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."
"The correct way would be to produce the ID and later challenge the requirement."
Yeah. Surrender your rights and submit to an illegal order, and then you're a good upstanding citizen.
Hey, if it's good to surrender your rights on an illegal order to provide ID when no law requires it, maybe it's also good to surrender ALL of our rights when illegally ordered to do so, too. After all, obeying a cop is so much more important than making a cop obey the law.
"Defending foolish drunks is no way to spread regard for the Constitution"
There is nothing in evidence on this case that the Victim of Police Abuse of Authority was inebriated. There are no charges that he was drunk, or even tipsy. And given the circumstances of the case, if Mr. Lawboy could have charged him with that -- after face-planting the alleged "victim of domestic violence, for her own good" -- then you can believe he would have done so.
In other words, I'm amused that you fill the need to invent character-defaming information to substantiate your police-statist position. Maybe you should hire on at Chicago PD.
"The only way that he was not cooperative was in not showing ID."
100% correct. And everything escalated as a direct and sole result of the Victim not obeying an illegal order issued by the Aggressor. That is, after all, the only thing going up before the Majority of Phonies on the so-called "Supreme Court". You've got a good head on your shoulders, Badray. Whoever you are, I'm glad to know you exist and talk straight. Keep it up.
"The copy grabbed her to keep her from running toward the other cop. Please tell the whole story."
IF she was running in that direction, it was to protect her father from a rights-abusing thug.
"Perhaps you missed the part where the guy threatened the cop."
You must reside in the same camp as the storyteller trying to invent the notion that the Victim was drunk.
Or are you just someone who believes that disobeying an illegal order means you're threatening a cop?
Or is it both?
"The guy twice said to the effect of 'Don't grab me' and threw his hands up in the air near the cop in a manner that was probably one of frustration but could be interpreted as possibly threatening."
What you're saying is that stopping an assault by a police officer is a threat.
Interesting logic. Perhaps you need to look up what happens when YOU put your hands on a cop some time. It's called "assaulting an officer," all the time. I know an attorney being prosecuted for just that -- TOUCHING a cop who was violating his rights and his physical space.
And it's duly noted that you went from "he threatened the cop" to "could be interpreted as possibly threatening." Perhaps there's work for you on the John Kerry campaign.
"Key points: No one is required to have an ID"
Then anything the cop did as a result of his refusal to provide one is illegal. Thank you for admitting that.
When he refused to provide an ID, the cop should have stopped asking. But he didn't. Be continued to insist.
"With freedom, comes the obligations. The obligation to cooperate with the police."
There is no obligation -- moral or legal -- to cooperate with an illegal order. In fact, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it:
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Implied in that statement is a responsibility to disobey enforcers of unjust laws -- and especially to disobey enforcers of unjust non-laws that do not even exist. If you don't like that fact, the fact remains unchanged.
If a cop tells you to strip search on the street because you were going five miles over the speed limit, would you say we have a duty to "cooperate" with that nonsense, too? If not, your statement is false on its face.
"How many people needlessly submit to searches?"
Anyone who agrees to a search when there is no probable cause does a disservice to us all.
I faced off a Ft. Stockton PD thug who demanded to search my car. He illegally detained me while we waited for a dope dog to arrived then threatened to cite me for petting the dog. :-) My last words to him as he left the scene of his illegal stop: "You lied when you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and I consider you a THUG, pal. Have a nice day."
"Unless you are being arrested, the cop has no more right to put his hands on you than you do to put yours on him."
Amen to that.
And if he does it aggressively enough (and in violation of your rights) that you are in genuine fear of serious bodily injury, the courts have said you have a right to resist with force, too.
"my dad almost died today"
Hope he's better. Scary stuff. Say everything there is to say to him while he's still here. My dad's had eight heart attacks and is still alive. Second pacemaker put in a few months ago. But I know what it's like losing special loved ones (grandmother, brother), and I urge you to savor what you've got left with him while you can. You're in our prayers.
"I don't think all cops are bad."
NO WAY! There are some true blue patriots on many if not most police forces. Maybe even nearly all police forces.
I know police officers in several states that I wish lived next door!
"Breaking down this intimidation and turning it on the cops is only a natural reaction."
You're a sharp thinker whose thoughts I appreciate very much. Here's a good quote that speaks the essence of what you're saying, IMO, quite well:
"If cops continue to play at being an army of occupation, they should expect the subjects to play their role in return. Vive la resistance." --J. D. TUCCILLE
Authority Worshippers would say we're a "cop hater" for merely repeating that quote. Their affliction is best sorted out when they become victims of abuse by law enforcers.
"it was noted that he had signs of possible alcohol influence"
Every human being has possible alcohol influence, every minute of every day. Alcohol production happens in the body.
There were no charges relating to alcohol consumption -- so calling him a "drunk" is left for those who don't have better arguments.
"The cops didn't lay a hand on this idiot"
Those handcuffs didn't put themselves on. I understand that you think the man deserved being arrested. From your perspective, I can see that, therefore, the cuffing was justified. What I ask you to consider is that many of us think the arrest was unjustified and illegal -- so we see the cuffing as a violation of rights. That doesn't make us bad people, just people who see it differently.
I genuinely respect your right to view this event as you do, my friend. I genuinely do. I just see it very differently -- and I did watch the video, several times.
I reiterate my hope that your father is pulling through his recent traumatic health emergency with flying colors and a full and speedy recovery.
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.