Police can demand ID, high court rules

[FrankDrebin]

Thank you. I knew it had to come down to this. "If we can save just one child..."

I've never heard that from the police side, but what I have heard countless times from citizens is; "What's it going to take before you do something, a CHILD getting killed". I'd like to reply, "No sir, this is a three-child situation, three of em will have to be killed before we do anything..."

Think it's far fetched under this reasoning of "the need of the State to protect at all costs", Frank? Think how Hiibel and Terry might have been received from a SCOTUS of 60 years ago.

Like when the govt. was putting people in camps based only on race or national origin? Cases like Miranda, Mapp V. Ohio, Terry, etc, came about because the courts felt the police were overstepping their bounds back then, 60 years ago, 60 years closer to when the framers were still on this side of the grass, but also when Jedgar was doing his thing. I wonder how many true blue Americans on this forum would have protested detaining all those Japanese for no reason other than race back then, and how many would have figured it was the right thing to do? And how many would have actually done something about it? Now, the pendulum is swinging the other way since Mapp, Terry, Miranda, etc. and the courts seem to feel the police should have more leeway in search and seizure. Thankfully, the law is dynamic and changes based on what society thinks is reasonable.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Rich,
If a cashier called the police on a guy like this, should the uniformed police be able to stop and ID him, or should they only be allowed to follow him and risk losing him? After all, they had no probable cause to arrest him, only reasonable suspicion.

Bloody Man Bought Trash Bags; Charged With Murder
Wal-Mart: His $100 Bill Looked Blood-Stained, Too.

NAPLES, Fla. -- A man who walked into a Wal-Mart covered in blood and bought garbage bags has been charged with murder after authorities found a stabbed body in a trash bin.

Wal-Mart workers said the man bought the bags, some clothes and bandages at about 4 a.m. Friday. He paid with a $100 dollar bill that also appeared to be blood-stained.

Deputies found Sheddrick Deon Bentley later and charged him with killing an 18-year-old whose body was found in a trash bin. Bentley said the other man attacked him with a knife near a trash bin, and he fought back in self-defense.

Authorities say Bentley had cuts on his hands, but they didn't appear to be defense injuries.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Umm, Frank-
I think a man, covered in blood, buying plastic trash bags might be detained for a number of reasons without Hiibel. Spell that Probable Cause? If not, spell it "Reasonable Suspicion". If that doesn't fit, spell it detention for observation under "Danger to self or others".

You continue to bring up anecdotal stories, none of which are suddenly resolved by the new ruling in Hiibel. I continue to ask how Hiibel would have helped. You continue to avoid.

Look, this pattern of "Find a situation and look for a law; if one doesn't exist it must be crafted" will always produce an absurd logical result. It is the road map to Police State. It always has been and always will be.

The Laws of any free nation are not primarily designed to keep people safe from those who would do them violence....because they can't. They're designed to keep people safe from the inevitable creep of Government Subjugation. Laws and rulings which clearly promote the latter in the name of the former are simply bad laws. Laws which create crimes, where no average Citizen can reasonably be expected to know he has transgressed, are worse. Hiibel appears to me to be the poster child for this type of law.

You can logically argue me right into an Orange Jumpsuit to ensure my "protection" by using anecdotal examples. But it can only make sense if you believe my "safety" is more important than my freedom. Such reasoning is pure Orwellian NewSpeak, regardless of your good intentions. Such reasoning is exactly why the Founders made it clear that certain freedoms can never be abrogated.
Rich

 

[FrankDrebin]

Umm, Frank-
I think a man, covered in blood, buying plastic trash bags might be detained for a number of reasons without Hiibel. Spell that Probable Cause? If not, spell it "Reasonable Suspicion". If that doesn't fit, spell it detention for observation under "Danger to self or others".

Probable cause of what? It's not against the law to be convered in blood. And if it's not his blood, how are you protecting him by taking him into custody. "Protection of self and others"? Where does the fourth amendment say that's a legal arrest? Reasonable Suspicion? We've been going round and round with people saying that the reasonable suspicion standard amounts to invading a protected area based on a hunch.

I continue to ask how Hiibel would have helped

The last "anecdote" was to illustrate why police should be allowed to detain based on reasonable suspicion.

Look, this pattern of "Find a situation and look for a law; if one doesn't exist it must be crafted" will always produce an absurd logical result.

To the best of my knowledge, Hibble hasn't resulted in any new laws. It just says that existing laws are constitutional.

The Laws of any free nation are not primarily designed to keep people safe from those who would do them violence....because they can't. They're designed to keep people safe from the inevitable creep of Government Subjugation.

It's illegal to rob the local party store because the people might otherwise be subjugated by the government?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

It's illegal to rob the local party store because the people might otherwise be subjugated by the government?

Frank, you're dissembling. Note my prominent use of the word "primarily" in the statement you are now trying to refute. You've moved from your original position that these laws are no danger to the Fourth Amendment, to the well worn rope-a-dope defense of, "Well, how 'bout this situation?" Just what part of the Bill of Rights or its raison d'etre escapes you?

"Protection of self and others"? Where does the fourth amendment say that's a legal arrest? Reasonable Suspicion? We've been going round and round with people saying that the reasonable suspicion standard amounts to invading a protected area based on a hunch.

(I should simply bow out. You make my points better than I do. ) Exactly put....you already have enough "tools" that dance on the edge or cross the line of the Fourth Amendment, yet you keep defending Hiibel as a necessary addition. All because you need to protect us from our own personal folly. This reasoning just blows me away.

Rich

 

[FrankDrebin]

You've moved from your original position that these laws are no danger to the Fourth Amendment, to the well worn rope-a-dope defense of, "Well, how 'bout this situation?" Just what part of the Bill of Rights or its raison d'etre escapes you?

I don't think "what about this situation" could be any more relevent to this discussion, especially since case law is based on "what about this incident". Why not eliminate case law all together, and when matters of lawful or unlawful search and seizure come up, tell the jury that "The police can't get a warrant without probable cause, and they can't conduct unreasonable searches or seizures" and let the jury decide each case based on that? Also, no more bench trials for a judge to decide the evidence. Leave it up to the citizens on the jury. Do you think that situation would result in more unlawfully seized evidence being admitted, or less? More innocent people being convicted, or fewer?

you already have enough "tools" that dance on the edge or cross the line of the Fourth Amendment, yet you keep defending Hiibel as a necessary addition.

I don't think I ever said Hibble was necessary, I believe I said it was "reasonable".

 

[Rich Lucibella]

No, criminal case law is most certainly not based on "what if" scenarios. It's based on the interests of the State vs the interests of the defendant. That's why criminal cases are never styled "Victim v. 3 Bad Guys", but rather "The State (nee The People) v. 3 Bad Guys".

And what is balanced in such cases is not Victim Rights vs Defendant Rights, but State Interests vs Defendant Rights. It is a long held precept that, no matter how bad a character the Defendant may be, there are certain rights which protect us all from unbridled State Interest.

It's unfortunate that so many of us would prefer to ignore this basic tenet of Constitutional Law based on apparent belief that our Government has somehow "evolved" into a trustworthy servant of the People when it comes to its protection of our God Given rights. I submit it has not and your argument that, in essence, "We have to get these guys off the street" is not practically sound from a Constitutional standpoint.
Rich

 

[FrankDrebin]

That's why criminal cases are never styled "Victim v. 3 Bad Guys", but rather "The State (nee The People) v. 3 Bad Guys".

So which is it, the "people" or "the state"? When I hear them read the charge, it's always "The people of the state of ____ vs. the bad guy". If criminal case law isn't based on the cases, why don't we just make it up without regard to the cases?

 

[Long Path]

Rich, I'm still getting from you: "If we provide them with this tool, they might misuse it, and that would be a crime."

That's the same argument being made by the antis against gun ownership. Hey? Guess what? It's already a crime to abuse citizens!

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Matt-
No, I'm not arguing its misuse. I'm arguing that it's one more minor abomination of the BoR its own right. If I can convince you of that, we'll start on Terry next.

That done, I want to revisit other items that have resulted in us having the 2nd or 3rd highest percentage of "criminals" of any developed nation. Little things like:
- No Knocks
- Double and Triple Jeopardy
- Thought Crimes, known in NewSpeak as "Conspiracy to...."
- "Stings" that look far more like "Entrapment" and "Enticement" than a real Sting.
- Imprisonment without charges

Call me crazy. I know it's a good thing to put bad people in jail. I just think we've set the bath drain level too low and we're loosing too many babies with it.

I also think that any law which increases a law abiding citizen's fear of Police or Charges, while acting lawfully, is the very definition of "Terror".

Of course we arrest the innocent sometimes. Otherwise there would be no terror.
Curt Rich quoting a former secret policeman from Hungary

 

[Ben Swenson]

Rich, I'm still getting from you: "If we provide them with this tool, they might misuse it, and that would be a crime."

That's the same argument being made by the antis against gun ownership. Hey? Guess what? It's already a crime to abuse citizens!

Long Path,
Hiibel was fined $250 and convicted of a misdemeanor for simply not saying his name. No warrants were served. No badguys were taken to jail. No would-be thieves were removed from anyone's yard. No murders were prevented, nor murderers caught. As far as I know, there wasn't even a traffic ticket issued. Is that not a case of the law being misused? Sure seems like it to me.

I still would love for someone to address the final part of the majority's decision regarding the applicability of this law to actual criminals (you know, ostensibly the reason you folks like this ruling). Note:

Respondents urge us to hold that the statements NRS §171.123(3) requires are nontestimonial, and so outside the Clause's scope. We decline to resolve the case on that basis. "[T]o be testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information." Doe v. United States, 487 U. S. 201, 210 (1988). See also Hubbell, 530 U. S., at 35. Stating one's name may qualify as an assertion of fact relating to identity. Production of identity documents might meet the definition as well. As we noted in Hubbell, acts of production may yield testimony establishing "the existence, authenticity, and custody of items [the police seek]." Id., at 41. Even if these required actions are testimonial, however, petitioner's challenge must fail because in this case disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.

Emphasis mine.
In other words, had he been in danger of being incriminated by revealing his name, he'd have had a case. Since this ruling doesn't address the applicability of these laws to actual criminals who would be incriminated by revealing their identity to the interrogating officer, how can we take seriously the examples that have been presented as to why it is for our own good?

 

[FrankDrebin]

That done, I want to revisit other items that have resulted in us having the 2nd or 3rd highest percentage of "criminals" of any developed nation. Little things like:
- No Knocks
- Double and Triple Jeopardy
- Thought Crimes, known in NewSpeak as "Conspiracy to...."
- "Stings" that look far more like "Entrapment" and "Enticement" than a real Sting.
- Imprisonment without charges

A very small percentage of the cases I've been involved with over the years involved any of the things you've mentioned. I must not be typical.

What have "no knock" search warrants done to produce so many criminals? Either there was probable cause for a warrant or not. How exactly does the method in which the warrant was executed produce criminals? Are you implying that people who would have normally answered the door and let the police in assault the police instead because they had no idea that it was the police coming through the door? How many people a year do you think are charged with a crime unrelated to the contraband the police find that was named in the warrant? In other words, how many "innocent" people are now criminals because they assaulted the police who were executing a "no knock" warrant? How many are still alive because they didn't have a chance to go for their shotgun because they didn't know they police were about to come through the front door of the dopehouse they were in?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Frank-
As to Hiibel:
I don't think you're typical at all. I believe you're a lot like our own LongPath and LawDog. You are an independent-thinking officer of the law. When you go on duty you're focusing on how you can best serve, not how you can get ahead or get the adrenalin flowing. For all of that, you have my gratitude.

I'm just trying to make certain you stay that way!

As to the other items, you keep pointing up possible scenarios and talking about increased safety. I keep talking about the Bill of Rights and its erosion in the face of arguments exactly like yours. For the third time, I'm already quite safe enough, thank you. Since when did "safety" become the operative phrase in the Constitution of the United States of America? If you'd like to debate the other items I brought up, I suggest separate threads, please.

Now, someone please respond to Ben Swenson's absolutely superlative distillation of this entire debate.
Rich

 

[Kilrain]

Antipitas, you said:

"With Hiibel, it can now be effectively argued in court that the subjects failure to ID is in fact "Obstruction" regardless of a specific statute on the books or not."

I agree, it can be ARGUED that it is obstruction, but then again, anything can be argued before the court. I do not think that argument would hold up. Hibble(sp?) was a very specific case as to the constituionality of a specific statute in a specific state. All Hibble did was affirm the constitutionality of that particular statute. That, in an of itself, doesn't give states without that statute the same authority in any way. It does, however, allow other states to create similar statutes that would, most likely, be held to be constitutional.




On review of the above paragraph, I think I just defined the "slippery slope" argument. Being a cop, I am truly torn as to what I think about this ruling. I am all for things that make my job easier but I'm also pretty sad to see things that chip away at individual freedom. It sucks to have a conscience......

 

[Redondo]

I'll try it one more time! "YOUR PAPERS PLEASE"! Yup, they are checking for my own good and the countrie's welfare. THEY know it is for my own good. Just ask them. Sorry, I don't buy it. You shouldn't either. Damn, guys/gals, it is the same slippery slope we have seen with 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

[Al Norris]

Kilrain, the case may have upheld the Nevads Statutes, but as a precedent, it has far reaching implications.

Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Identity may prove particularly important in cases such as this, where the police are investigating what appears to be a domestic assault. Officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.

Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer. See (cite ommitted-page not found). Petitioner draws our attention to statements in prior opinions that, according to him, answer the question in his favor. In Terry, Justice White stated in a concurring opinion that a person detained in an investigative stop can be questioned but is "not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest." (cite ommitted-page not found) The Court cited this opinion in dicta in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984), a decision holding that a routine traffic stop is not a custodial stop requiring the protections of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). In the course of explaining why Terry stops have not been subject to Miranda, the Court suggested reasons why Terry stops have a "nonthreatening character," among them the fact that a suspect detained during a Terry stop "is not obliged to respond" to questions. See Berkemer, supra, at 439, 440. According to petitioner, these statements establish a right to refuse to answer questions during a Terry stop.

We do not read these statements as controlling.

(my emphasis.)

So, either the above citations are controlling legal opinion or they are dicta. The court in this case says they are dicta. (This also elevates Terry Stops to something above the "nonthreatening character" the prior courts said they were.)

For these reasons and several others already given in this thread, any police officer armed with this case may arrest you for obstruction (failure to ID) and the court within that oficers jurisdiction will undoubtedly uphold the charge, State law notwithstanding. Why? Because the SCOTUS said so and they are the last word on the law. During a Terry Stop, it is now a crime to withold your ID when commanded by an officer of the law.

 

[LAK]

"I'm already quite safe enough, thank you".

....... Rich about sums that one up, and I agree.

When such things are abused the burden of proof is going to be too high. The peace officer(s) abusing this have control of the subject and circumstances and unless there is clear audio/visual evidence and or independent witnesses, it is more often than not going to boil down to the "one person's word vs. another".

Probable cause works just fine. And we are indeed safe enough thanks.

 

[alan]

Gentlemen:

If I may, this discussion is beginning to evoke memories of another USSC ruling, Haynes v. US, 1968.

The court ruled that Mr. Haynes, a convicted felon, could not be required to register firearms he illegally held, the 5th Amendment forbids self incrimination.

How come however, a "non-disabled person", that is your law abiding citizen, who had been convicted of NOTHING, could be compelled to register firearms LEGALLY held. Doesn't the law abiding person have rights, such as the right to be left alone, the right to privacy, among others, or does it turn out that only criminals have rights?

One would have thought that Mr. Hiibel had the right to be left alone, however it seems that the legislature of Nevada thought otherwise, and that the USSC agreed.

It has been said by others that only bad weather and brigands issue forth from Washington, D.C. Such might turn out to be the facts of the matter.

 

[Kilrain]

Antipitas said:

"For these reasons and several others already given in this thread, any police officer armed with this case may arrest you for obstruction (failure to ID) and the court within that oficers jurisdiction will undoubtedly uphold the charge, State law notwithstanding. Why? Because the SCOTUS said so and they are the last word on the law."

My only response to this is..........maybe. My reading and understanding of the Hiibel decision does indeed allow a peace officer to demand identification during a detention, PURSUANT TO A STATUTE AUTHORIZING SUCH A DEMAND, such as in Nevada. California, for instance, has no such statute and, therefore, the constitutionality of it would still be in question. Perhaps I reading Hiibel to narrowly as I only see it as a decision regarding the constitutionality of the Nevada statute.

I understand what you are saying and I think we may be disagreeing over semantics here. I believe that if a case similar to Hiibel occurred in California, and was challenged to the Supreme Court, they could rule the other way because there is no statute specifically authorizing the demand for identification. Notice I said could rule the other way, most likely they wouldn't however I don't think Hiibel makes it as cut and dry as you do. I suppose only time will tell........

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Great discussion all. I'd like to respond to many of the previous claims and put an end to this with the facts and the transcripts:

The salient facts (Correct me if I'm wrong):
- Roadside Domestic Disturbance Call (Anonymous? Unknown to me.)
- Police arrive. Hiibel standing outside (on passenger side) of truck. Daughter behind wheel. No visible signs of trouble, danger, beating or foul play. ("Reasonable Suspicion" in today's "dangerous" world.)
- License plate clearly visible, but Officer asks for Hibbel's name..
- Hiibel asks officer if he's investigating a crime. Officer states he's "investigating an investigation". (no lie)
- Officer asks again for Hibbel's name....11 times.
- Hiibel refuses....11 times.
- Hiibel arrested on charges of obstructing an investigation.
- Daughter (the ostensible victim) also arrested. That's worth repeating: Daughter (the ostensible victim) also arrested.

With me so far?

The actual transcript of the SCOTUS hearing is attached. I defy any person to read it without embarrassment. It clearly shows:
1) SCOTUS, as a body, was embarrassingly ignorant of the basic facts of the case. Remember, SCOTUS does no fact finding....they are supposed to rely on the clearly documented transcripts of the case in question for facts. Each Judge has an army of Clerks (attorneys) to prep them.

2) The proceedings, which we might assume are orderly and formal, are an absolute zoo. The first thing you'll notice is that the defendant's attorney is brief and to the point. Yet, he's allowed to finish about 1/5 of his responses! In fact, he's allowed to start about 1/3 of them before being interrupted!!!!! The Justices interrupt and talk over each other in a manner that would get you ejected from TFL in a New York Minute.

3) Either the SCOTUS Judges are doing a Bar Exam of the Attorney's knowledge of the law, or they have absolutely no idea of the juxtaposition of major related case law to the Bill of Rights of The United States of America. Their questions regarding the effect of Terry and related law are not worthy of Ward Cleaver questioning the Beav. In fact, I defy any Member of this Forum to state that we haven't asked better questions than them!

4) The questions posed by the Justices hearken back to the disbelief of Ward's wife, June. "You mean, if someone is standing outside a jewelry store at night, we can't stop him and compel his name?"; "Well, certainly we must be asking our citizens' cooperation with the police in providing their name on demand?"; and repeatedly the concept of, "The needs of the State...."

The link to the full transcript is available at bottom of this post. 20 minutes of argument to determine your "new" rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments. I don't believe there is a Member among us that won't be nauseated by the lack of preparation of these Justices or the watershed ramifications this ruling will have of future decisions. Read it and you'll never again assume that "Good Law" is, by definition, SCOTUS decision.
http://thefiringline.com/Misc/hiibel.pdf
Rich