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."

[AppyPappy]

Hopefully they'll vote to put a round in their own heads rather than blowing a building with a daycare in it.

[AppyPappy]

jackboot licker

If false bravado was real, you'd have a chest full of medals.

[eno_]

When privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

However, I'm hoping this matricula thing goes non-discriminatory so you could get one from the Latvian consulate. Try demanding an interpreter at the PD!

[CHICAGOFARMER]

.....IT'S THE LAW!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

See that where this constitutition thing comes in.

It use to be that the badge represented a peace officer that kept the peace.

Todays law enforcement officer does just that enforces the laws as written by some liberal government that we are here to help you and we will enforce the law.

Notice this has nothing to do with keeping the peace as peace officers used to do 40-50 years ago.

[MineralMan]

"And you are quite sure nobody would ever dime her out just to teach a jackboot licker like you a lesson? "

Jackboot licker? You're pretty free with the personal attacks here, it seems.

A cop busts a drunk and you're ready to head for the rooftops? Or is it that you're ready for others to do that?

When you're stopped for a traffic violation, do you insist that you have the right not to show your ID? I didn't think so.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

.....IT'S THE LAW!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

See that where this constitutition thing comes in.

It use to be that the badge represented a peace officer that kept the peace.

Todays law enforcement officer does just that enforces the laws as written by some liberal government that we are here to help you and we will enforce the law.

Notice this has nothing to do with keeping the peace as peace officers used to do 40-50 years ago.

YOU notice in the video the cop was not interested in keeping the peace.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

.....IT'S THE LAW!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

See that where this constitutition thing comes in.

It use to be that the badge represented a peace officer that kept the peace.

Todays law enforcement officer does just that enforces the laws as written by some liberal government that we are here to help you and we will enforce the law.

Notice this has nothing to do with keeping the peace as peace officers used to do 40-50 years ago.

YOU notice in the video the cop was not interested in keeping the peace.

[eno_]

As I've been saying, no bravado, much less actual bravery required, just the ability to game the system to mess with people who needs messing with. Cops who can't understand probable cause sure can't tell when a CI is talking out his ass.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Deputy Dove arrested Dudley because he believed Dudley's refusal to show ID was 'Probable Cause' for an arrest.
Probable cause for arrest on what charge? I'm missing something.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nope the cop told us.

He is investigating an investigation!!!

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Deputy Dove arrested Dudley because he believed Dudley's refusal to show ID was 'Probable Cause' for an arrest.
Probable cause for arrest on what charge? I'm missing something.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nope the cop told us.

He is investigating an investigation!!!

[eno_]

As far as actually doing something, I was instrumental in making sure a cop that strip searched a kid during a traffic stop got run out of town, and I made sure the selectemen in next town he went to found out about him. He didn't last through his probationary period there. Thankfully I haven't had to get more involved than that.

[eno_]

As far as actually doing something, I was instrumental in making sure a cop that strip searched a kid during a traffic stop got run out of town, and I made sure the selectemen in next town he went to found out about him. He didn't last through his probationary period there. Thankfully I haven't had to get more involved than that.

[MineralMan]

"As far as actually doing something, I was instrumental in making sure a cop that strip searched a kid during a traffic stop got run out of town, and I made sure the selectemen in next town he went to found out about him. He didn't last through his probationary period there. Thankfully I haven't had to get more involved than that."

---

So, you used legal means to accomplish your goal, and it appears to have worked. So what's all this about voting from the rooftops?

That's the bravado that a couple of us are talking about. We have recourse in this country against bad cops. This particular case is a good one. It's going to court.

You dealt with a situation, using legal means.

Why not recommend that, instead of blindly advocating violence?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you know nothing about the history of the Chicago police. Or even current practice. And IN FACT it has a great deal to do with keeping the peace.

Had this MORON refused to produce an ID on demand while an incident was being investigated 50 yrs ago he would have had his ass kicked nine ways from Sunday then the cops would have thrown him into the paddy wagon and dragged him out none too gently on arrival at the hoosegow.

So MORON's daughter, MORONICA, "identifies" him as her father? Like that is of any relevance?

This crap has tied up how many hours of Court time and now will obstruct the USSC? And the MORON support groups around here are cheering?

Was Charles Whitman a relation of yours?

[Khurkris]

I find this incident troubling.

I find the upward escalating nature of speculation shown in some of the posts here to be comical.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Hopefully they'll vote to put a round in their own heads rather than blowing a building with a daycare in it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In the old days the common sense citizens would just tar and feather the scoundrals and ride them out of town on a rail.

Today that is a felony assault charge with will cost you thousands. Knowing that you did not study history shortly after WWII (thebigone) the citizens of a small TN town broke into the military armory for rifles and ran the scounderals out of town.

Today, swat teams wiould kill them all. 50 years ago the citizens ran government today government governs the subjects. You would not understand you are just a little boy or litte girl and this is not an insult, it just you don't have any experience.

[moehoward]

bump

[eno_]

Arguably, calling the selectmen in the town he went to and trashing him up and down in no uncertain terms was extralegal. I don't think you would find an HR manager that would reccomend that as a normal course of action. But it needed to be done. If it was my kid involved, I'm pretty sure I'd at least made sure this cop stayed an ex-cop the rest of his life, and maybe I'd throw in some dirty tricks for good measure.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The dickless worm didn't mind fighting with his daughter. Of course properly raised males were taught never to hit women by their mothers.

Not that MORONICA or MORON could be expected to understand anything like that. They were probably too drunk to even know what was happening anyway until contacted by some scumsucking lawyer.

[AppyPappy]

You would not understand you are just a little boy or litte girl and this is not an insult, it just you don't have any experience.

And you are just a squirrel, looking for a nut. Bet it, fed.