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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

I'd be more fearful of someone like you who would stand on top of a building with your gun and exact your own kind of justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yep, a little overboard. But this is not!!!

On the contrary, an honest man with a gun is much safer that a policemen with a gun. LEO's shot approximately 30 times more innocents citizens annually that private citizens do who CCW, RTC. ie Concealed Carry. Over five million citizens have permits to carry guns.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here is some more.

HISTORY FORGOTTEN
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is worth remembering, because it is true. It's familiar
territory, but those of you that graduated from school after the early 60's
were probably never taught this. Our courts have seen to that!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of
Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians?
> > > >>> That they all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God
of scripture, and His personal intervention.

It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society,
immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence. The Continental
Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000
> > > >>> copies of Scripture for the people of this nation.

> > > >>> Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American
Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me
death"; but in current textbooks, the full context of these words is
omitted. Here is what he actually said: "An appeal to arms and the God of
hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There
is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations.The battle, sir,
is not to the strong alone. 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."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> These sentences have been erased from our textbooks. Was Patrick
Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this: "It cannot be
emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not
by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been
afforded freedom of worship here."
> > > >>>
In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of
the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all
schools."

> > > >>> Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the front of
his well-worn Bible: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of
the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon
be rallied to the unity of our creator." He was also the chairman of the
American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important
role.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the
American Revolution was this: "It connected in one indissoluble bond the
principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States
reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our
government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be
difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be
practically universal in our country."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader,
which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125
million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963.
President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."
> > > >>> Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is
the religion of our country. From it are derived our nation, on the
character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its
doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free Institutions. From no
source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred
Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apology."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were
distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in
1636.. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule Number 1 was that
students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study
the Scriptures: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly
pressed to consider well, that the main end of his life and studies, is, to
know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore
to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the
moral principles of the Ten Commandments."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the
United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of all our
political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern
ourselves according to the moral principles of theTen Commandments."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Today, we are asking God to Bless America. But, how can He Bless
a Nation that has departed so far from Him? Prior to September 11, He was
not welcome in America. Most of what you read in this article has been
erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove
the truth about our country's Christian roots.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You are encouraged to share with others, so that the truth of our
nation's history will be told.

> > > >>> This information shared is only a drop of cement to help secure a
foundation that is crumbling daily in a losing war that most of the country
doesn't even know is raging on, in, and around them...
> > > >>>

"Oh I see....if a crime is not witnessed by a cop, then a crime didn't happen. Does that mean everytime a bank gets robbed and a cop doesn't see it with his/her own eyes, then it never really happened.....is that what you are trying to say?"

No. And don't try to put words into my mouth.

I said that:

A) A 'domestic disturbance' isn't necessarily a crime. I can yell and scream at my wife and it is certainly a disturbance, but it isn't a crime and all the cop can do is ask me (or tell me) to keep it down.

And B) Some things must indeed be witnessed by the cop for him to take action. Otherwise, he can't do anything until a complaint if filed in front of a judge (or magistrate, depending on your local system) or it can be handled as a civil matter.

If you tell a cop that you saw me run a red light, it doesn't mean a thing and he can't even pull me over to ask about it. He must witness it.

I have seen and been involved in 'domestics' that have got out of hand (helping to quell the dispute). I also know that how you handle people has a large impact on how they react. Cops have a tough job, but sometimes they just make it tougher for themselves. And sometimes you just run into the bad cop.

So what you are saying is that we should not have cops at all? Fine....don't call them if you need help. Fix your own problems and if you get beat up or shot or knifed again.....I'm sure you can handle it yourself.....but if you do decide to call the cops.....I don't know if they can help you because they won't have seen the crime committed with their own eyes and thus, no crime was committed!

My hubby's got a few years to go and then he retires....thank God. I can't stand the fact that people like you would wish him harm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tell your story to the restraining order that failed, to the handicap who was killed, to the elderly who who are robbed of their SS.

We need every honest law abiding LEO who will follow will honor the constitition and bill of rights while they handle their duty. We have a group of people in this country that belive that another law will fix the problem, another police officer will prevent xyz, another right controlled or removed will make us safer.

The problem is much deeper than your husband high quality service.

I mentioned earlier that your hubby was probably one of the good LEO's. did you see it.

But according to you....their are no honest LEO's. According to you, cops abuse the system and people don't have to tolerate them.

Their are good cops....my hubby is one of them. I'm going to see situations differently than you because of my hubby. It doesn't make me a bad person and it doesn't make my hubby a bad person. He tells me what he has to deal with all of the time and when I see people like you putting LEO's down, I can't help but jump to their defense.

Cops attitudes today are totally different than years ago. They know their rear's are on the line all of the time and it's not just from the criminal either. It's from average citizens who can walk right into a police department and accuse a LEO of a crime....the cop is then put on suspension until the matter is settled. I've seen it happen and the one time I did see it happen, the average citizen made a false accusation and it was proven. This citizen didn't have to pay for her crime against the cop and the cop was supposed to just go back to work as if nothing ever happened. Go to your local police department, ask to ride around with a cop for a few hours a night for a week. I guarantee you will see things totally different.

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.