Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4th & 5th Amendment -- Citizen refusal to produce ID --- heard by U.S. Supreme Court "video"
Public Defender of Wyoming ^ | 2.17.2004 | Bill Scannell

Posted on 02/18/2004 10:55:20 AM PST by CHICAGOFARMER

Fourth and Fifth Amendment -- Citizen refusal to produce ID --- heard by U.S. Supreme Court March 22.

Dudley Hiibel's case before the U.S. Supreme Court - if lost - will profoundly change our nation for the worse. What's at stake is our right to live out our lives without fear of the government using the pretext of a demand for I.D. as a justification to violate our Constitutional rights.

Full case here

Full Case here. Call Attorney and give support

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html

Watch the video here. Unreal video. 9.4 mb

Video of Officer arrest. Sick.

http://www.abditum.com/hiibel/no_id_arrest_SMALL.mov

We've all seen WW II-era movies where the man in the hat and leather trench coat walks up to someone and demands 'the papers'. A Supreme Court ruling against Dudley Hiibel means this scene from a bad movie becoming a daily reality for Dudley and his 280-odd million fellow American citizens.

Stripped of all the legal jargon, the nine black-robed justices of the Supreme Court need to decide the following Constitutional question.

'Reasonable Suspicion'

When a policeman answers a complaint or sees something amiss, the officer has what is called 'Reasonable Suspicion'. Reasonable Suspicion isn't just a hunch or a sixth-sense kind of thing. There must be a real, clear-cut reason that the cop can tell in court before he can question you. Reasonable Suspicion gives that policeman the legal right to go and ask questions to determine if something really is wrong.

For example, Officer Friendly is walking his beat and sees someone lurking behind an alleyway trash can at 3am. This being odd, he has Reasonable Suspicion that that someone in that alleyway may be up to no good and therefore has the legal right to ask that individual questions and find out what they're up to. This asking of questions is called a 'Terry Stop', so-named after an earlier Supreme Court case involving a man named Terry.

The 'Terry Stop'

Officer Friendly, during a Terry Stop, will ask questions of the citizen in order to determine whether there is 'Probable Cause' for an arrest. 'Probable Cause' means that the officer has determined that the citizen probably has committed a crime and therefore should be arrested. During a Terry Stop, the officer - if he feels threatened - is also allowed to pat down the citizen to make sure the citizen has no weapons on him. This patdown is done for the officer's safety so that he can investigate to see if there is 'Probable Cause' to arrest the citizen without fear of the citizen harming the officer. Reasonable Suspicion is not enough to arrest: the officer must have Probable Cause.

From 'Reasonable Suspicion' to 'Probable Cause'

In Dudley Hiibel's case, Deputy Dove was sent out to investigate a domestic disturbance call. Clearly he had 'Reasonable Suspicion' to investigate the situation. But how did he investigate the call once on the scene? All he did was repeatedly demand Dudley Hiibel produce his ID.

Did he talk to Mimi, the supposed victim? No.

Did he check to see if she was injured? No.

I an investigating an investigation.

Did he feel threatened? No.

All Dove did was repeat his demand to Dudley for 'the papers'. Dudley could have no possible idea that someone reported a domestic disturbance. All Dudley knew was that one minute he was smoking a cigarette and the next minute there was a man with a badge demanding he show his ID. Deputy Dove arrested Dudley because he believed Dudley's refusal to show ID was 'Probable Cause' for an arrest.

Freedom begins with saying 'no', and for saying just that, Dudley Hiibel spent the night in jail and got fined 250 dollars.

Is Refusal to Show ID 'Probable Cause'?

This is the crux of the issue before the Supreme Court. Dudley Hiibel believes it isn't because of that pesky old Bill of Rights. Let's review a couple of those rights, shall we?

The Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In other words, Dudley Hiibel was unreasonably searched and seized because he refused to show his ID. The argument that not showing ID makes for 'Probable Cause' is not only laughable, but clearly un-Constitutional. In addition, the mandatory showing of ID is nothing less than compulsory self-incrimination, which also flies in the face of the Bill of Rights. Safety

In this post-9/11, War on Terrorism America of ours, there are those who want us to sacrifice our liberty for safety. One of the arguments made in favor of refusing to show 'the papers' an arrest-able offence is that the police need to know who they are dealing with when they are conducting an investigation. Although this sounds reasonable so long as you don't think about it too hard, showing one's ID on demand to the police is something that is ripe for abuse.

Do we want to live in a society where the police are conducting background checks whenever a citizen is merely suspected of possibly doing something wrong?

What else does a police officer need to know in order to feel safe while he asks you questions? Your medical history? Perhaps a DNA sample would be in order. Home ownership status? Your tax records?

Clearly what your ID says (assuming you have one) has no bearing on a Terry Stop. We have no National ID Card and therefore the idea that we're supposed to have any 'papers' to show in the first place is un-American. The police already have the power to pat down someone who is Terry Stopped if they feel threatened... what else do they possibly need to know in order to conduct a Terry Stop? The Terry Stop is not supposed to be a fishing expedition, but a legal way for the police to see if there is anything worth investigating to start with.

A policeman's seeing one's ID isn't making anyone any safer. It is however an invasive search of one's person that violates the very heart of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

If we allow demagogues to change the very nature of the way we live so long as they shout '9/11' or 'terrorism' as they strip us of our rights, then we all lose and the bad guys win. As Benjamin Franklin clearly pointed out over two centuries ago, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: billofrights; fifthamendment; fourthamendment; privacy; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-545 next last
To: archy
Wow....all of that in one incident huh? Death to the LEO's for trying very hard to not have to arrest an idiot and his daughter who were fighting on the side of the road. By law, these cops are required to investigate domestic disturbances and if one party is hurt, the other party is arrested even if the hurt party doesn't want to press charges.....IT'S THE LAW!
41 posted on 02/18/2004 12:06:18 PM PST by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
Deputy Dove arrested Dudley because he believed Dudley's refusal to show ID was 'Probable Cause' for an arrest.

Probable cause for arrest on what charge? I'm missing something.

42 posted on 02/18/2004 12:06:21 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Biometrics will make this issue moot.

And anyone who refuses to submit to such procedures can be taken to one of the camps, and gassed or shot.

43 posted on 02/18/2004 12:07:47 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
He was most likely arrested for disorderly conduct. If this man had cooperated with the police officer from the beginning then none of this would have happened.
44 posted on 02/18/2004 12:08:53 PM PST by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
"When all else fails you can always vote from the roof top.
What's that mean?"




It means that the person saying it is perfectly willing for someone else to take up arms and shoot people.
45 posted on 02/18/2004 12:09:39 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: archy
"And anyone who refuses to submit to such procedures can be taken to one of the camps, and gassed or shot."

These camps you speak of....where are they?
46 posted on 02/18/2004 12:10:40 PM PST by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92
Wow....all of that in one incident huh? Death to the LEO's for trying very hard to not have to arrest an idiot and his daughter who were fighting on the side of the road.

Yep. Just like the L.A.P.D. goons jailed for the federal civil rights violations when they tried very hard not to arrest Rodney King when he kept attacking their flashlights and nightsticks with his head and face.

47 posted on 02/18/2004 12:11:17 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
:When all else fails you can always vote from the roof top.

"

I notice that you're saying that others can do this. What about you? It's easy to say that others should do something. Feh!
48 posted on 02/18/2004 12:12:26 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92
If you commit a war crime against an Iraqi soldier in the process of obeying an unlawful order, you can get the firing squad.

I'd propose making civil rights violations under color of authority a capital crime. Much cheaper than settling lawsuits, and probably far more effective. Calling a refusal to show ID "probable cause" is definitely way too stupid to live.

Currently we literally protect enemy soldiers more than we protect our fellow citizens.
49 posted on 02/18/2004 12:12:43 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92
I don't know about the state where this arrest took palce, but the definition of disorderly conduct in my state does not include refusal to produce and ID to a LEO on demand. If the guy is acting belligerent or disorderly in public than the probable cause exists regardless of whether he produces an ID.
50 posted on 02/18/2004 12:12:45 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127
Crim Pro BUMP!
51 posted on 02/18/2004 12:12:56 PM PST by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92
"And anyone who refuses to submit to such procedures can be taken to one of the camps, and gassed or shot."

These camps you speak of....where are they?

When you have the need to know, you'll be provided with a free ride. Now move along, nothing for you to see here.

52 posted on 02/18/2004 12:13:53 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
Sh*t. If ol' Dudley didn't do Mimi any damage during their spat, that asshat cop sure as heck did with that take down. If you watch close, you can see her head bounce when she hits the ground.

Of course, FR's bootlickers are already here as a cheerleading squad so don't expect cogent arguments. Come to think of it, they'll probably get it kicked to the back room as fast as possible.

53 posted on 02/18/2004 12:15:11 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eno_
My daughter would not be hanging around some drunk redneck and she wouldn't be in the truck acting like some psychotic white trash.
54 posted on 02/18/2004 12:18:16 PM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
When all else fails you can always vote from the roof top.
What's that mean?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Firearm owners always have a vote.
55 posted on 02/18/2004 12:19:38 PM PST by CHICAGOFARMER (Citizen Carry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92
Death to the LEO's for trying very hard to not have to arrest an idiot and his daughter who were fighting on the side of the road. By law, these cops are required to investigate domestic disturbances and if one party is hurt, the other party is arrested even if the hurt party doesn't want to press charges.....IT'S THE LAW!

You're not making sense. If the daughter is there and she identifies the person she was fighting with as her father, then why did they need to see his ID? And if the arrest was mandatory in domestic disputes where a party is hurt, then why is the refusal to produce the ID probable cause for an arrest which is apparently required by law?

56 posted on 02/18/2004 12:21:57 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
See, this is where the Mexican illegal alien criminals are way ahead of us. They all have half a dozen fake ID matricula cards, one for traffic stops, one for drug stops, one to collect state benefits, one for medical benefits and so on. Cop asks for ID, you give him one and a whole bunch of johnny-the-dunce answers and he'll soon get frustrated and let you get back to your criminal activity.

Sure, if you are white (or even black), the Mexican consular employees will charge you more to overlook some of the obvious errors in the documents you "rented" in the parking lot, but the extra dollars are well worth it. If you ever spend time in Mexico in the future, you'll be able to claim an additional social security benefit in the name on each of your matricula cards.

You would have shown this card to the cop. He would have seen you were doing nothing but would record your information on his computer before telling you to move on. The computer entry would be part of your proof in Mexico that you were here, working, but your boss wasn't remitting payroll taxes.

57 posted on 02/18/2004 12:22:21 PM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

To: AppyPappy
And you are quite sure nobody would ever dime her out just to teach a jackboot licker like you a lesson? You have absolute faith the cops would do some checking before pulling her over for a drug bust if a CI happened to get paid to misremember something?
59 posted on 02/18/2004 12:23:02 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
When all else fails you can always vote from the roof top.
Ah, the Salon Bolsheviki is more than willing to encourage other people to do that which they themselves do not have the courage of their own convictions to do

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When you are ready to form ranks shoulder to shoulder, Will I see you on the left or the right of my shoulder??

60 posted on 02/18/2004 12:23:05 PM PST by CHICAGOFARMER (Citizen Carry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-545 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson