Your Papers or Your Life

In May 2000, rancher Dudley Hiibel was arrested on the roadside by a Humboldt cop for refusing to show his identification, and fined $250. On March 22, the Supreme Court will hear the case. As this entertaining Hiibel-friendly website puts it:

The question before the Court is this: Did Dudley's refusal to show ID give Deputy Dove the probable cause needed to arrest him? Or is is the Constitutional right of every American to just say 'no' when asked to produce 'the papers'?

More about the defense here; there's even a video of the arrest.

Comments

[damaged justice]

AFAIK this case has not been overturned, although "common custom" has weakened its meaning in pratice:

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

APPENDIX TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT

"THE COURT:...What do you think about if you stop a person lawfully, and then if he doesn't want to talk to you, you put him in jail for committing a crime?"

"MR. PATTON [prosecutor]: Well first of all, I would question the defendant's statement in his motion that the first amendment gives an individual the right to silence."

"THE COURT:...I'm asking you why should the State put you in jail because you don't want to say anything?"

"MR. PATTON: Well, I think there's certain interests that have to be viewed."

"THE COURT: Okay, I'd like you to tell me what those are."

"MR. PATTON: Well, the Governmental interest to maintain the safety and security of the society and the citizens to live in the society, and there are certainly strong Governmental interests in that direction and because of that, these interests outweigh the interests of an individual for a certain amount of intrusion upon his personal liberty. I think these Governmental interests outweigh the individual's interests in this respect, as far as simply asking an individual for his name and address under the proper circumstances."

"THE COURT: But why should it be a crime to not answer?"

"MR. PATTON: Again, I can only contend that if an answer is not given, it tends to disrupt."

"THE COURT: What does it disrupt?"

"MR. PATTON: I think it tends to disrupt the goal of this society to maintain security over its citizens to make sure they are secure in their gains and their homes."

"THE COURT: How does that secure anybody by forcing them, under penalty of being prosecuted, to giving their name and address, even though they are lawfully stopped?"

"MR. PATTON: Well I, you know, under the circumstances in which some individuals would be lawfully stopped, it's presumed that perhaps this individual is up to something, and the officer is doing his duty simply to find out the individual's name and address, and to determine exactly what is going on."

"THE COURT: I'm not questioning, I'm not asking whether the officer shouldn't ask questions. I'm sure they should ask everything they possibly could find out. What I'm asking is what's the State's interest in putting a man in jail because he doesn't want to answer something. I realize lots of times an officer will give a defendant a Miranda warning which means a defendant doesn't have to make a statement. Lots of defendants go ahead and confess, which is fine if they want to do that. But if they don't confess, you can't put them in jail, can you, for refusing to confess to a crime?"

[Ron Hardin]

James Thurber on the French fascination with the American Wild West

``There were, in my lost and lamented collection, a hundred other fine things, which I have forgotten, but there is one that will forever remain with me. It occured in a book in which, as I remember it, Billy the Kid, alias Billy the Boy, was the central figure. At any rate, two strangers had turned up in a small Western town and their actions had aroused the suspicions of a group of respectable citizens, who forthwith called on the sheriff to complain about the newcomers. The sheriff listened gravely for a while, got up and buckled on his gun belt, and said, ``Alors, je vais demander ses cartes d'identit?!'' There are few things, in any literature, that have ever given me a greater thrill than coming across that line.'' - James Thurber ``Wild Bird Hickok and His Friends.''

[Mon Dieu!]

Yup, there's no deadlier thread-killer than a punch line in French.

[Randall Loffelmacher]

truly. i was all psyched up about this one and then the punchline had to come in French. i refuse to babelfish it as babelfish is creaky and error-prone.

I assume it's something about "mr. let me see your papers."

[Critic]

Here's your translation:

"Badges? We don't have badges.
We don't have any stinking badges!"

[Ken]

Best of luck to the accused. They're lucky they weren't "shot while trying to escape".

The Police around here do whatever they want and then lie to justify their actions. My kids had trouble and the lawyer told me the only reason to get a copy of the police report is to find out what lies the police were telling.

[Rob]

I've known several cops in my life, some relatives, some just neighbors. I'm slowly coming around to the idea that if a person wants to be a cop, we shouldn't let them...

[Jean Bart]

Ha ha ha ha!!!!!

[Larry Edelstein]

We say the same thing about politicians, too.

It's probably not a solution.

[tchiers]

'Alors, je vais demander ses cartes d'identit?!'

=

'Well, I'll go ask for their ID cards!"

[jon]

Surely, nothing can stand in the way of an officer "Investigating an investigation". I can't imagine a more frightening scenario than that. Just think, the police couldn't bust down your door, couldn't point a gun at your head, and could not then send an agent into your bedroom to check that your mattress tags were there before said mattresses were sold to you. How can a society be safe without such operations?

[dj of raleigh]

The police stopped due to a report of assault on female.
The man fit the description of the man hitting a woman.
So I guess the police were bound to investigate.
If the citizen was walking, would he have to stop and talk?
If the citizen doesn't have to talk, then why stop?
If the citizen had remained silent, would he be taken in?
If the citizen refuses in those ways to cooperate,
would he be subject to arrest?

Who, and why would anyone want to be a cop
and deal with two emotional family members?
The officer was not a patient people person.
And the man was as stubborn, wanting to go to jail.
The daughter was a bit hysterical herself.
The funny part is, if the man hit his daughter,
where did he get off calling the cops 'big men?'
Too bad the cop didn't ask the lady if she was OK,
and then drive off and write up the report.

Wonder if the cop had a right to take pictures?
Do people have to cooperate with investigations?
Do witnesses to a crime have to speak to police?
Do witnesses have to stop and talk to police?
Do police have to stop when a citizen flags them?
Do police have to immediately respond to calls?

I figure the court will say that the man should ID himself
since he was still on the 60' public right-a-way,
and there had been a report of him committing a crime.
I don't see why the the woman wasn't obstructing?

I'm afraid of country cops. They make me lay down
on the ground if I get out of the vehicle.

[opinion man]

the french joke would be bad even if i read french.

i read the website and the linked nevada supreme court opinion and some of the briefs and i thought that this is a great test case for those of us who want to fuck with cops. but then i forwarded the link to a friend and he thought it a shitty test case, the worst possible even, because the dude is a drunk, daughter-beating cowboy.

i stuck w/ my original impression, b/c i think the issue is limited to if, during a terry stop, a cop is entitled to your ID card. all that suspicion the guy was drunk (driving, presumably, even though the website says his daughter had been at the wheel), or that he matched the description given by the informant (he was acquitted of the substantive charges), or that the car was parked poorly (seemed perfectly lawful to me) all are beside the point.

but then i read the state's brief and the state actually concedes that it would be overly intrusive for a cop to demand an ID card. rather, the state seems to be defending its dumb law rather than its dumb cop. their position is that the statute requires a suspect to identify himself, but it doesn't state by what means. the state says it is up to the suspect to decide whether to produce an ID card or simply to say his name.

but what about the fact that the dumb cop never gave the cowboy that option?? according to the tape transcript, it was "You've got any identification on you?" from the getgo.

the nevada state supreme court's majority opinion was all about making it convenient for the cops to run your name (or the names of your "suspicious-looking" neighbors) through their databases, so they can make sure you're not a terrorist or a child-molester -- to determine what "type of person" you are.

so how does this affect things, legal precedent wise? do you think it's a good or bad test case? also, isn't it ironic that these appeals are being driven by a public defender's office, an arm of the state?

[kevrob]

@ http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html

The claim is made that:

"Mimi got mad at her dad and punched him in the shoulder. They continued shouting at one another as they drove back to to the ranch..."

The unnamed witness, however..

"...saw Mimi arguing with her dad and thought it had come to blows. The witness said that he saw `a man with a black cowboy hat' who `slugged the female.'"

So, there is a dispute about the facts of the incident. I have no idea how the Deputy had been trained to handle a situation like this, but he was duty-bound to investigate. I know that the approved drill for domestic violence investigations in the Big City is to separate the parties suspected of hitting/being hit and take their stories. In our jurisdiction, if the officers determine that a battery took place they must arrest one or more suspected batterers. Obviously this plan doesn't work too well with only one deputy.

Now, if the State trooper had the sense to let Mimi out of the cab, and walk her out of earshot of Dad, he could have gotten corroboration or denial of Hiibel's "crime." It doesn't seem that the two constables were working as a team, though.

Checking on Mimi's welfare first would have been smart, not only because that would have been the decent thing to do, but because a policeman can ask for a license from a presumed vehicle operator for just about any reason. "Is this your vehicle, Miss?" is all it would take to get that ball rolling.

A policeman once gave me the "you have to ID yourself" speech. He was on foot, chasing some alleged malefactor, who had cut through a parking lot and run down the street, just as I was getting off a city bus. By the time I got my head out of the book I was reading, and my boots had hit the sidewalk, I was confronted by Officer Friendly asking "which way did he go?!" I remarked that I didn't really see anything, and was told to ID myself. When I objected, I was given the "hindering an investigation" lecture. Obviously I was part of that "work an 8-hour shift, take a 45-minute bus ride home and participate in a purse-snatching at the end of the line" gang that had been preying on the neighborhood. Sheer idiocy. While all this was going on, Joe Street Crime was still fleeing. Who knows if they ever caught him.

Kevin

[Sacre Bleu]

The punch line being in French was the point!!!

[Jake]

"My kids had trouble and the lawyer told me the only reason to get a copy of the police report is to find out what lies the police were telling." Yep, cause lawyers can't stand liars.

Kevin - There were two officers, the other is questioning the daughter in the truck, intentionally seperating the two. In fact, when her father was handcuffed she slammed the officer several times with the car door and then was pinned (and is lucky she wasn't charged with assaulting an officer).