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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Was he driving ?

[sergeantdave]

I believe the Nazis called these identification papers for all citizens "internal passports." I'm sure our government won't want to call them that - too many bad connotations. Maybe O'Conner can name them "Pepe La Pew Patriot Cards."

[Elric@Melnibone]

I do think that a responsible citizen should be able to produce ID when legitimately required to do so.

Key word here is "legitimately". While there is indication that the LEO was legitimately following up on a complaint, there is no indication that the citizen had reason to believe the LEO had either a warrant or probable cause to request ID.

In fact, the LEO was acting like a smart-a$$ with a badge and the citizen had no reason to believe it was any more than that.

Some years ago (at least 15, maybe more like 25) a case came up where the local cops in one of the "island cities" in the DFW metromess were pulling blacks over and asking for ID and reason for being there. The case made it to the Supreme Court and the cops were told they needed "probable cause" and being black in a ritzy white neighborhood wasn't sufficient.

[hosepipe]

[ In America, still a free country, citizens should not be required to provide identification papers at any whim of the authorities. ]

BULL-derdash... you show 2 kinds of ID many/every times you give a check.. whats different here.. YOU CAN"T TRUST NOBODY.. HELLLLLO...

[cinFLA]

All the cowboy needs to carry is his .45. An automatic, preferably, but a wheel-gun if he must.

Then he might have shot his daughter instead of just beating her.

[cinFLA]

No, you refuse to identify yourself because you just, by damn, don't want to. That's perfectly legitimate UNLESS the law officer has some justifiable reason for asking. The smartass deputy in this case obviously did not, and was just exercising his "jack-booted thug" psychological tendencies.

Apparently you are prone to call cops "jack-booted thugs" and ignore the fact that the guy had been observed beating his daughter while driving and had skidded to a halt on the side of the road.

[cinFLA]

The officer talked directly with the witness!

[cinFLA]

He wasn't "with a motor vehicle,". He was leaning against it. Yes, it was his but the officer didn't ask if the pickup was his.

I guess you side with the guy and beating his daughter while driving.

[cinFLA]

"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.

Mr. H was informed that there had been a report of a man hitting a woman in vehicle with his description. He kept ignoring the cop and walked around ranting about how he was legally parked. He was a nut.

[freeeee]

you show 2 kinds of ID many/every times you give a check..

No one has to take a check from you. You volunteer to provide a retailer with ID, in exchange for his honoring your check. Retailers have absolutely no recourse against someone who will not provide ID with their check, except to deny them goods and services.

whats different here

The difference is an armed agent of the state is detaining an individual entirely against his free will, then demanding identification without informing the individual of probable cause. Failure to provide ID is made a crime, backed by the force of the state.

Even the most obtuse, dim witted person could see the clear difference between the two.

[cinFLA]

I probably would have reacted the same way as (or worse than) the gentleman did.

You mean that you would beat your daughter while driving and then skid to a stop and rant and rave as the gop tried to investigate the report of same?

[cinFLA]

The difference is an armed agent of the state is detaining an individual entirely against his free will, then demanding identification without informing the individual of probable cause. Failure to provide ID is made a crime, backed by the force of the state.

But he DID inform him of probable cause.

[B4Ranch]

Search and seizure protection must continue in post-Sept. 11 America
By JESSE HICKS
Columnist
February 19, 2004


You're standing next to your pickup truck, smoking a cigarette, when a siren-blaring police car pulls up and a uniformed officer gets out, demanding to see your identification. What would you do?

Most people would probably be a little bewildered, a little anxious at the unexplained appearance of a cop, and maybe they'd even start to feel a little guilty. They'd comply right away, without thinking.

Dudley Hiibel, a 59-year-old cowboy, was in just such a position in May of 2000, outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. But instead of sheepishly handing over his ID, he asked the officer, "Why?" As in, why do you need to see my identification?

The officer, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove, said he was "investigating an investigation." As Hiibel continued to refuse, Dove's justification shrank to "because."

Earlier, Hiibel had been arguing with his 17-year-old daughter, who'd been driving the pickup. They'd been shouting, and at one point, Mimi Hiibel punched her father in the shoulder. An anonymous witness called the Sheriff's Department to report a domestic violence incident. Out came Dove, who found Hiibel and his daughter pulled over, talking by the side of the road.

There's no way Dudley Hiibel could have known about the domestic violence report. Dove made no attempt to explain or to examine Mimi -- who the caller claimed had been "slugged" by her father.

Instead, he continued to demand Hiibel's identification. After asking eleven times and being refused each time, the deputy deemed Hiibel uncooperative. Dove handcuffed Dudley Hiibel and placed him in the back of the patrol car.

Keep in mind that Hiibel had done nothing illegal. Had Dove actually investigated, he would have realized the "domestic violence incident" never happened. Instead, Dudley Hiibel was arrested, simply because he had refused to provide identification.

From the back of the patrol car, Hiibel watched an assisting Nevada state trooper pull his daughter from the pickup truck, throw her face down in the dirt, and cuff her. With the alleged victim handcuffed on the ground, Dove finally questioned her.

Down at the hoosegow, Dudley Hiibel was charged with domestic battery, battery, acts which constitute domestic violence, and obstructing/delaying a peace officer. Mimi Hiibel was charged with resisting arrest.

Since the "slugging" had never occurred, the battery charges were thrown out. Mimi's resisting arrest charge was also dismissed, as there was no reason to arrest her in the first place.

The charge of delaying a police officer, however, still stands against Dudley Hiibel. According to the courts, his refusal to show identification gave police probable cause to handcuff and arrest him. Dudley Hiibel has appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which will hear his case March 22.

In post-Sept. 11, 2001 America, we've grown accustomed to a new atmosphere of suspicion. We can never be sure of our neighbors, but the belief seems to be that with enough information -- cross-referenced intelligence databases on every citizen -- or enough regulation -- immigration and border checks; national ID cards -- we can smoke out sinister intent in anyone.

Dudley Hiibel was arrested in 2000, before anyone was considering national identification cards. His arrest, which violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, came about simply because he exercised that most basic right: the right to be left alone. He said no when someone in authority demanded information. For that, he was handcuffed and led to jail.

It's been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That maxim applies not just to governments and police officers, but also to average citizens, who have to remain vigilant for the smallest encroachment on freedom. Dudley Hiibel knew the Bill of Rights and knew when it was being violated. His case is useful to remember at a time when no one can be trusted, a time of the USA PATRIOT Act and secret trials, when our collective vigilance -- that which protects freedom -- threatens to tip over into paranoia -- that which destroys it.

Read more about the Hiibel case at www.papersplease.org. Jesse Hicks can be reached at jhicks@pittnews.com.

[cinFLA]

The difference is an armed agent of the state is detaining an individual entirely against his free will, then demanding identification without informing the individual of probable cause. Failure to provide ID is made a crime, backed by the force of the state. Even the most obtuse, dim witted person could see the clear difference between the two.

Even the most obtuse, dim witted person should check the facts before posting.

[cinFLA]

Read more LIES about the Hiibel case at www.papersplease.org.

[cinFLA]

What a bunch of crock.

[cinFLA]

The above is filled with so many lies and distortions, I don't know where to begin. Perhaps when you read that the source is basically Mr. H and his supporters you will realize that it is biased.

[B4Ranch]

Watch the video

[cinFLA]

You're standing next to your pickup truck, smoking a cigarette, when a siren-blaring police car pulls up and a uniformed officer gets out, demanding to see your identification. What would you do? Most people would probably be a little bewildered, a little anxious at the unexplained appearance of a cop, and maybe they'd even start to feel a little guilty. They'd comply right away, without thinking. Dudley Hiibel, a 59-year-old cowboy, was in just such a position in May of 2000, outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. But instead of sheepishly handing over his ID, he asked the officer, "Why?" As in, why do you need to see my identification? The officer, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove, said he was "investigating an investigation." As Hiibel continued to refuse, Dove's justification shrank to "because."

A quick look at the video show that the above statements are total distortion and lie about what happened.

[cinFLA]

I did. That is why I know that what you posted is a bunch of crock.