4th & 5th Amendment -- Citizen refusal to produce ID --- heard by U.S. Supreme Court "video"

Public Defender of Wyoming ^ | 2.17.2004 | Bill Scannell

[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."

[af_vet_rr]

That was chilling. If I had to use one word, that would be it - chilling.

I spent a little time in eastern Europe before the Soviet Union fell, and while the group I was with was escorted by other military officers, a few times we saw ordinary citizens stopped by the police or whoever and had to show ID and answer any and all questions. My German was not very good and so I have no idea what was said, but another freeper posted about living over there for a short time, as a civilian, and that was the first thing that popped into my mind.

[AppyPappy]

The cop was very nice to the guy. The guy appeared intoxicated and belligerant. If the cop had driven off without doing anything and they guy killed the girl, these same people would be crowing about the stupidity of the cop.

The police were responding to a call. Of course they want to know who is involved.

[archy]

You're comparing this incident with the Rodney King incident? You're going to have to do better than that, because these cops DID NOT beat these people.

But charged them with *resisting arrest* to justify their own actions, just as the 21 cops who beat King charged him for attacking their flashlights with his face.

[AppyPappy]

apparantly trying to coerce the testimony they wanted from her

BS. Try again, Clinton.

[AppyPappy]

RK attacked the police. That's why they started beating him. The guys in the car testified to that.

[Arpege92]

"When you have the need to know, you'll be provided with a free ride."

Oh, so you are going to deny me my rights to know where these so called "camps" are huh? These camps don't exist and your argument is stupid!

[Constantine XIII]

That kind of nonsense isn't what we are about, here. :/

The fact that you can say such things and not be grabbed up by the JBT's means that the system, such as it is, is still servicable.

[af_vet_rr]

They asked for his ID, because there had been a report of a domestic disturbance.

Rather than do the proper thing and talk to the victim, or even find out if there was a victim or a disturbance.

[archy]

I spent a little time in eastern Europe before the Soviet Union fell, and while the group I was with was escorted by other military officers, a few times we saw ordinary citizens stopped by the police or whoever and had to show ID and answer any and all questions. My German was not very good and so I have no idea what was said, but another freeper posted about living over there for a short time, as a civilian, and that was the first thing that popped into my mind.

Not to worry. You'll soon be able to tell stories about how you saw things like that in this country before it fell.

[Eaker]

Ping to find at home......

[PLMerite]

IMHO, Rodney King should have been shot the first time he raised a hand to one of those cops. The fact that he'll live long enough to get himself killed some other way is proof of how gingerly he got treated that night.

[Arpege92]

Things are different now. Blaming the cops for trying to do their jobs isn't right. My hubby who is a LEO watched this video and he agree's with me....these cops did absolutely nothing wrong. They were called to investigate a domestic disturbance and by law, they are supposed to find out what exactly happened and that includes getting some ID information on the subjects. They are held responsible if this investigation is not done correctly!

[MineralMan]

"And I am indeed one of those sworn to work from rooftops, or the gunner's seat of an Abrams tank, or on foot with a bayonet if necessary, to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Including that cop, who by perjuring his own oath to the constitution and trying to frame Hiibel's daughter, became a felon himself, and by hiding behind his badge, became an enemy of the constitution."

In case you hadn't noticed, this case is in the process of being subjected to our Constitutional process. It is not, nor has it ever been, your job to take such cases to the rooftops. We have a system in place, that you swore to protect, and that system includes the "due process of law."

Since this case is up before the Supreme Court, it appears that the "due process of law" is taking its course.

I took that same oath, and recognize the justice system as part of our Constitutional protections. Do they always get it right? Nope. But....it's part of the Constitution I vowed to protect.

Bottom line: If it comes down to choosing between our law enforcement process, including the cops and the courts, and some guy on a rooftop, I'll be on the side opposing you on the roof.

You'll lose that battle, archy. I guarantee it.

You swore to protect the Constitution, and that very Constitution provides for a system of justice. Let it play out, OK.

[Labyrinthos]

The dickless worm didn't mind fighting with his daughter. Of course properly raised males were taught never to hit women by their mothers.

Read the article:

Dudley Hiibel was charged with Domestic Battery, Battery, Acts Which Constitute Domestic Violence, and Obstructing/Delaying A Peace Officer. As there was no battery or domestic violence involved, the only charge that was left was Delaying A Peace Officer.

Where's the evidence that he hit his spoiled princess of a daughter who apparently was showing no respect whatsoever to her father?

[Arpege92]

watch the video again....this cop was very interested in keeping the peace. He gave this guy every opportunity to comply with his requests and this guy didn't!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Gee what an incredible response. So moving, so filled with horsecrap. As though socialism has anything to do with supporting law enforcement rather than JUST THE OPPOSITE. One of the first things socialist what to do is UNDERMINE law enforcement. Particularly by supporting scumbags conflicts with the law.

So your family had patriots in it? What happened to you? YOU have given me NO liberties and supporting the criminally inclined or just nuts certainly doesn't protect any I have left.

Who cares what Whitman's excuse was? You would be whining about how the police didn't give him proper respect or that they put too many bullets in him.

Funny but I never saw YOU at any of the rallies FR has had in Chicago. Were you cowering behind your door fondling your rifle while we were in the streets supporting the President?

Blowhards are good for little other than inflating balloons.

[Arpege92]

He refused to cooperate with the police officer. It's not that difficult to understand! I'm not trying to be mean here but this guy had made up his mind as soon as the cops showed up that he was not going to cooperate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Lover of Morons was falsely claiming that police used to be so much gentler and understanding with Whackjobs and nutcases. I merely pointed out the falsity of that claim.

CPD's reputation for nastiness is greatly exaggerated nowdays hence apparently you know as little about it as he.

[MineralMan]

"Rather than do the proper thing and talk to the victim, or even find out if there was a victim or a disturbance."

Actually, there was, apparently, a report of a domestic dispute between this yoyo and his daughter. The first responsibility of the responding office in such a situation is to secure the scene for his own safety. Once that is done, the victim is next. That just makes sense.

In any case, I have not said that the cops here were right. My objection is the kneejerk reaction about taking it to the rooftops that I saw. Those messages #12 and #16 have been removed from the thread, but they're quoted elsewhere.

Cops do the wrong thing sometimes, no question. Here, we have a nice videotape from the camera in the police car as evidence. It's a matter for the courts, not a matter for a bunch of yahoos on rooftops.

[Arpege92]

"I predict that the Supreme Court will rule the stop as they have for DUI tests."

This guy wasn't pulled over....the cops were told to investigate a domestic disturbance on the side of a road!