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.

[eno_]

How many stories have we seen where the cops let a guy go and we found out later he was a wanted criminal? Then everyone blames the cops.

That's only because it is less well known that the cops put their morning box of donuts on top of the huge pile of default warrants sitting on the desk down at the PD. It doesn't take a sloppy traffic stop to catch a cop slacking off on catching genuine bad guys.

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, said witness can no longer be located according to court documents. Between that, and supposedly the girls testimony, the battery charge was dropped. I say "supposedly" the girls testimony because due to the charge being dropped, all supporting documentation has also been striken from available records and is not legally germaine to the higher court decisions which focus on the "detaining a law enforcement officer" charge.

Also, entered into court testimony was the fact Hibel had not been driving the truck but that his daughter had. The officers testimony neither supports, nor denies this as they all agree that Hibel was outside the truck smoking a cigarette when they pulled up.

Also, looking through the amicus was the finding of the defenses use of Berkemere V. McCarty 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984) and Michigan v. DeFillippo 443 U.S. 31, 44 (1979) that while the State can reasonably assume to ask questions during an investigation, that the person being questioned is under no obligation to respond.

Unless the officer could come up with something better than "we got a report", ie; TALKING TO THE SUPPOSED VICTIM, then his probable cause kinda evaporates. If he suspected Hibel of drunk driving, he should have said so and requested cooperation. Failing that, then arrest him. Just doing so for a failure to identify, that has no place in law under our Constitution, is petty and stupid.

[cinFLA]

Also, entered into court testimony was the fact Hibel had not been driving the truck but that his daughter had. The officers testimony neither supports, nor denies this as they all agree that Hibel was outside the truck smoking a cigarette when they pulled up.

The state never stipulated that the girl was the driver.

[cinFLA]

Also, looking through the amicus was the finding of the defenses use of Berkemere V. McCarty 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984) and Michigan v. DeFillippo 443 U.S. 31, 44 (1979) that while the State can reasonably assume to ask questions during an investigation, that the person being questioned is under no obligation to respond.

To questions that may cause self-incrimination. Court after court has ruled that the mere production of your identity is a neutral action.

[cinFLA]

Unless the officer could come up with something better than "we got a report",

Under your scenario, you call the cops to report a robbery. They respond, "You better come up with something better than that! We can't act just because 'we got a report'."

[cinFLA]

Just exactly what about the below law do you disagree with?

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.

[Dead Corpse]

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 comit a crime.

NO such finding was in evidence upon the officers arrival on the scene. Considering the supposed victim WAS STILL IN THE TRUCK, asking her what was going should the man prove uncooperative would have seemed logical. This was not done and any charges the State may have wanted to bring in that regard were dropped.

Also, the USSC has dodged the issue in case after case on a citizen being required to show ID to law enforcement. NEVER has it ruled that they MUST show proof positive. That is why this case is heading for their docket.

Do we REALLY want to live in a society where "I don't have my wallet on me" becomes admission of guilt for a crime?

[cinFLA]

NO such finding was in evidence upon the officers arrival on the scene.

Huh? Even Mr. H. agreed the officer had sufficient cause to detain him.

[cinFLA]

I asked you which part of the law you disagreed with.

[eno_]

Actually, said witness can no longer be located according to court documents.

How conveeeeeeenient. I hope a USSC Justice has the wits to ask how many other witnesses this guy "lost" over the course of his career when he needed to back up claims of probable cause. There's a good case to made that this cop is lying about more than one aspect of this case.

[cinFLA]

How conveeeeeeenient. I hope a USSC Justice has the wits to ask how many other witnesses this guy "lost" over the course of his career when he needed to back up claims of probable cause. There's a good case to made that this cop is lying about more than one aspect of this case.

The cop received a radio call directing him to the scene.

[Dead Corpse]

The part the charges you with a crime for failure to identify. Taking your burglar example, if the man questioned, who does not provide ID to the officer, is actually innocent of stealing my stuff... should he still go to jail for not cooperating?

[cinFLA]

How conveeeeeeenient. I hope a USSC Justice has the wits to ask how many other witnesses this guy "lost" over the course of his career when he needed to back up claims of probable cause. There's a good case to made that this cop is lying about more than one aspect of this case.

Mr. H conceded in court that the state DID have probale cause. Shame on you for characterizing the cop as a liar.

[cinFLA]

The part the charges you with a crime for failure to identify. Taking your burglar example, if the man questioned, who does not provide ID to the officer, is actually innocent of stealing my stuff... should he still go to jail for not cooperating?

But under your scenario, he would have to be let go as soon as he told the cop where to put it.

[cinFLA]

The part the charges you with a crime for failure to identify.

Actually, nothing in the law I posted does that.

[eno_]

Shame on you for characterizing the cop as a liar.

I suppose you find all accusations by "witnesses" that turn out not to have a birth certificate, valid address, or phone number to be credible if a cop says they are. After all, we are to trust cops' judgement on how and when to ask for ID, right?

[B4Ranch]

I believe that the Court has already determined that an officer may ask for ID, you are required to say," My name is XXX XXXXXXXX, I live at 14 XXXXXX St, City, State.

What you do not have to provide is anything with an identifying number on it such as a drivers license.

The officer then may use his radio to determine if you are who you say you are by giving his agency a description of you and the information you already have given.

Lying about your name and place of residence is a crime.

[eno_]

Oh, and if cops don't lie at the drop of a hat, we wouldn't need a special word for it: "testilying."

[cinFLA]

Mr. H agreed that they had probably cause. Who are we to disagree if even Mr. H agrees.

[cinFLA]

Oh, and if cops don't lie at the drop of a hat, we wouldn't need a special word for it: "testilying."

There is NOTHING in any of the testimony to indicate the cop was lying. Only you interject this idea.