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."

[Proud_texan]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't make that assumption and if the cop had he should have said, when asked, "I want to see your ID because you were just driving". Instead he gave that "I'm investigating" junk (I might have it wrong, but that's my memory but it didn't have anything to do with driving).

But I suspect that the civilian was lucky he didn't get charged with interfering with a government employee conducting an investigation (don't laugh, it's a law in some states).

[bc2]

don't start with drummer jokes or someone is likely to come by and start giving us bass players some crap!



"I miss my drummer (but my aim is improving!)"

ahahahhaaha....

[Proud_texan]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't make that assumption and if the cop had he should have said, when asked, "I want to see your ID because you were just driving". Instead he gave that "I'm investigating" line (I might have it wrong, but that's my memory but it didn't have anything to do with driving).

But I suspect that the civilian was lucky he didn't get charged with interfering with a government employee conducting an investigation (don't laugh, it's a law in some states).

[eno_]

Horsehockey! You've been reading too many conspiracy theory sites. Quoting the Constitution will not get you arrested and questioned in any jurisdiction.

These are direct quotes from an FBI pamphlet on the sign you might be a terrorist:

Request authority for a stop

Refuse to identify themsleves

make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution

Claim driving is a right not a priviledge

Attempt to "police the police"

[Labyrinthos]

But I suspect that the civilian was lucky he didn't get charged with interfering with a government employee conducting an investigation (don't laugh, it's a law in some states).

Interfering requires some act of interference like giving a false name or ID or knowingly sending the investigator on a wild goose chase. Remaining silent is not interference in the the absence of a subpeana to compel a response.

[tpaine]

Asking for identification is in no way "unreasonable" when a cop has been called to a potential crime scene.
-156-


______________________________________



Good grief justi, read the links, - the recorded words of the principles make quite clear that this was not a "potential crime scene"..

--And the cops knew that from the get go. -- They overeacted..

[Proud_texan]

Thanks, I did not know that but I have heard of people being arrested using that law for not providing identification.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
(Citizen Carry)? What's this tagline mean?


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

RTC CCW same as CC

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

These cops did not pull this guy over and they did not just happen upon the scene. A phone call came in to the police department reporting a domestic disturbance....

These cops came upon a pickup truck on the side of a road in a public place. There could be no 'domestic disturbance'. Upon getting out of his car and seeing NO disturbance, all this cop had to do or had the right to do was to ask both parties if everything was alright. He didn't. He asked for ID and that was all he asked for. He was wrong from the gitgo.

The guy did not want to cooperate and he was given chance after chance to comply.

You don't seem to understand. The gentleman was under no compunction or requirement to cooperate with the officer's request for him to produce identification. That is the issue here. The cop has the right to ask but the citizen is NOT required to comply. Because the officer kept asking repeatedly is what caused the problem here.

Upon receiving his 'no', the officer should have taken another course to proceed with his 'investigation'. He had plenty of choices.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

didn't note any advocacy of violence against honestr cops, only those who by committing felonies, are nothing more than criminals hiding behind badges. And I wonder why an honest citizen might try to help the dirty ones blend in with the remaining good ones, since aiding and abetting a felon is also a felony.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My people in this country values and principles go way back to the founding fathers. The original ten commandments was good enough. The constitution and the Bill of rights is good enough. Now we have ten of thousands of statues on the books some designed to turn honest citizens into felons.

One of the founding father speaks.

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! " Patrick Henry, 1736-1799

Do you remember your history. I guess not.

The tyrant’s pattern: Demonize privately owned firearms and their owners; regulate same; ban same; confiscate same; consolidate power; eliminate opposition; impose genocide; hand pick judges who rubber stamp hideous, horrific oppression; convert the brain of anyone who opposes the tyrant into a pink mist.

The glue that holds the Bill of Rights together has let go. Too many love their luxury and their plastic and their hair spray and Monday night football. Too many do not even know the difference between a right and permission. Too many think the proper norm is being required to get Government’s permission.

Remember, the Constitution gives you the right to be a moron, and millions of exercise that right all the time.

Rogue Government: In the past century, over 100 million people were killed by their own governments. Some people will say it could never happen here - but those same people probably thought that we'd never see a terrorist attack wipe out 3,000 people in one day... but it already has. How long before the very voice of dissent becomes a mark of "anti-patriotism"? Some might convincingly argue that it already has. How long then, before our own government begins to arrest and confine citizens without charges, without access to legal representation, for weeks, months, even years at a time? In case you haven't read the news, it already has. And though the courts have ordered the government to respect the Constitutional rights of the Americans so detained, the Federal Government has so far ignored the courts. How long before the government uses weapons to brutally murder American citizens? It already has...

I could go on but you are probabbly overloaded by now.

chicagofarmer

[CHICAGOFARMER]

self flagging bump . This will be interesting

xxxxxxxxxxx

yes it will.

Join the discussion with some of these little boys and little girls.

[MEG33]

Driving is a privilege.You have now confirmed what I already concluded.

[StriperSniper]

Freedom begins with saying 'no'

That jumped out at me as possible tagline material. :)

[CHICAGOFARMER]

I hope you feel better soon.I think what the officer did was legal.You may say unnecessary,unwise,but not illegal.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

thanks MEG33 for your concern.

But I will stand my ground.

See post 190

[Arpege92]

"These cops came upon a pickup truck on the side of the road in a public place."

Wrong, they were dispatched to go and investigate a domestic disturbance....big difference.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

"Question. When our troops servce in foriegn countries, why are our troops their? Can you answer this quesiton? "

Well, let's see if I can understand your question, regardless of it's spelling. You're asking my why our troops serve in foreign countries, right?

Well, there are a lot of reasons, actually, depending on the particular situation, where they serve, etc. Sometimes, they're there to prevent an invading force from coming to the USA. Sometimes there are other reasons.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sometimes I forget to use spell check. you see I am a old wise man who seen a lot, and I remember my history my uncles who landed at Omaha and fought to Berlin told me. Also my fingers are fat and crooked, and been broken, the steel company i owned.

Here is the answer to the question. Q You're asking my why our troops serve in foreign countries, right?

For the last 100 years our boys, men and women have served in foreign nations because those governments were crooked and took over the people rights. The same rights we are losing. Name one country we have fought in the last 100 years that was not a dictatorship?

So you see. What we you should be fighting for young man, is the rights of freedom without government domination. Rights are like muscles, if you don't excerise them you lose them. I afraid you have lost the fight because you don't know what the bills of rights stand for.

Thousands of guns statues are disarming the honest citizens. A Russian general said we could defeat your military in a first strike in the cold war, but we could not defeat the American people, because their was a rifle behind each blade of grass. Now little boy what do you think that means. And I do not insult you because I called you a little boy only that you do not have a lot of exerience.

Perhaps this picture will jog your history.

First Million Mom March

[CHICAGOFARMER]

regardless of it's spelling"

Should be:

regardless of its spelling

I make typos sometimes, too.
xxxxx

see post 196

thanks

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Is that the kind of country that we want to live in?

Citizen, show me your papers.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You will enjoy this.

Are You a Democrat, Republican or a Texan? Take this quick test.

Posted on 02/13/2004 5:14:28 PM CST

Are You a Democrat, Republican or Texan?

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges.

You're carrying a Smith & Wesson revolver and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question. Does the man look poor or oppressed? What drove him to the level of desperation he feels now, driving him to FEEL that he has to take from others to make himself FEEL better? What might I have done that ever OFFENDED him? Could I apologize to him first, for ever having done something that might have ever offended him, to first see if that appeases him? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack or make him feel VICTIMIZED? What kind of childhood did he have? Was he an underprivileged child, having less than the rest of the kids growing up, his age, had? Could we have created some PROGRAM that would have made him FEEL; more included as a member of society, so that he would not FEEL as though this is his only answer? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What do the Muslims think? What does the WORLD COMMUNITY think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? Could I just CARRY the gun without any bullets, and just show it to him, so that he would know that I have one, but not subject my family to the circumstances involved in really carrying a LOADED weapon? Could I just TELL him that I have a gun, and hope that he understands, and changes his mind? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun in the first place, and what kind of message does this send to society and my children and the Muslim community? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If he were to kill just me, or just one of my children, would tha! t be eno ugh to make him FEEL better? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me to death? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends and the World Community for a few years to try to come up with a PROGRAM to deal with these issues. Maybe we need to consult the Australians, about how well their NO GUNS policy has helped to keep the guns out of the hands of their criminals, who we all know followed their law, that required them to turn in all of their guns? I know... let's talk to Mr. and Mrs. Brady, to see what they think we could do. After all, Mr. Brady is doing better since he took the bullet for President Reagan, and I know he FEELS better now that his assailant, John Hinkley, is going to be able to have unsupervised, overnight visits with his family now. This must make Mr. Hinkley FEEL better now, and MUCH less of a VICTIM. Maybe Mrs. Brady has some good ideas. After all, her husband isn't a COMPLETE vegetable. I know, let's just follow her lead, and outlaw ALL guns... INCLUDING those carried by the Police (and the Secret Service), because after all, they only make the downtrodden FEEL more UNCOMFORTABLE and victimized by knowing we have them to protect ourselves. Yea. That's it. The Brits and the Australians have it. Just completely do away with all weapons. That way, when the man with the huge knife (or whatever) comes around the corner, with me and my family in his sights, he won't feel so much like a VICTIM that he feels he has to raise his knife and rob (and/or kill) me and my family. Better yet, he won't be carrying the knife now, because he knows that all weapons have been outlawed, and he doesn't want to break the law. And now, he will KNOW that I don't have a weapon, and he will be far more understanding now that I am TOTALLY defenseless, and he will just use his better judgment, and come to the decision that it just wouldn't be right to rob! or kill an unarmed citizen and his family, and will just choose to pass us on by. Yea... that's it.

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! ... click click click...

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Arch, I share your concern about LEO's operating outside of their mandate. I condemn this strongly. My comments were directed to the conclusions some were drawing from this video(if they actually watched it), i.e. that the man wwas drunk - no evidence of this shown; derisive comments about the daughter - completely unneccessary; shooting people from the roofs - just stupid.

xxxxxxxxxxx

Actually my comment from the rooftop was to engage conversation. I am to law abiding to do otherwise.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

"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."
Bill Scannell needs to be updated somewhat.

We already have a national ID card and it has been used as such for at least the last 30 years, perhaps longer - the Social Security Card. It is used for all bank accounts (illegally), the credit bureaus (illegally), the military serial number (illegally), and most all licenses after the democRATs, under the leadership of Clinton passed the infamous "Deadbeat Dads" bill.

All these areas are wide open to hackers who want to steal our identy and cause us all sorts of trou

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You understand.