Posted on 02/23/2004 6:28:51 AM PST by xsysmgr
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:41:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 . The California court has defined "credible and reliable" identification as "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." Appellee, who had been arrested and convicted under the statute, brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the statute's constitutionality. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Appellee Edward Lawson was detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). 2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed.
Lawson then brought a civil action in the District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that 647(e) is unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction to restrain enforcement of the statute...
The District Court found that 647(e) was overbroad because "a person who is stopped on less than probable cause cannot be punished for failing to identify himself."
The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court
This appeal presents a facial (involving or apparent from the face of something (as a statute)
Example: facial discrimination. Example: a facial challenge to the law) challenge to a criminal statute that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).-- 1. We conclude that the statute as it has been construed is unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated [461 U.S. 352, 354] by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
Our Constitution is designed to maximize individual freedoms within a framework of ordered liberty. Statutory limitations on those freedoms are examined for substantive authority and content as well as for definiteness or certainty of expression.
We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Part I: The Declaration of Independence (1776) No document in American history can compare with the Declaration of Independence in the place that it holds in the minds and hearts of American citizens.
basic to American democracy: government is a compact among the people, and can be overthrown when it fails to fulfill its obligations; government exists to protect the rights and property of its citizens; every person accused of a crime is entitled to trial by a jury of peers; the state cannot search the homes of its citizens without a warrant; and taxes cannot be levied without the consent of the people.
From a constitutional point of view, the Declaration served several purposes. It enshrined the compact theory as the heart of the American philosophy of government, not only for the revolutionary generation but for succeeding ones as well.
Long after the particular grievances against George III have been forgotten, the belief that government exists to preserve the rights of the people, and can be dissolved if it fails to do so, remains a prime article of faith for Americans.
But even though the Declaration built upon generations of American and British experience, it went far beyond those ideas, and, in fact, as many modern writers have noted, it is a radical statement in its view of the purposes of government.
As nation-states began emerging in Europe in the late middle ages, the common assumption had been that governments existed to ensure order and protect the stability of society. But the Declaration of Independence, while not denying the need for order, asserts that the prime purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual.
For the first time, it is the individual and not the society that is paramount, and the success of government is to be measured not by how well society is regulated, but by how free the individual is from government.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/part1.htm
You're looking at the wrong document. Try the The Declaration of Independence, " the Declaration of Independence, while not denying the need for order, asserts that the prime purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual."
See#22
The facts will ruin the story. If the cop had let everyone go and someone had ended up dead, the same people that are crowing about ID would be crowing about the uselessness of the police.
Thanks for the info and the link. My first mistake was believing the facts as stated.
The link to Hiibel's web site shows clearly that there was the suggestion of a crime. As you implied though, it doesn't appear to have been handled in a correct manner.
I still contend that it should not be a crime to not have your "papers" on you at all times. I also contend that to refuse to produce said "papers" without at least being given a valid reason for the request should not be a crime.
If that is inconvenient, perhaps a rectal implant capable of being read by satellite would be preferable.
Should he carry a copy of the 1st, 2nd and 10th also?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Indepth discussion of issue of Mr. DeMar.
550 blogs on 4th and 5th amendments
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080613/posts
Police following up on anonymous reports of wrongdoing is a technique more characteristic of an authoritarian state than a limited one. The "anonymous tip" technique is a standard ploy of social welfare and child protective agencies, environmental agencies, and other bureaucracies, local, state, and Federal. Police departments are only one of a plethora of governmental authorities that utilize this method of harassing citizens.
The use of the "anonymous informer" to harass citizens and place them under arrest and on trial is far more dangerous to civil liberties than is the LEO asking for the rancher's ID. Unless an accuser is willing to identify himself or herself when making allegations, no government agent - not a policeman, a social worker, a health inspector, or anyone else - should take action.
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.
"when legitimately required to do so" is the issue here.
One side says there is no legitimate requirement unless probable cause exists.
The other side says legitimate requirement is nothing but a cop's wishes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.