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."
With MATRIX, they will.
Did anyone suggest that?
Here are some actual suggestions:
1. Let's have fewer cops per-capita than Communist Police State China. That would mean about half what we have now.
2. Let's have many fewer laws, and until we have many fewer laws, let's turn those laws on the narcs and functionaries that make their living by them, and their families.
3. Let's fire all the PDs, wholesale, that cannot bring their crime solution rates for violent and serious property crime up to acceptable levels.
4. Let's implement psychological testing and strict background screening for cops so we get only the ones that love the Constitution first, and not their own egos.
There is no a priori reason the cops and the DMV must have such bureacratic supremacy. Insurance could be conditional on passing driving school, and private registries could hold driver information and turn it over to police only when presented with a warrant. The whole thing could be a lot more private than it is, and be safer, less expensive, and more competently administered.
The next time a sanctimonious ticket-writing psuedo-tax collector-cum-cop spouts off with "driving is a priviledge not a right" he's due a hearty "F--- off and show me where in the Constitution it says so."
But, according to the FBI, that would make you a terrorist.
"We have recourse in this country against bad cops"
Amadou Diallo doesn't. And he was trying to provide his papers, too.
"an ID or drivers' license request seems appropriate to me in the particular circumstances."
The officer's approach is what escalated the situation into an arrest. If the officer had calmly inquired as to whether or not there was a problem -- asking both people -- he'd probably have gotten back in his car after suggesting that the father/daughter team go home and make a fresh batch of lemonade.
"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."
The officer demanded that he cooperate with an order the officer has no authority to enforce. You are not required to produce identification. How could that be a requirement, when you're not required to even carry identification? "It's not that difficult to understand."
"Asking for identification in perfectly legitimate and more important now than ever given the presence of terrorists and terrorist supporters in this country."
Asking is one thing. Cuffing a person who refuses to provide an ID is another.
"Driving is a privilege."
So is breathing -- when your erroneous belief is carried to its logical conclusion and enforced by government.
The right to travel freely pre-exists the first arrival of white people on this continent. It is innate. Your are born with a right to move around in public. Today, the modern mode of transportation is an automobile. 200 years ago, it was a horse or a horse-drawn carriage. In 200 years, if we don't implode and go back to the stone ages, it will be flying vehicles.
Do you actually believe, for one second, that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry -- among many, many others -- would have accepted a "horse drawn carriage license"? Of course they wouldn't have. If King George of 1776 had demanded them, their banishment would be mentioned in the Founding documents -- because licensing something so basic is utterly repugnant to a free society.
Are you going to tell us that the advancement of technology means licenses do not violate basic human rights? If so, where would you like your GPS-trackable bio-chip installed? Please come to your local police station to register your DNA, retina and have your chip installed.
"He just didn't submit and that drives cops crazy."
Indeed. That sums up this entire thread and issue perfectly.
If you cannot decline an invasive attempt to take something from you to which the taker is not entitled, you most definitely lack freedom in that area.
Can you find any language, in any constitution, federal or state, that says anything about what happens the "minute you get on a public road?"
If not, why isn't travel on those roads part of what the RoR refers to as unenumerated rights?
They did NOT drag her out of the truck!
He WAS belligerent AND disorderly.
Perhaps you should watch the video. The guy started to walk into the street and the cop properly tried to escort him back. Then the guy started becoming an a$$.
One cannot expect all cops to be equipped with brains, and recent history shows the opposite.
The cop is the guy with the gun and there is enough evidence that one should not push these cowboys.
The city and the courts will protect them to the fullest, including not giving up "discovery" as required by law.
We have twice as many police per capita as Red Communist Chairman Mao's Long March Cultural Revolution Police State China AND we have ludicously low solution rates for robbery, theft, burglary, and violent crime. So yes, we need fewer cops that spend substantially all their time actually finding and arresting criminals. And we ought to fire all of them that can't get their solution rates up. Just like we fire incompetent salespeople and programmers and anyone else who can't produce enough. What is so hard about that idea?
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.