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."

[KeepAndBearArms]

"I owe you an apology for a remark I have said about you living in a mountain retreat with military hardware. It wasn't right to accuse you of that and I apologize sincerely."

I understand letting off steam and was not offended. Actually, I kinda wished you were right!  Living in a mountain retreat sounds rather blissful.  :-)

I've been accused of much worse that wasn't true. I've been accused of being a baby killer because I support the Second Amendment. I've been accused of being a cop hater because I want law enforcement officers to abide their oaths. I've been accused of supporting terrorism because I oppose laws that clearly violate the 4th Amendment on their face. Etc. So your accusation was quite tame.

Keep the faith.

[Arpege92]

What I don't understand about your view is how you can defend a man who from the beginning refused to cooperate with the police who were doing their job by investigating a complaint of a domestic altercation? It doesn't seem silly to you to think that the cops have no right to ask for this man's identification. That request is made for numerous reasons.

To find out if these two have a history of domestic fights, and if they do, what was the outcome.

No records are run on this.... in fact, most cops already know the history of people who are constantly involved in domestic altercations. They've been to their house so many times, they know what to expect and what kind of information to pass onto other cops who may be responding.

If it is found that either of these two parties were arrested due to physical violence in the domestic altercation, then cops know how to proceed. Were their weapons involved. Was either party ever put into the hospital due to injuries they acquired during the domestic altercation.

The list goes on and on.

Domestic altercations are one of the most dangerous calls a police officer can respond to. They can get real ugly real fast and that's why it was important that the cops in this situation kept the father and the daughter apart from one another. So that they could not hurt each other or hurt the cops. You wouldn't believe some of the stories I have heard from my hubby about domestic altercations. Cops responding to break up the fight only to have one or both parties turn on them.....it's been known to happen.

You also wouldn't believe how some adults can act like children.....especially when they are involved in a divorce and a child custody issue. When one parent is supposed to have the child, both parents show up at the police department for the exchange. Grown people refusing to act like adults and forcing the police into their personal mess.....but hey, I guess it goes with the protect and serve motto they have.

My hubby and I can't even go to one of our favorite restaurants because the owners are in the middle of a nasty divorce. They are constantly fighting and I mean physically fighting right in front of the customers. Bowls being thrown, accusations be hurled....it's ridiculous and now that my hubby has responded to a few of their domestic altercations in the restaurant, we have no choice but to avoid eating there......but, your sole complaint about cops is the ID issue and I can't tell you how frustrating that is for me.

Again....I appreciate your concern for my father.

[KeepAndBearArms]

"What I don't understand about your view is how you can defend a man who from the beginning refused to cooperate with the police who were doing their job by investigating a complaint of a domestic altercation? It doesn't seem silly to you to think that the cops have no right to ask for this man's identification. That request is made for numerous reasons."

I'll attempt to convey where I'm coming from in a rational, dispassionate way. Not to try to persuade you away from your own opinion, but in hopes of meeting your genuine seeking with the best understanding I can convey. ...

First, the officer did not make it clear that he was investigating a domestic violence call. He went straight to asking for ID. Even if he said it once (about getting a call), he clearly did not have the full attention of the subject, in part due to the fact that he immediately began demanding something from the subject that the subject has no legal requirement to provide. The police officers I know -- and there are many, most of them the kind of people you wish lived next door -- would first introduce themselves. Something like:

"Good afternoon, sir. How are you today? My name is Officer John Doe, with the YadaYada police department. I'm here on official business today, and I hope that you can help me. I'm approaching calmly and peacefully, and I would like to let you know about a call we received at dispatch that may have been about you. I'm not sure, but I was told to come out here and see if I could be of assistance and maybe help out."

That kind of approach tends to set the officer up as an ally -- which a good cop always wants to be, when he's dealing with regular folks. And we're all supposed to be treated like innocent people until the officer has confirmed reason to believe otherwise. A call to dispatch did not make the subject guilty of anything. (I know someone whose neighbor called the cops on his for the high crime of swatting his sassy boy's behind one time, open-handed, in the front yard. The neighbor described it as "beating a kid" even though multiple eye witnesses said it was one open-handed swat like a parent might give to a boy who is not paying attention or who is picking on his little sister. He was guilty of nothing. Being the subject of a call to dispatch, even to 911 by someone screaming "child abuse!" does not make you guilty.)

Then, after establishing a rapport as "friendly, allied, wanting to help," they would explain why they are on the scene. They know that most people who see a police officer come at them suddenly are likely filled with adrenalin. That's just how it is. Even seeing the bubble gum lights go off when you're driving, for most people, sends a jolt of adrenalin into the bloodstream. So police who truly want to de-escalate and "disarm" a situation approach from a place of calm, and a place of serious, genuine, heartfelt respect.

Next, once the officer was told by the man that he would not provide ID, the officer, if he was properly trained and if he took his training and his oath seriously, needed to back off on asking for it -- and explain his presence and his demand for said ID. The officer did not do that. He kept pressing and pressing for something he'd already been rightfully denied -- the exact opposite of an action from one who truly sought de-escalation.

NOTE: I say "rightfully denied" because there is no requirement to give your ID to a police officer on the street. They had no immediate evidence that the man was the driver of the vehicle, so a driver's license was not necessarily required on his person. That in itself should have been enough to have the officer say, at least to himself,

"OK. Let's hold off, at least for now, on the ID -- and get to the point of why I am here. I must confirm that the female passenger is safe and determine whether or not she requires assistance. I must determine -- while respecting these people's rights and their status as 'innocent until proven guilty' -- if the DV call was legitimate, or if it just came from a jumpy local who needs a better pair of glasses and should stop watching so much TV."

But that was not his choice. He chose to antagonize, even after he'd be rightfully refused the ID. And it got worse from there because he chose to continue demanding something to which he had, and has, no legitimate right or authority.

In my opinion, the police officer could have gotten the man to hand over his ID -- if he even had it on his person -- by being friendly and helpful, courteous and respectful -- and by respecting the man's "no" the first time. I suspect there'd have been no arrest, and none of this would be posted on a website and talked about here... if the police officer had respected the citizen and approached him differently than he did.

[KeepAndBearArms]

"your sole complaint about cops is the ID issue and I can't tell you how frustrating that is for me."

It's not my sole complain. It's the source of the blowout, from which all other complaint-worthy things flowed.

And I understand that it's bugging you. I don't mean to intentionally bug you. But our beliefs conflict in this area, so it's not surprising that when we have a go at understanding one another that there's a bit of friction.

As I understand it, you think that anyone told by a police officer to produce ID should just produce the ID. My position is that there is no law requiring you to produce ID, so you should not do it. I also believe that anyone who submits to a consent search in the absence of probable cause is doing a disservice to us all and to freedom itself. You say that we should obey a law that doesn't exist, which means we should just obey a cop's order -- even when he has no authority to give the order. I say that cops get shot for forcing people to do things they are not required to do.

In any event, it's okay that we don't agree with one another. You're still you, I'm still me, and the world keeps turning. I bet we agree that Waco was mishandled, that Vicky Weaver did not deserve her fate, and that the cops in the Rampart Scandal deserve a long stay in the general population of the prison where they do their hard time. So we agree that some police abuse their authority. We just disagree on degrees. And that's not so bad, really. Hell, there are people who wish the feds had torched Waco, and all the women and children, on Day One -- and people who want every gun confiscated and every gun owner sent to prison for disobeying a gun ban. I'll take you by my side over such people any day of the week!  :-)

[cinFLA]

There were no charges relating to alcohol consumption -- so calling him a "drunk" is left for those who don't have better arguments.

Why do you twist the words of others? Shame, shame, shame.

[cinFLA]

There is no obligation -- moral or legal -- to cooperate with an illegal order

You are a perfect partner with the SF mayor and the Ninth Circuit Court.

[cinFLA]

When he refused to provide an ID, the cop should have stopped asking.

You mean you don't show your ID when you are pulled over? I bet you do!

[cinFLA]

It is obvious you know nothing about the law and now are trying to turn this into a 'police assault' case.

[cinFLA]

IF she was running in that direction, it was to protect her father from a rights-abusing thug.

The only thug was the guy. He was the one slugging his daughter.

[cinFLA]

so calling him a "drunk" is left for those who don't have better arguments.

Those like you that have no argument resort to slandering others by twisting their words. Shame.

[cinFLA]

I've been accused of being a cop hater because I want law enforcement officers to abide their oaths.

Perhaps if you didn't call the cop a "thug" when the cop was investigating a report of a man beating a girl ...

[cinFLA]

First, the officer did not make it clear that he was investigating a domestic violence call.False.

[cinFLA]

NOTE: I say "rightfully denied" because there is no requirement to give your ID to a police officer on the street. They had no immediate evidence that the man was the driver of the vehicle, so a driver's license was not necessarily required on his person. That in itself should have been enough to have the officer say, at least to himself,

WRONG! Did you really read the case or do you just believe the biased web-site that Mr. H lied on.

[cinFLA]

You totally ignore the ranting by Mr. H. How he kept ignoring the cop and kept insisting he was legally parked. I suppose that you act like that when you are pulled over, huh?

[PureSolace]

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.

I thought that's what Social Security was for. ;)

[KeepAndBearArms]

"You mean you don't show your ID when you are pulled over? I bet you do!"

He wasn't pulled over. He was standing on the side of the road, outside of a vehicle. The officers had no foreknowledge that he was the driver.

I'll provide ID if pulled over (though there's nothing constitutional about having to do so). I will not provide ID as a passenger in a vehicle, nor will I provide it as a pedestrian. Ever. If they want it, they'll have to take it by force and suffer the consequences of violating my rights.

[KeepAndBearArms]

You quoted me for having said:

"There is no obligation -- moral or legal -- to cooperate with an illegal order"

Your reply to my saying that was:

"You are a perfect partner with the SF mayor and the Ninth Circuit Court."

And this is your idea of debating? Personal attacks is the best you've got?

Lightweight.

[KeepAndBearArms]

"It is obvious you know nothing about the law and now are trying to turn this into a 'police assault' case."

Which law dictionary would you like to know the definition of assault from? 1839, 1856, 1891, 1910, 1914, 1933, 1951, 1968, 1979...

Or would you prefer the 1990 (6th) edition of Black's Law, currently used by law students from coast to coast in every law school in America? Some resort to the 7th edition only to find it's inferior, then they go back to the 6th. The dumbing down of law dictionaries took an earnest turn for the worse with the 1914 Rawle edit of Bouvier's law dictionary going out of print. None thereafter ever came close. Nor, it appears, do they want to, by design.

Take your pick. But before I provide your rope, you tell me the definition of "assault," in law -- since I "know nothing about the law."

Any more personal attacks or ad hominem issued by you will be accepted as your declaration that you fear honorable discussion because it will expose the weakness of your argument.

[KeepAndBearArms]

"Those like you that have no argument resort to slandering others by twisting their words."

I twisted nobody's words here, nor do I have any reason to do so. And you will find no slander from me here, either. But your inability to debate the issues is noted once again.

[Badray]

"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."

Thanks for the kind words. I know that you'll keep up the fight and won't be silenced either.