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."

[eno_]

Apparently you know nothing about the history of the Chicago police.

The Chicago PD is one of the dirtiest on Earth. OK, maybe Lagos is worse.

[bc2]

I'll be out shooting tomorrow with another dude in my band.

"Wake me up" if I miss something.

[Badray]

I'm confused.

Where was the disorderly conduct in that video? The man offered himself up for arrest if the cop wanted to arrest him. The cop said that he had no reason to arrest him. Then he arrested him for not producing ID. The man never even cussed during the whole incident.

[archy]

If you commit a war crime against an Iraqi soldier in the process of obeying an unlawful order, you can get the firing squad.

Not quite. Military executions are now performed by lethal injection, per a 1984 executive order. There are now 7 condemned military prisoners facing death by lethal injection, the last military execution [by hanging] having taken place in 1961.

Currently we literally protect enemy soldiers more than we protect our fellow citizens.

Indeed. Or so far as that goes, better than our own soldiers are treated.

[agitator]

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

[CHICAGOFARMER]

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?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As Reagan said there you go again. Charles Whitman was upset over his girlfriend. My family fought and died in the American Revolution, the Civil War, the battle of the Wilderness, Korea, WWII WWI so a$$holes like you could profoundly spout your socialism tendencies. You don't get it. The liberties that we give you you are pissing away.

Are you running for KERRY"S VP position?

[MineralMan]

"Arguably, calling the selectmen in the town he went to and trashing him up and down in no uncertain terms was extralegal. "

Not at all. You have every right to petition the government. That's in the Constitution, you may remember. I'm just saying that taking to the rooftops over individual incidents is way over the top, as is suggesting that others do so.

Your tactic succeeded, and was legal. What you suggested here in this thread, however, is not. Those who post such messages here are all hat and no cattle, as far as I am concerned.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm


xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Looks interesting.

Bookmarked for later reading.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

thanks for the picture.

I left mine in the folder.

[MineralMan]

"The liberties that we give you you are pissing away.
"

You have given me no liberties whatsoever. You do not have that power. My liberties are guaranteed by our Constitution, not by some anonymous web poster who advocates that others take to the rooftops.

If a cop asks for my ID, I'll gladly show him my drivers' license. Why would I not?

I show it to folks in the grocery store, for pete's sake, and at the bank. Where's the problem?

Yes, there are bad cops. And they should be removed from their positions. As another crier for rooftop voting here demonstrated, the public can succeed in removing such cops through legal means.

Your advocacy of violence against the cops goes way too far, Mr. Farmer.

[archy]

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

Possibly you'd find it less so had you witnessed the effect of such things firsthand, as I did in pre-Castro Cuba in 1958 and the pre-communist Saigon of '68-70.

Increasingly, American police are becoming more and more like Diem's white mice, or Batista's SIM.

[harpseal]

May well be but lets see what they decide.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

"The liberties that we give you you are pissing away.
"

You have given me no liberties whatsoever. You do not have that power. My liberties are guaranteed by our Constitution, not by some anonymous web poster who advocates that others take to the rooftops.

If a cop asks for my ID, I'll gladly show him my drivers' license. Why would I not?

I show it to folks in the grocery store, for pete's sake, and at the bank. Where's the problem?

Yes, there are bad cops. And they should be removed from their positions. As another crier for rooftop voting here demonstrated, the public can succeed in removing such cops through legal means.

Your advocacy of violence against the cops goes way too far, Mr. Farmer.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ah I see the problem. You can not see beyond the words. No where have I suggested that we take down the police they are our friends.

What is illegal here is the technique and methods used. Citizens have rights until they are arrested. This man's rights per the constitution were violated. Well we will soon find out.

I predict, that the Supreme Court will rule the stop legal as they have for DUI tests. When you study history, you will find that when the citizens lost their rights, democracy was lost and socialism, communism took over.

I have a question for you as you look like a smart man.

Question. When our troops servce in foriegn countries, why are our troops their? Can you answer this quesiton?

[archy]

My liberties are guaranteed by our Constitution

No they are not; they are only enumerated- named and identified- there.

You have those liberties only so long as those who might take them from you must abide by that constitutional contract between government and governed. And that's increasingly much less a matter of concern for many of those who have particular contempt for both the constitution and you and your liberties.

[archy]

My daughter would not be hanging around some drunk redneck and she wouldn't be in the truck acting like some psychotic white trash.

Jealousy rears its ugly head.

[CJ Wolf]

(Citizen Carry)? What's this tagline mean?

[archy]

Your advocacy of violence against the cops goes way too far, Mr. Farmer.

I didn't note any advocacy of violence against honestr cops, only those who by committing felonies, are nothing more than criminals hiding behind badges. And I wonder why an honest citizen might try to help the dirty ones blend in with the remaining good ones, since aiding and abetting a felon is also a felony.

United States Code, Title 18, U.S. Criminal Code, Section 242

- Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[Sloth]

Crooked cops? What in the world did these two cops gain from this incident....

Probably erections.

[Ben Bolt]

self flagging bump . This will be interesting .

[Dead Corpse]

Not as interesting as you would assume. Once you've seen one of these threads, you've pretty much seen them all.