Your papers, please

The Washington Times ^ | February 23, 2004 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether or not all Americans must have identification on them at all times. The case has been brought by a cowboy in Nevada who was asked to show ID while he was leaning against his pickup truck on the side of the road near his ranch. The police officer did not offer any specific reason why he demanded proof of identity. Having committed no crime, Dudley Hiibel, the cowboy, refused -- and was arrested. He was later convicted for "Delaying a Peace Officer." In America, still a free country, citizens should not be required to provide identification papers at any whim of the authorities.

[cinFLA]

My dear Sir, you argue with your emotions not your sense of logic; first of all there is no cited law in the state where this took place that requires a resident or traveler to produce I.D. at the request of an officer, second where such laws have been written, they were struck down and held to be unenforcable by defect.

My dear sir: You are without knowledge on this case.

[cinFLA]

It does go by pretty quick. I missed it and I watched it like six times in a row. Others may have done the same and are not lying on purpose. I wasn't. I honestly missed it. Seeing the girl bodyslammed kinda makes you focus on other things. The cops mishandled this one. No matter what angle you look at it from.

I am not trying to say the cops did everything 100 percent correctly but Mr. H. was an a$$ and does not deserve the status of 'hero defender of our rights'. He is a Ninth Circuit Court Socialist pawn.

[cinFLA]

Long after Hiibel is gone this case will remain; better it is addressed now in this time of high-anxiety than a future where laws are ignored wholesale.

It has been addressed MANY times. Now the 9th has legislated from the bench and it is up to the USSC to set them straight. AGAIN!

[cinFLA]

Here is why it is important for this case to go to the United States Supreme court.

The 9th has already upheld Mr. H. It is important to go to the USSC only in that they may overturn the 9th.

[cinFLA]

there is no cited law in the state where this took place that requires a resident or traveler to produce I.D. at the request of an officer,

Perhaps you should look at the law:

In pertinent part, NRS 171.123 provides:

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

. . . .

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.

[cinFLA]

By gosh, you're right---it certainly didn't. However, the sun is not a US citizen, required by the Constitution to be considered INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If you've got evidence (i.e. newpaper article)--trot it out.

It's in the court documents. Read them.

[cinFLA]

"In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck. There, Dove spoke to the concerned citizen and was directed to a parked truck."

[cinFLA]

From the State filings:

"In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck. There, Dove spoke to the concerned citizen and was directed to a parked truck."

[cinFLA]

Seeing the girl bodyslammed kinda makes you focus on other things.

It was mostly the girls momentum that you are seeing as a 'slam'.

Understanding the the very large Mr. H. may have been beating up on his small daughter (eye-witness) makes you focus on the truth.

[cinFLA]

The smartass deputy in this case obviously did not, and was just exercising his "jack-booted thug" psychological tendencies. Said deputy should have been fired as soon as the sheriff heard of this incident. Said deputy should STILL be fired.

Of course you would condone your boss firing you based on a few words in the newspaper...

[RightWhale]

Any time im walking somewhere, the cops stop me and card me.

They stop everybody they see walking alone at 3 AM wearing sunglasses and carrying a large sack. :)

[Dead Corpse]

Of which said charge was dropped due to lack of evidence and denial by said victim. Leaving the olny charge left that of failure to identify himself to the officer when demanded.

Hence all the rest of this hullabalu.

[cinFLA]

"Fishing trips" for wrong doing does not justify proof of identification.

Then if your neighbor calls the police having given the description of your mugger and his car, then the cops should not pull him over for questioning, right?

[cinFLA]

Of which said charge was dropped due to lack of evidence and denial by said victim.

Right. She knew she would really get whacked then.

[cinFLA]

Of which said charge was dropped due to lack of evidence and denial by said victim.

Right. The witness was actually a paid informant and these cops were out to get Mr. H. The witness followed Mr. H. around till he he got so mad he hit the brakes and skidded off the road. Then the witness called the police and filed the false batter report on him.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

When asked what he was investigating, the policeman responded with a wisecrack: "I'm investigating an investigation."
It works something like this:

Pedestrian is approached by LEO.
LEO asks for ID.
Pedestrian asks if he is being detained.
If LEO says no, pedestrian walks.
If LEO says yes, pedestrian asks for probable and atricuble (sp?) cause for his detention.
If LEO states the probable cause, pedestrian gives ID.
If LEO has no or refuses to specify probable cause, pedestrian refuses to produce ID.

"Investigating an investigation" is a pithy wisecrack that absolutely does NOT specify probable cause. "You are under investigation because we recieved a call about a person fitting your description causing a disturbance" is probable cause.

No matter, courts and government in general do whatever they damned well please. They'll rule against the defendent. Why should they do otherwise? No one is going to stop and detain them for no reason.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


See post 120

[cinFLA]

"You are under investigation because we recieved a call about a person fitting your description causing a disturbance" is probable cause.

Almost exactly what the cop said when first arriving at the scene.

[cinFLA]

When asked what he was investigating, the policeman responded with a wisecrack: "I'm investigating an investigation." It works something like this:

You call to report the description of a guy that mugged you Thirty minutes later the cops call back and say that the stopped the guy matching the description They also say they let him go since he took the 5th and would not identify himself

(Under your scenario)

[eno_]

The only justification you need for refusing is the Xth, and the lack of any authority in your state constitution regarding demanding ID.

[eno_]

My father in law was born in Germany during WW2. His older brother was born out of wedlock, and we have the letters from people to the Nazi higher ups trying to prove that he was not part Jewish. My FIL was also premature and tiny. We also have letters claiming he was healthy enough to live.

Man that deserves a BIG BUMP. Never ever ever forget, and never think it can't happen here.