Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

He fought the law, and the law won

  • Jun. 29th, 2004 at 2:57 AM
side-beard-flip
From the mouth of Dudley Hiibel, the plaintiff in the recent Supreme Court case about whether or not the cops can demand that citizens show ID.

Comments

[info]zudini wrote:
Jun. 29th, 2004 09:52 am (UTC)
I remember thinking, when watching the video of the arrest, that this guy was sort of a dick and that it was a shame it was he who brought this important case before the courts. He says in that article that he wasn't argumentative, but I think that's a little too generous.

Still, thanks for the link.
[info]audaibnjad wrote:
Jun. 29th, 2004 10:17 am (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what was at stake here. Dudley says it was proved in court that he didn't commit any crimes. So was the court ruling that if you haven't committed a crime and don't present your papers on demand then it's OK for the police to throw you in jail overnight?
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Jun. 29th, 2004 06:54 pm (UTC)
hiibel case
They dropped the charges of assault against Hiibel, which was the reason they stopped him in the first place. But they found him guilty on a misdemeaner and fined him $250 for refusing to comply with a law that says the police "may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime." And that "[a]ny person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."

Given that the Fifth Amendment says you don't have to answer any questions, Hiibel didn't see why the question "what is your name" is any different. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional.
[info]herooftheage wrote:
Jun. 30th, 2004 09:19 am (UTC)
Re: hiibel case
Given that the Fifth Amendment says you don't have to answer any questions, Hiibel didn't see why the question "what is your name" is any different. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional.

If I understand things correctly, the court ruled something more peculiar than that: a person is required to give his name unless doing so would tend to incriminate him. Thus, you would have to tell them you are Patri Friedman, but Osama Bin Laden would not have to say who he is.

One can imagine the odd situation of a criminal being arrested for not giving his name while actually having damning evidence on him, and the evidence then being excluded because the arrest was illegal, as the criminal already had a warrant out for him, and hauling him in for not complying with the i.d. law was a false arrest.

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow