[sailor4321]

Hmmmm...I refuse to identify myself because doing so might tend to incriminate me?

[grobdriver]

It would be a shame if cowboys were required to carry a driver's license to ride a horse while roaming the open range.

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

[af_vet_rr]

In the dissent, Justice Deborah Agosti argues that merely knowing an individual's identity does not enhance safety.

Hard to argue with that. From the video it was pretty clear the cop was just fishing, and wouldn't even inform the guy of what was going on. "Investigating an investigation" my butt.

[sauropod]

Oh goody. More cards we shall have to carry around.

I think that the cowboy should carry around a copy of the BoR and whip out the 4th amendment next time Johnny Lawdog decides he is conducting an "investigation of an investigation."

[Lord_Baltar]

Well, to borrow from some of the words used around here to defend the Patriot Act, "Don't they know there's a War on Terrorism going on?" "They should be happy to cooperate" and my personal favorite "If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".

Face it Folks, this sort of thing is just the tip of the iceberg....

[upchuck]

Hmmmm... the LEO trying to out-cowboy the cowboy?

And this joke made it all the way to the Supremes?

Methinks something is outa whack here.

[DJ Frisat]

Mr. Kyl, if you want to scan retinas and capture fingerprints electronically, how about directing your efforts at EVERY FOREIGN VISITOR WHO CROSSES OUR BORDERS FOR ANY REASON? And don't forget those illegal immigrants that we're so eager to give drivers' licenses, health care and Social Security benefits to.

Sheesh, the "leaders" in this country have it all backwards.

[Chip_Douglas]

I live in New Hampshire and im a young guy. Any time im walking somewhere, the cops stop me and card me. They always use the same excuse "there's been alot of robberies in the neighborhood" when I know theres not since I live there.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[Izzy Dunne]

What this story does NOT say is that there was an anonymous report of domestic violence between Hiibel and his daughter. Aparrently his daughter hit HIM, but that part didn't make it thru. The officer was responding to that, which is why he stopped to begin with.

That doesn't make any of it right, but the article could have stated it.

The video and whole story is available here.

[Izzy Dunne]

What this article also does NOT say is that after Hiibel was cuffed and sitting in the patrol car, OTHER officers were lying on top of his daughter, who had escaped the truck (after the officer had tried to keep her shut in it.

See the video.

[cynicom]

Expect O'Connor to once again side with her brethern on the left.

[grellis]

My one and only arrest was for not having photo id on me while driving here in Lansing. I was pulled over for a routine traffic stop (failure to yield, which I fought and won, BTW) and didn't have my license on me. I had credit cards, my social security card, and was able to tell the officer my license number, to no avail. Cuffed, hauled in, fingerprinted, mug-shotted, the whole nine yards. I wasn't goading the officer into it or anything--my husband was an MP at the time and I know enough to be "Yessirnosir" in this kind of situation. When I asked the officer why he felt it was necessary to go to such lengths he explained that if I were to die in an auto accident it would be difficult to identify me. Yadda yadda...as I said, I had id on me, just not my license.

I am not really upset about what happened. The law in Lansing is you must have your license with you while driving. I broke the law so there you go. What really pi$$es me off is that our local officers won't issue tickets to our local drug dealers for loitering because they never show proper id.

[corlorde]

I think we should all be forced to get tracking chips implanted under our skin so the government can track out location and get an immediate history(crime, court, medical, finacial) any time they want. See, we won't have to carry any papers....NOT!

[johnny7]

I'm not too worried about the 'Patriot Act'... as long as it sticks to it's original purpose. I do worry when I see local law enforcement harassing innocent citizens to make revenue while avoiding the real thugs who roam the streets. In another words... PC policemen.

[handk]

This issue was settled 20 years ago in U.S. Supreme Court KOLENDER v. LAWSON 461 U.S. 352 (1983).

---

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.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"It would be a shame if cowboys were required to carry a driver's license to ride a horse while roaming the open range."

Except that he WASN'T riding a horse. He was on a public road, with a motor vehicle, the driving of which requires you to carry a driver's license with you.

[conservativeharleyguy]

Years ago (25-30), the city of Albuquerque passed an ordinance requiring everyone to carry, and be able to present, an official ID to a police officer at any time. It was billed as a reaction to concerns about a rapidly expanding "homeless" (worthless???) population and the resulting vagrancy. I don't know if it's still on the books, but it illustrates that this is not a new phenomenon.

As an ex-cop, I do think that a responsible citizen should be able to produce ID when legitimately required to do so. There are far too many "undocumented" people running around this country with bad intentions. But for some cops, it's easier to pick the low hanging fruit than work at catching the real bad guys.

It seems that there is more than meets the eye here. I wouldn't be surprised if the officer in this case had some sort of history w/the subject, and overreacted. "Investigating an investigation" is just flippant. I probably would have reacted the same way as (or worse than) the gentleman did.

One of the primary reasons I am no longer in L.E. is that after one spends too much time immersed in the sh#t of society, some of it is bound to rub off. It makes one far too cynical, and one therefore thinks the worst of everyone.

[freeeee]

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.

[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."