2004 Supreme Ct: Hiibel v. Sixth District Court ruling: give police your I.D.

[Democrats_win]

The Arizona law is bad, but this is not the first time:

http://reason.com/archives/2004/06/25/cooperate-or-else

Cooperate, Or Else!
Complicating your right to remain silent
Timothy Lynch | June 25, 2004

This week the Supreme Court ruled that a person can lose his liberty for declining to respond to a police officer's questions. Nevada rancher Dudley Hiibel was jailed for refusing to identify himself to a patrolman. On first blush, this legal precedent may seem to be a rather petty matter, but it is a travesty.

To fully grasp the implications of the Hiibel v. Sixth District Court ruling, one must take a step back and see how this precedent fits into the broader legal picture. The main problem is that the Supreme Court has created a legal minefield for people who wish to invoke their constitutional rights against government agents.

Two years ago, in the case of United States v. Drayton, the Supreme Court heard a controversy involving the search of a bus passenger. Policemen boarded the bus and asked passengers for their permission to search their belongings. When drugs were found in a bag, Christopher Drayton was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. Drayton's lawyers tried to persuade the courts that the search was illegal because he was "coerced" into complying with the request to search his bag. The Supreme Court rejected that argument because it determined that Drayton had voluntarily complied with a request, not a police command. Here is how Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the ruling:

Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification and request consent to search luggage...

In other words, the police are free to approach us and ask us questions, but Americans retain the right to say "No." Indeed, if citizens do not affirmatively assert their right to say "No," the courts will deem those rights to have been "waived." The lesson was that citizens must take responsibility for their own rights. That sounds sensible enough.

But now consider what has happened to Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel was standing outside of his truck smoking a cigarette when a cop approached him. Minutes before, policeman Lee Dove had received word of a 911 call from someone who had reported seeing a fight between a man and a woman inside a truck. Dove did what any good cop would do in the situation—he started asking questions. Addressing Hiibel, Dove asked, "You got any identification on you?" Hiibel offered no violent resistance and did not attempt to flee, but he did politely refuse to answer any questions. For that—and that alone—Hiibel was arrested and prosecuted for "obstructing an officer."

Hiibel's attorneys appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that such an arrest could not stand. In a shocking ruling that was authored by none other than Justice Kennedy, the Court affirmed Hiibel's conviction. Because it is obviously useful for the police to know the identity of suspects, the Court concluded that it is equally obvious that jailing people who decline to answer questions is a constitutionally permissible policy. But what happened to our right to say "No"?

more at link

[paulsby]

1. you fail to understand the distinction

in the hiibel case., the cop had "reasonable suspicion" (see: Terry v. ohio)

all hiibel said is that WHEN a cop has reasonable suspicion, he has the right to IDENTIFY the subject of the terry stop

the 5th amendment protects the right not to testify against yourself. providing ID (and its functional equivalent, stating your name) is not the same as testifying to WHAT happened iow testimonial evidence.

similarly, if i arrest you, you can still remain silent, but you can't refuse to be fingerprinted, etc.

it was a sound ruling

citizens have the right to be "left alone" but GIVEN reasonable suspicion, it is a "reasonable seizure" under terry, and that includes merely IDENTIFYING the person being detained.

a detention that extends unreasonably in length, or in manner, or in force used, etc. becomes de facto unreasonable.

assuming reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot, merely identifying is reasonable under the 4th

that's all hiibel says

[killer angel]

3. Nice!

Stop being so danged reasonable and eloquently stating current case law, it doesn't sit well around here most times.

[BK101]

2. Name, rank and serial number

With these encounters I just provide name and address. I do not answer other questions. Too many people have been put away for lying to authorities. Best to say nothing from my viewpoint.

Besides, the GVT already has my data.