Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BAN SUVS
The deputy did have reason to ask for ID. Follow events from his perspective:
-911 call for Domestic Violence on the side of the road
-he pulls up to the scene and the suspect is leaning into a truck window, appearing as if it's not his vehicle, like he's hitchhiking or something
-Since no violence is happening at this point, he asks for ID so he can fill out what's called a field contact report. This is done for reasons of posterity. If the girlie in the truck turns up in a ditch 2 days later, guess who they want to talk to first? You got it, Scruffy Lookin' Hitchhiker.
-Scruffy guy refuses. Now, being that he was presumably the reason (or involved in) the DV call, what reasons can you think of for refusing to submit ID to the Deputy?
If Mr. Hiibel had been on the side of the road, say, changing a tire, then there would have been no reason for him to be asked for his ID. But, there was a reported crime, and the incident probably involved him, so the deputy is compelled to ask for ID.
|
I totally agree with looking at it from the deputy's point of view; when he got there, all he knew was there was a DV call and had a crusty old man talking smack to him and being uncooperative. I'm not saying the guy should be disciplined and fired for it or something, what I'm saying is that he overstepped his legal authority as a peace officer, which is bound to happen sometimes since people are not perfect, and the case against Crusty Old Man should be dismissed.
First of all, to go from that scene where there was no clear evidence of
any wrongdoing whatsoever to Hiibel being arrested and charged with 1) Domestic Battery, 2) Battery, 3) Acts Which Constitute Domestic Violence, and 4) Obstructing/Delaying A Peace Officer, is fucking ridiculous. The first three almost define "unsubstantiated charges", and whatever DA filed that laundry list of charges should be bitch-slapped and fired.
Second, and at the core of the argument, is that being forced to produce ID on demand for an officer sounds to me like a clear violation of 4th & 5th amendment protections. Refusal to show an officer an ID
is not probable cause to arrest someone, in my opinion. What if you like to walk everywhere and don't carry a driver's license on you? What if you've never driven before, and don't have a state-issued license? There is no national ID card issued in this country, so what else is there? If this case held up in Supreme Court, the precedent set would mean any officer "conducting an investigation" that wanted to question you would have the right to arrest you for failing to produce ID on the spot (that you might not even have), and you'd be charged with Obstruction. That's sure as hell not a country I want to live in.
The legal petition to the supreme court on the case is actually pretty interesting, as there seems to be a direct conflict between Nevada law and Federal circuit court constitutional rulings on this issue - which is why it made it to the Supreme Court.