Welcome to Humboldt County. Papers, Please.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Interesting case.. and close to home for most of you guys.

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/index.html

[Kevin M]

While that particularly deputy sounds as inept as hell, he had legal backing for demanding the man's ID. Unfortunately, he is going to lose his appeal. Now, if there hadn't been a call to get the Sheriff out there, particularly one involving violence of any kind, he wouldn't have had any legal reason to ask.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the Supreme court is hearing this case. They're going to have to uphold his conviction even though law enforcement shouldn't and doesn't have the right to do random ID checks. This particularly incident gave Deputy Dumbass reason to request ID, so it was legal for him to demand it even though the guy didn't know why.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

I don't know of any legal concept that allows a person to be arrested for the sole reason of not providing identification. They can only ask you for your driver's license during a traffic stop because you're driving a car, which requires being licensed; if you're standing at the side of a road minding your own business, they have no right to demand anything from you. You should be able to just stand there and not say a word. The old guy was acting like an ass, but he didn't commit a crime, and therefore I don't think he should have been arrested for anything. If this held up in court it would set a legal precedent for requiring people to have identification on their persons at all times.

[FIREX]

Humboldt Co. land of the outlaws just kidding, I learned long ago its much better to cooperate with johnnie law. The law enforcement folks do a great job up here, very little crime, no gangs you can still play cowboy but when johnnie asks you for ID you better have it . I know who this guy is and I won't say anything bad, BUT welcome to the USA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by FIREX

Humboldt Co. land of the outlaws just kidding, I learned long ago its much better to cooperate with johnnie law. The law enforcement folks do a great job up here, very little crime, no gangs you can still play cowboy but when johnnie asks you for ID you better have it . I know who this guy is and I won't say anything bad, BUT welcome to the USA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.

Humboldt County mystique, gangs, cowboys, "Johnny Law" image and UFO's from Mars don't have a damn thing to do with the validity of the arrest. This is a country of clearly defined laws; that local guy didn't commit any crime and was first handcuffed and detained, and then arrested for, failing to provide written identification. That is still not a crime, as far as I know - like you said, this is the USA, not the USSR.

[sperry]

One thing to keep in mind is that cops tend to deal with a lot of retards on a regular basis. Usually beligerant a-holes that refuse to give ID have a reason, i.e. an outstanding warrant or some other reason to avoid the law. Rarely do innocent people resist an officer's suggestion.

So while the cop was wrong to arrest this guy for not producing ID, the citizen sure went about it the wrong way. He basically acted like every drunk, white trash criminal you see on cops... wandering around, arguing, not complying w/ the officer's suggestions, and so he got stomped on like a common criminal.

So, yeah, that guy's Constitutionally protected rights got violated, but the biggest reason why the were violated was because he was beligerant. If he had been calmer, and less argumentative he could have avoided all this. Just because you have a right to refuse giving up your ID, doesn't mean it's a good idea. The guy escalated the conflict, not the cop.

The biggest problem I see is the cops that beat down the 17 yr old girl. That should not have happened. That was unecessary force IMO. Yet again, if that Hiibel guy had kept his cool instead of requesting he be arrested, nothing would have happened.

So, I guess my point is, the cops were technically wrong, but the real blame goes to Hiibel and his belegerance. I'd hate to take away the power of the cops to do what they did because in the real world, 999 out of 1000 the cop's instinct that an uncooperative individual has something to hide is correct. This was just that 1 in a 1000 time when the cops were wrong.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Like I said, the guy was an ass - which is why he got the treatment he did. It looked to me like the deputy was actually fairly calm and patient with the guy. For the deputy to arrest someone for the singular reason of failing to provide identification on the spot is another matter, which is where he was wrong. While I'm sure constitutional matters were not on the deputy's mind at the time, the fact that he did it means there is a legal decision and precedent to be set based on the arrest.

[Kevin M]

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.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

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.

[Kevin M]

I must be too good at playing devil's advocate. I personally don't liek the idea of compulsory ID checks. I just think that this particular incident justifies the arrest on obstruction charges. The DV charges were BS of course.

footnote... what does Nevada law have to do with it if it was in Humboldt county?

[Kevin M]

Essentially, I think this is one of those times when the presiding justice is going to be sure to make it clear that law enforcement has to have good reason to ask for ID (without an arrest being required before you are compelled to show it), but this particular incident justified the request for ID.

I don't like the ramifications. But from the standpoint of pure law, he's SOL.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

footnote... what does Nevada law have to do with it if it was in Humboldt county?

Well, the incident occured in Humboldt County, near Winnemucca, which is in Nevada.

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Essentially, I think this is one of those times when the presiding justice is going to be sure to make it clear that law enforcement has to have good reason to ask for ID (without an arrest being required before you are compelled to show it), but this particular incident justified the request for ID.

I don't like the ramifications. But from the standpoint of pure law, he's SOL.

He's not SOL; that's one of the main reasons that the case is going all the way to the Supreme Court, because there is a conflict between Nevada state law and Federal legal precedents. In other words, a Nevada state trooper could follow state law, a person could be convicted in state court, and the decision could be appealed up to Federal court and would be overturned. Not to mention the trooper could be personally sued in Federal court for violating the person's constitutional rights.

I, for one, hope they make a clear cut decision against ID requirement. The Man can kiss my ass.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Well, the incident occured in Humboldt County, near Winnemucca, which is in Nevada.

Whoops. I was unaware that there was also a Humboldt county in Nevada. The one in California is not too far northwest of me, and in that one, the primary (in fact, only) cash crop is "the pot."

And I would like to see a definiive NO to random ID checks. I jsut think it was justified to ask for this particular guy's. The rest of the events surrounding it were all fubar'd though.

[dknv]

I beg to differ with some other opinions on here --
first of all this web site is Hiibel's 'official' website. The content is going to be slanted towards Hiibel's defense.

Then, according to the transcript Hiibel starts out with a lie to the officer:

D: Well, I've got a report that there's been a fightin' going on between you two tonight.
H: I don't know nuttin' about that. ------ Of course, I've -----------------

I have the utmost respect for what our law enforcement does in the line of duty -- and imo the obstruction charge is definately warranted.

You also have to take into consideration the context of what else may have been going on around the time this incident occurred - or what has happened to this officer or his fellow officers before this particular event. I remember in the last couple of years, Nevada law enforcement has had to chase down kidnappers, murderers, the kid from back east who left behind mail bombs, and unknown numbers of other 'bad guys'. They have been shot at, rammed with vehicles, and have had all numbers of other violent actions against them. They have to err on the side of caution else risk losing their life along with the lives of others around them. I think it was the proper protocol.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by dknv

You also have to take into consideration the context of what else may have been going on around the time this incident occurred - or what has happened to this officer or his fellow officers before this particular event. I remember in the last couple of years, Nevada law enforcement has had to chase down kidnappers, murderers, the kid from back east who left behind mail bombs, and unknown numbers of other 'bad guys'. They have been shot at, rammed with vehicles, and have had all numbers of other violent actions against them. They have to err on the side of caution else risk losing their life along with the lives of others around them. I think it was the proper protocol.

The officers involved may have just gotten through with a flesh-eating serial killer coming after them with a chainsaw 20 minutes before dealing with this guy, but from a legal standpoint that doesn't make any difference. Obviously an officer is going to do what they think is necessary for their own safety, but it's up to the courts to decide whether or not their actions were justified.