sigh
Are you at all familiar with a Terry stop?
- Rick
Fear Itself-
Did you even look at the video or read the information? There was a witness that witnessed him punching his daughter while she was driving. He was then under reasonable suspicion of commiting a crime and it warrented an investigation. Under Nevada Law he was therefore required to identify himself.
toadspittle-
It is true that the officer never asked his name but for identification. However I think its reasonable to assume that if the suspect said something along the lines of “Sorry officer I do not have I.D. on me but my name is Larry D. Hiibel” the officer would say “O.K. Larry I got a report of you striking your daughter” and continue the investigation.
If Mr. Hiibel had identified himself but said he was without I.D. and the officer continued asking for it and arrested him I would agree with you that the officer is a dick and the arrest was unjustified. But that is just not what happened in this case, the officer made a perfectly reasonable request and the suspect became beligerent and told the officer to arrest him.
We must have been watching two completely different videos. I saw the officer respond to a domestic dispute call and tell the man right off the bat that he was responding to a report that the two were fighting. The man responded by being argumentative, uncooperative, and relatively incoherent–stuck on his “Am I illegally parked?” shtick when he was told that the officer was responding to a report of a fight–doing all this in an agitated manner.
This wasn’t a case of someone being arbitrarily targeted; this was the case of an officer having to get to the bottom of a possible violent crime, with the “suspect” having been apprised of this fact from the get-go.
You could not have more grossly misrepresented what happened. She forced her way out of the truck, and that was arguably the most gentle take-down I’ve ever seen. Yet she tried to fight the cop and get up. How do you propose the cop keep her down while at the same time ensure his safety on a domestic disturbance call?
Keeping in mind that my null-hypothesis is that the cop should be taken out back and shot, I must say that, based on the video, I want to give the officers a kudos and a pat on the back.
At what point does ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a crime has, is, or will take place come into question here? They have one witness - who may well have ‘witnessed’ the violence in a moving car, from a moving car (the respondant’s brief doesn’t clearly indicate if the reporting individual was in (moving) car at the time, nor if Hiibel’s car was in motion at the time).
Regardless, I would certainly hope that a mere phone call is not enough to create ‘reasonable suspicion’. Isn’t the bar set a bit higher than that? In other words - shouldn’t the officer first confirm that there is in fact ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a crime took place?
My view is that he didn’t make any move to determine if in fact a crime had taken place. Confirming the condition of the female passenger would have been a more prudent first move, no?
‘Skid marks’ - I don’t know, it looks like the side of the road is gravel; it’s not like the truck left rubber on the highway. Either way, I don’t see how that would indicate that a crime had taken place. Pretty flimsy, in my view.
I stand by my view that the officer was being a dick, because he could have very easily simply confirmed that the young lady in question was in fact fine, there was no ‘domestic violence’ taking place, and he could have send the two on their way. He took what should have been a very simple, one-minute stop and turned it into a soap opera.
(Yes, Mr. Hiibel was an ornery cuss as well - and certainly could have also solved the whole thing simply by showing what ID he had on him - but the point is that the onus shouldn’t be on him to have do so).
((This isn’t in any way related to the specific issue at hand, but I do think the officer took the young lady down awfully hard. Check out the video again: at 3:23 Mimi tries to open the door, and the officer closes it. At 3:27 she opens it again, and the officer opens it for her; as she runs by to go to her dad he grabs her and whips her down quite hard. The fact that they then arrested her for ‘resisting arrest’ is just more dickhead-edness on their part, but like I said, it really isn’t germane to the discussion at hand))
Reasonable, articulable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, but higher than a mere unparticularized hunch. The offer must be able to point to specific, articulable facts that, taken together, caused his suspicion.
Trust me when I say that a named, non-anonymous witness reporting a crime gives rise to reasonable suspicion. In fact, it generally gives rise to probable cause to search. Meeting the reasonable suspicion standard here is a breeze.
If you’re interested, I recommend doing a search on this board for “Terry stop.” We have discussed the reasonable suspicion standard any number of times, and have generally laid out how a Terry-type stop works, how it’s different from a purely consensual encounter, and how it may escalate into probable cause.
Asked and answered.
It may have been a wiser, or more compassionate move. Frankly, I doubt it – if you have a potential assault victim, and the potential perpetrator roaming about, the most prudent move would be to briefly restrain the perp. But that’s irrelevant - the point is that the officer had reasonable suspicion and under Nevada law, he had the right to ask the man to identify himself.
If that law is constitutionally infirm, then the Supreme Court will weigh in.
Irrelevant. The citizen’s report was all he needed. But you miss the point of reasonable suspicion (and, indeed, probable cause) analysis: each fact is not taken in a vacuum. Rather, they are all considered together, and as long as the officer can point to specific, articulable facts, he has reasonable suspicion. The skid marks, the citizen report, and the indicia of intoxication, all taken together, provide that in spades.
Maybe so.
But check with Gail Atwater of Lago Vista, Texas, for a graphic description of the fact that a police officer “being a dick” does not offend the Constitution.
Well, the Nevada legislature and the Nevada Supreme Court disagree. They wrote and upheld a law that does put the onus on Mr. Hiibel.
- Rick
For those of you who’re wondering about the outrage of those who disagree with the cop’s actions, take a look at the highly rated comments here, and you’ll get an idea of the arguments made by the people who believe that a government victory here is the first step towards a required national ID. In fact, I’d be surprised if that’s not where the OP got his info from.
I’m pretty sure that this was supposed to go along the following lines.
Officer: How did you get home last night?
Dudley: I drove.
Officer: So you have a driver’s license?
Dudley: Yes
Officer: So you have identification…
Nothing to do with him being drunk the night before or them having met before.
I can’t decide. The officer handled it badly with his repeated nonsense answers but Dudley inflamed the situation by his actions. I can see it from both sides. The cop has to worry if this guy is some nutcase who any second is going to start violence while Dudley feels he is right to be evasive and ignore the ID question.
Reading through the various posts so far, there’s been no mention of any law in Nevada that specifically requires people to carry ID or be able to produce it on request. There’s a law requiring people to identify themselves to police upon request, and there is now a Nevada Supreme Court opinion saying that police can demand identification without violating any law or constitutional protection. But as far as I can tell Mr. Hiibel wasn’t charged with “failing to produce ID”, he was charged with (among other things) “obstructing a police officer”.
Assuming for the moment that the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t get overturned, that still leaves one question: what constitutes sufficient identification for the purpose of not obstructing a police officer? If I write my name on a 3x5 index card and produce that card to police when they ask for identification, am I still obstructing whatever investigation is in progress? I imagine the police would think so, but what would be the legal basis for that decision?
I guess I just can’t see how the Nevada SC’s decision can ultimately stand without an actual law that specifically requires people to carry ID (and at the same time specifying what that ID should be). Without such a law, sooner or later some smartass is going to try to pull the above stunt. What happens then?
A couple quick points (its way too late at night to think too clearly, or to bother retrieving all the web pages I looked at yesterday morning.
-
Mr. Hiibel does not appear to have attempted to argue that the officer’s Terry seizure (the request that he step to the side away from the vehicle so the officer could talk to him) was unreasonable. Therefore, the code section relied upon by the deputy would be applicable (remember to read ALL the subsections of that code section).
-
Presumably, if Mr. Hiibel had asserted either that he didn’t have identification, or that it wasn’t with him, the deputy could have requested pertinent identifying information (name, address, etc.) usually contained on ID such as a driver’s license.
-
The failure of Mr. Hiibel to offer identification was a violation of a presently (and at that time) valid Nevada statute. It may be determined to be unconstitutional, but Mr. Hiibel certainly can’t be presuming that to be true in advance. His failure to comply with the very possibly legitimate (meaning constitutionally permissible) request of the deputy put him at risk of arrest under the Nevada statute. The fact the deputy wasn’t the most articulate person in the world in expressing his reasoning doesn’t obviate this fact. Therefore, no, there was nothing particularly outrageous about the arrest of Mr. Hiibel, in that sense.
I’ll be back tomorrow to address the more interesting legal questions raised. Suffice it to say I do believe that the Fifth Amendment can be read to preclude the police from requiring that a person provide any information, and we’ll see if case law bears me out on that concept. 
Once a police officer stops your free movement, you have been legally arrested. being placed in a car and/or handcuffing is no bearing on that definition. This is the definition that we follow in the Canadian RCMP.
I forgot to mentioned…being arrested is being detained.
It’s a bit different in the United States. While any stopping of a person is considered a “seizure”, the term used in the Fourth Amendment, formal arrest is a different animal, at which point additional protections come into play, including the right to counsel and the requirement that the police inform you of your right not to make incriminating statements (the right to remain silent).
Contrary to the assertion earlier by the anonymous poster who created this thread, once the officer approached Mr. Hiibel and began questioning him, and especially in this case where he directed Mr. Hiibel to a particular location, Mr. Hiibel has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; according to the standards ennunciated in Terry v. Ohio, see citation in prior post, this can’t be done by the officer on a whim, or in a manner considered “unreasonable”. The arrest did not occur until he engaged in the unlawful behaviour of refusing to identify himself.
If anyone is worried about what they can and can not, should and should not do when stopped by the police, may i suggest this helpful little book:
Boston T. Party, You and the Police.
I know, the author’s name is too cute for words. He’s also a little paranoid about a few things. But the book is a very handy little guide to the sorts of issues we’re talking about here, with good, straightforward explanations of the significance of various court decisions like Terry v. Ohio.
Obviuosly, the book becomes increasingly out of date as new court decisions are rendered, and the decision in this very case will have a strong impact on the whole issue. Still, i think the book is definitelyt worth having. It’s designed specifically to help people who are stopped by the police when they haven’t done anything wrong, or who are stopped for a minor infraction (e.g. speeding), but then the cop tries to extend the incident to a search of the vehicle, etc.
It’s a bit scary when people don’t believe that the officer had reasonable suspicion to talk to Mr. Hiibel. What was the officer supposed to do, walk away because Hiibel wouldn’t produce an ID?
There is a reason that there are many tests one is required to pass before he is allowed to become a police officer - it helps to weed out many of the wackos that don’t see a problem with a guy hitting a woman. Even if the motorist who called was mistaken by the events she saw in the pickup, the police will soon enough determine that no crime was committed and everyone will be on their way. But before that can happen, the officer must determine the events that took place, and for safety purposes at least, determine the identities of those involved. How would you feel if your daughter had been hit by her boyfriend, but he wasn’t arrested because the police walked away when he refused to show ID?
The only thing I can see that the arresting officer did incorrectly was not to ask for the suspect’s name and address. One is not required to carry identification, however they are required to indentify themselves in a situation like this if the officer so requests.
As for the daughter being arrested, I agree with that as well. In the video it is clearly visible that she wants to get out of the truck, but the officer is telling her not to exit. He is even seen to push the door shut to keep her inside. However, she manages to exit the truck and is arrested for Failure To Comply, I’m sure. There are many reasons it is prudent to request the daughter to stay in the truck, officer safety and to keep from inflaming an already hostile situation, among others.
I salute Officer Dove, I think he handled the situation well given the circumstances. As a police officer I don’t arrest people who don’t deserve it. When somebody like Mr. Hiibel wants to be arrested, I’m more than happy to oblige them.
I’d also like to add that Officer Dove had reason to believe that some sort of serious altercation was taking place. Based on whatever information was relayed to him by his dispatcher, he believed it to be serious enough to warrant the use of lights and sirens. As an FYI, the in-car camera automatically comes on when the overhead lights are activated. Dove wasn’t just investigating a pulled-over vehicle.
Also, Dove is not required to tell the suspect what or why he is investigating, although I think in this case it would have helped to let Hiibel know. Hiibel would have been more cooperative I’m sure. Usually, if somebody asks me why I want to speak with them, I’ll tell them. However, if I feel that it may complicate the investigation, or cause the suspect to begin lying, I’ll make something up.
I see. So, you’ll lie in order to prevent the heinous possibility that someone may lie to you?
Very noble.
You see, mhendo, it is human nature for someone to lie to the authorities when their butt is on the line. It happens so often that I expect it. I can count on one hand the number of times someone was completely truthful with me if they were in trouble, without me first having to ask the same question numerous times. When a suspect I know is quilty thinks I’m looking for something else, he won’t hesistate to answer my questions - or at least be less deceitful.
I don’t wake up in the morning saying, “gosh, I can’t wait to abuse somebody’s constitutional rights today!” I do what I have to do, within the law, to protect the lives and property of people who have respect for my profession, and for those that don’t, such as yourself, mhendo.
Officer Dove had a job to do. He was trying to protect the woman in the pickup truck. He didn’t know she wasn’t injured. He didn’t know she was Hiibel’s 17yo daughter. He was trying to determine what happened. The plain truth is Hiibel had on obligation to identify himself and he failed in that obligation.
Don’t make assumptions about matters on which you are ignorant. I have considerable respect for the role of the police, and for the men and women who spend every working day doing such a tough job. My respect for the position, and for many of the people who occupy it, is rooted partly in the fact that my father is a retired cop.
I was not making a generalization about the police. Rather, i was being very specific about one particular police officer–the one who admitted in this thread that his very first words to a person from whom he is seeking information often constitute a fabrication. While i’m fully aware that police are legally permitted to be deceptive in such situations, it does little for honest people’s respect for the law when citizens are lied to by police officers looking for basic information.
I never said a single word about the case in question, or about the actions of Officer Dove. I was talking to YOU, about your own actions.
I’m waiting with a certain degree of interest for this analysis. I briefly posted, above, the reasons that I believed that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by this requirement.
The Ninth Circuit’s Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, 279 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2002) decision cuts directly against the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Hiibel, but their decision rests on Fourth Amendment grounds, which, frankly, seem much more fertile pastures for this cause. I suspect the Supremes took this case precisely to address the difference between Carey and the Tenth Circuit’s Oliver v. Woods, 209 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2000).
- Rick
Here is a little advice for you armchair lawyers out there:
-
When one is confronted by the police, the wise course of action is to generally be cooperative. In other words, keep your mouth shut and show your drivers license if asked.
-
Unless you are an actual lawyer, do not try to be clever or smart by giving him your interpretation of the law or the Constitution. Odds are you are wrong anyway.
-
If you are standing around someplace you don’t belong or are doing something you aren’t supposed to, expect that you might be questioned by the cops. I understand that you may feel some righteous indignation at your ‘right’ to go and do whatever and wherever you want is threatened. That is the price we pay for some measure of safety in a world where people who are lurking where they shouldn’t be quite often are up to no good.
-
The response to screaming and flailing your arms at the police is never “you make a valid case. I declare this suspect RELEASED!!”.
Some more advice on how to act when confronted by the police from Chris Rock:
http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2458063&cch=
Obey the law
Use common sense
Stop immediately
Turn that shit off
Be polite
Shut the fuck up
Get a white friend
Don’t ride with a mad woman
I can think of at least 4 things this guy violated.