamau as a "jerk" by putting his good officer's 'high integrity' on the line.

[coloradan]

This will be henceforth known as the Citizen!! Your Papers Please!! decision, if the court rules in favor of the police.

[End Times Sentinel]

Interesting topic.  The article doesn't say, but was Hiibel driving at the time?  If so, then yes, he should have to produce a Driver's License.

Beyond that, I suppose I favor the producing of ID to be a neutral act.  Certainly the added safety of getting perps off the streets outweighs the minor inconvenience of identifying ones self.  Although I can see where it could lead to retinal scans on street corners, this seems a long way from it.

Owl_Eagle

" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"

[agitator]

[freeeee]

Certainly the added safety of getting perps off the streets outweighs the minor inconvenience of identifying ones self.

There is no such balancing test in the Constitution, and when courts refer to such they are engaging in judicial activism.

[azhenfud]

The asinine part is the USSC will prolly agree. We'll have to prove we're documented citizens while it's unlawful for police to ask for ID from undocumented Illegaliens.

This is really messed up. < wagging my head >

[Sacajaweau]

No, he wasn't driving at the time. He was standing at a street corner or something like that. He was not doing anything wrong. The cops should lose this case IMHO.

[Bikers4Bush]

He was not driving. He was standing next to his truck on the side of the road.

[Congressman Billybob]

Hibel was not driving at the time. He was outside his truck and on foot. However, the police were responding to a report of "a man attacking a woman in a truck." Apparently, his wife was still inside the truck.

No charges of assault on his wife were ever lodged; however, I know from long experience in domestic relations court that about half the time the spouse IS assaulted, but refuses to bring any charges. In those circumstances, unless the police see obvious injuries on the spouse, consistent with an assault, no charges are brought. (The police DO have the power to bring charges even if the spouse backs out.)

Hope that information is useful.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

[staytrue]

I think the police should be able to ask for ID, if they have probable cause.

That is if you are speeding, the police need to know who to write the ticket to.

If you are doing nothing, then the police should not be able to ask for ID, just because they feel like it.

Of course, there will be a grey area in what defines "probable cause".

[GrandEagle]

We absolutely can not allow unlimited powers to law enforcement.
As with anything it is a trade off. We could almost eliminate crime if we required permits to exit you own home; issued only for necessary things, and shot on sight anyone who violated this law. Problem is, I’m not willing to give up what I would have to give up in order to eliminate crime.

While most law enforcement officers are responsible, sensible, and professional we can not give them bad laws and then just depend on their good graces not to abuse them. Another thing to remember is that most are responsible, sensible, and professional because in general they are LOCAL and have to live in the communities that they police. This is becoming less and less the norm as the federal government assumes more and more of what should be local law enforcement.

[Still Thinking]

For the most part, police officers in the United States act in a professional manor.

Is that anything like a whorehouse? ;-)

[Lurking Libertarian]

The article doesn't say, but was Hiibel driving at the time? If so, then yes, he should have to produce a Driver's License.

The Supreme Court has previously held that a driver must produce a driver's license if requested. In this case, Hiibel was standing next to a parked truck when the police got there. It was (IIRC) disputed whether he or his daughter had been the one driving.

[Mr. Bird]

Reducto ad absurdum, right? If the state is entitled to your identity on a random basis, then the state could theoretically require you to identify yourself 24 hours/day.

The state could say that while it has no compelling interest at any given time of day, the need to identify individuals exists. And because it is not feasible to place a state official at every corner, in every hallway, in every field, it should be understood that individuals must adhere to some sort of universal identification system, tracked via GPS or some other neat technology.

On its face, it's ludicrous. That's what scares me.

[freeeee]

I think the police should be able to ask for ID

They can whatever they like, even what your favorite color is. The issue is whether or not the law compells you to obey an order to identify yourself, and under what conditions that order can be given.

Free countries by definition do not send armed agents of the state to detain and demand papers from people who lack concrete individualized suspicion of a crime (known as probable cause).

[VadeRetro]

"Go ahead! My papers are in order!"

-- Joseph Cotten to Trevor Howard in The Third Man.

[ChadsDad]

Highway patrol pulls over a pickup outside Hickory, NC on I-40.

Officer approaches window and asks the driver "You got any ID?"

Good ol boy replies "...'bout what?"

[Blood of Tyrants]

if Hiibel loses, the government will be free to use its extensive databases to keep tabs on people.

You mean they don't already?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Meanwhile in many states it is ILLEGAL to ask a person to provide identity for him/herself when they go to vote.

[Old Professer]

Daughter, not wife.