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."

[cinFLA]

Possible alcohol comsumption is not a crime or infraction.

Let's see. A man is reported to have assaulted a women, his car has been skidded to a stop along side the road, he exibits signs of possible alcohol influence, he ignores the cop, acts in a strange and ranting manner, wildly throws his arms in the air to remove the deputy's hand ....

[CHICAGOFARMER]

You have too be careful time lining out the facts
You mean like those here that have read Mr. H's website and considered it gospel?

xxxxxxxxxxx

The king james bible on your night stand is 2000 plus years old. Be careful about quoting the gospel.

[Robert_Paulson2]

I think to even the moronic here amongst us, it should be rather apparent that politicians and bureaucrats of the socialist bent have a solid contempt for our constitution, for us so-called "civilians" and our liberties.

The problem is not solveable.
This has been going this way for a LONG time and I know of no means to turn it around.

Our police, who are our EMPLOYEES, are in unions and hard to discharge. They are not community members, and don't let folks know where they live, to protect them from the repurcussions of their actions. They are, THE NIGHTRIDERS of the armed bureaucracy.

Tickets are taxation by other means, and excused by socalled safety concerns, by government officials we SUPPOSEDLY have elected. It's all seeming quite soviet these days.

[eno_]

You would be an enthusiastic supporter of police stopping and questioning drivers for no reason.

What do you think roadblocks are good for, other than giving you a random opportunity to lick a jackboot?

[eno_]

It's all seeming quite soviet these days.

That's what my tag line is about. Who would send their son to fight and die for Freedom Lite? Retention and recruitment is in crisis. If the draft were reinstated, there would be riots.

Any government that keeps such close watch on me and taxes me so heavily can hire someone to fight for me.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Driving a car on public roads has been declared a privilege, therefore the same safeguards don't apply as would when accosting a man walking on the street. There is a drivers license. But there is no walkers license.

[eno_]

Driving a car on public roads has been declared a privilege

This is something that is repeated over and over, but, unless you find specific language in a state constitution or the U.S. Constitution that says that government can treat motorized travel differently, it simply isn't so.

Driving is "declared" a priviledge by JBTs and their acolytes all the time. But these are the same people who think the Xth amendment is a nullity.

[cinFLA]

You would be an enthusiastic supporter of police stopping and questioning drivers for no reason. What do you think roadblocks are good for, other than giving you a random opportunity to lick a jackboot?

You have a serious problem. Discuss it with your therapist this afternoon.

[sweetliberty]

"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."

Well, there you have your "probable cause." < /sarcasm >

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That one went in the toilet with "forfeiture laws."

"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."

The fatal flaw in that argument is that most of the people who cause serious problems are illegal aliens (including terrorist types) who carry false documentation anyway.

Ping Aggy!

[sweetliberty]

By the way, keep us posted of the outcome.

[cinFLA]

Who would send their son to fight and die for Freedom Lite?

Perhaps a visit to North Korea would be more to your liking.

[cinFLA]

One who has been here as long as you have should have picked up enough html inorder to properly format the posts. If not, you can annotate who said what, at least.

[N3WBI3]

Stop it, these suys are screw ups but most police officers are not...

[MontanaBeth]

"I don't protect or support bad cops"

That's all it would take to fix this problem, if cops would police their own, as diligently as they police us. Until that time, which I am not holding my breath to happen, I am scared spitless at the degree of power these sometimes, armed felons have over us. Police your own and the public confidence can return. Instead they protect their own, making criminals of themselves.

MontanaBeth

[CHICAGOFARMER]

TO: ALL responders to Mr. Hiibal fight to the USSC my final comment.

As presenter of this thread, I responded to some but not all (would not flame inappropriate issues) the battle appeared to boil down to what the officer did or did not do, rather than a battle of if the 4th and 5th would be honored as written. To those who posted, the discussion points about the rights of citizens of the United States and the balance between rights and police over stepping their mandate was interesting considering the war on terror in now in full swing.

Some passion notes from loved ones who have Leo’s. Some very logical arguments about how to conduct a stop, what the LEO should have done differently, arguments of the 9th circuit court liberal slant. With ths new world of terrorism, with all the hype of terror, citizens must continue to support the principles that make us great as they have civil discourse regarding our founding principles. The greatest principle will be the hearing on March 22nd in front of the United States Supreme Court. Will we lose a more of our founding principles or will the court take a stand this officer did not do his job properly. What is important this argument can take place while the war on terror is in full swing, which would never happen in Germany 1935.

To do fight this battle on terror without turning our society into a police state is the real issue behind this battle Mr. Hiibal is taking to the USSC, and his argument of the 4th and 5th amendment rights of a person to be secure in his or her person.

What was interesting to me is that no one brought up the argument of the Patriot Act. Those FP,s who lurk around this website know that the entire demagogy about the patriot act by the democrats is pure partisanship politics. In the TV media dialog, it is seldom mentioned (Patriot Act) as most all the statues and regulations have been used for years to bring down organize crime. It is most logical to use the Patriot act to fight our greatest enemy.

What is important from my view point in this discussion, is that all American go though war on terror with their eyes wide open, knowing once a right is taken away it is seldom given back. I am like the old Indian elder in the Indian camp. I am an old harmless man who has experienced a lot and can see the change from the late 40s and 50s to today's the government will take care of us. I was high school kid milking cows on the farm when Kennedy give his quarantine to the Russians we listeners not knowing that H-bomb death could be just around the corner.

I just finished reading Sean Hannity book deliver us from evil. A powerful book about how Reagan changed the course of history with his principle stands for honor, character, and morals when facing Russia. This is a stark change from our liberal left than want a living constitution, rather than living on the foundations that our founding fathers presented for us.

People who read the book would be amazed how the approach Bush is taking with the War on Terror (WWIV) is similar if not identical with Reagan approach.

For any of those I may have offended, we have had a civil discourse and have remained friends.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

One who has been here as long as you have should have picked up enough html inorder to properly format the posts. If not, you can annotate who said what, at least.

xxxxxxxx

Good point. Do you have some pointers for the items that you have in mind??

[N3WBI3]

Do You Mean like this

Really if you are going to try and say something about me for the failure to"annotate who said what, at least" You might want to annotate what it is I said....

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Do You Mean like this
Really if you are going to try and say something about me for the failure to"annotate who said what, at least" You might want to annotate what it is I said....

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Do you have a simple method to annotate? A program you use or a brower method you use. I am all ears.

[Arpege92]

"They don't, in general, fight unconstitutional laws or propose any reforms that could take pennies out of the revenue stream."

Neither do you. Oh, you sit here and complain and whine that cops are all money hungry Nazi's looking for the unsuspecting citizen to provide it....but that's all you do. Cops don't go up against politicians and think that their career in law enforcement will survive. That just doesn't happen and their are many cases out there to prove it too. I don't see you supporting those police officers now do I? Of course not, all your thinking is that it's one less Nazi cop off of the street. I don't see outrage from people like you when cops in the LAPD have been suffering a rising climb in shooting attacks for absolutely NO REASON. Where's your outrage Eno?

This has to work both ways and it's obviously clear that you are clueless when it comes to the crap police officers have to go through. You don't see the moral when it's at its lowest and they are afraid to go out and stop crime because they don't want to be accused of doing something illegal. In Fact, there is one of these situations going on right now....and you wouldn't believe how old the cop has grown in three short months. His wife and two year old child have to watch this good and honest cop suffer because some loud mouth with a grudge against cops gets to spout off his lies and no one, not even the cop and his family are allowed to say anything. Are you upset about this? Of course not, probably in your mind the cop is guilty already and that's why people like you are sometimes no better than the criminals themselves....because you aren't willing to stand up and say that what this complaint is saying about this cop is WRONG!!!!!!!!

Police don't have alot of lattitude when it comes to enforcement priorities....YOU ARE NOT HEARING ME. Cops don't get the say so ENO. It's the politicians who do that...not the cops.

"Imagine a world where cops push back against unconstitutional laws and enforcement techniques."

What are you smoking....cause you are making absolutely no sense what so ever! Cops pushing back means cops losing their jobs and that means crime going up and that in turn means you are free to fend for yourself....which is want you want anyway right? Also, I wish you would describe some of these "enforcement techniques" that you find unconstitutional because while you may mean only a few situations, your term is too broad and it insinuates that all "enforcement techniques" are illegal.

For your info....alot of "enforcement techniques" have been altered for the safety of the American citizen. Do you even know what they are? I'll give you time to search google for that info so that you have an opportunity to not look like a blow hard who talks out of his .....you fill in the rest.

[Arpege92]

"That's all it would take to fix this problem, if cops would police their own, as diligently as they police us."

Oh really, now's there's an idea no one has heard....NOT....it already happens Beth. Cops are diligently policed and if you don't believe me, check into the history of the NYPD and find out exactly how many cops have been fired and prosecuted for crimes they have committed while they were cops. Have you ever heard of the "Dirty Thirty"? Probably not, because you prefer to get all of your info about police activity from the liberal news media....you know the one that paints not-so-good pictures of American troops in Iraq and Afghanastan.

"I am scared spitless at the degree of power these sometimes, armed felons have over us."

One of those "armed felons" you are speaking of happens to be my husband and I don't take kindly to people like you accusing him of a crime and you don't even know him. Let me tell you a little about my hubby the "armed felon". He's a good man, he's a gentle man and try's to avoid confrontation with anyone. He'd rather people talk out their problems without using any kind of violence, but that doesn't happen all of the time. He's been hurt a few times while trying to help people have taken numerous drugs at one time and are then going absolutely nuts in the middle of the street. One guy actually thought he was Jesus Christ and his brother was the devil....so he picked up a shovel and hit his brother over the head with it. He then stripped all of his clothes off and walked outside in the dead of winter....that's when my hubby the "armed felon" showed up. He had to wrestle with this guy to get him to a hospital so that he could no longer harm anyone else...including himself. Well Beth, he got hurt doing it....but that never makes it into the news now does it. Let me tell you how my hubby and another cop he works with went over to an elderly lady's house one day to fix her mailbox that had been damaged by some teenagers one night who were playing "mailbox baseball". My hubby and this other "armed felon" on their day off from work and with their own money, went to Home Depot, bought another mailbox and a mail post, went over to this lady's house and proceeded to install her new mailbox. This lady was beside herself and began crying, after the job was done, she made them coffee and cookies (no donuts involved this time)they are now supposed to show up at this lady's house once in a while to just check in and say hello. They do and it means alot to this lady who lives alone with no family in the area at all. Of course, once again, this story was never reported by the media.

"Police your own and the public confidence can return. Instead they protect their own, making criminals of themselves."

They do police their own and that public confidence you speak of still isn't there. No, instead they get called Nazi's and criminals and of course my favorite "armed felons". You know Beth, if you didn't count on the media so much to give you all of the information about police officer's, maybe you would have a clue, but you don't and that's part of the problem....people like you!

Sincerely,
Michelle
Wife of a police officer....not an "armed felon"!