Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Meet Dudley Hiibel

by C1ay Feb 19, 2004 10:31AM PST

On March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case involving an arrest for lack of producing ID on the demand of a police officer. Dudley Hiibel was parked off the road, and was asked 11 times to show ID to the police officer, who gave the justification of 'investigating an investigation.' Finally, he was arrested, and eventually convicted of delaying a police officer,' and fined $250. The incident occurred in Humboldt County, Nevada. Here are the pdfs of the petitioner's brief, the respondent's brief and the petitioner's reply. What do you think?

Discussion is locked

11 Posts
- Collapse + Expand Details
- Collapse -
Re:Meet Dudley Hiibel
by Mary Kay Feb 19, 2004 9:43PM PST

This is just my opinion but if the officer had reason to suspect this man of a crime, he could arrest him without any Identification. But to arrest him for not IDing himself or the response that he was"investigating an investigation", seems a little flimsy. The officer also had other options like running the license plate. The man may have had perfectly reasonable reasons for not identifying himself.He may have been sitting there waiting on someone who he should not have been meeting (an affair).The police should not treat everyone as if they are a criminal.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Meet Dudley Hiibel
by C1ay Feb 20, 2004 2:53PM PST
But to arrest him for not IDing himself or the response that he was"investigating an investigation", seems a little flimsy.

I think it's important to note though that he was not just arrested for this. He was arrested, charged, convicted and fined $250 for failing to produce ID.
- Collapse -
It would be a major terrorist victory if Hiibel lost this case. -nt
by Dan McC Feb 19, 2004 10:51PM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT) At least Orwell's characters knew they were living in a police state :( Mo
by Mosonnow Feb 20, 2004 2:05AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Meet Dudley Hiibel
by Roger NC Feb 20, 2004 2:46AM PST

Well since legalese just makes my eyes glaze over, I searched for differnt views of the story in plain text.

Several felt the police offer responding was in error, not necessarily for asking for ID, but in the way he went about the entire thing.

One prejudice circumstance is refering to past cases that officer has had evidence surpressed, I guess as evidence of his unprofessionalism?

Someone called the police and reported that someone had slugged a female . That would have been reason enough for the office to ask for identification. But the rest of the officers actions show problems.

Reason to ask for ID? possibly since he was responding to a possible domestic violence. But the rest of the events show possible overreaction, by both officers and the citizen. I suspect they both were haughty and it escalated in a macho contest to be honest.

Another report seems to basically seems to be that the officer decided Hiibel was drinking while driving even though the officer had not seen him driving.

Personally, after reading several links, most obviously siding with Hiibel, I think the officers were overly aggressive.

But I'm not convinced that asking for an ID at a scene of reported assault wasn't proper.

The entire legality seems to be a question of balence between protection between unreasonable search and seizure and protection of the public and enforcing the law.

So how much does protection against unreasonable search and seizue apply when asked for an ID on a public roadside when a citizen has phoned in a report of violence and assualt at that scene?

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Meet Dudley Hiibel
by C1ay Feb 20, 2004 3:01PM PST
Reason to ask for ID? possibly since he was responding to a possible domestic violence.

This is not that common when they respond to a residence on the same call. The few times the police have knocked on my door they have never asked for ID. They've never been to my house for a domestic violence call but on the issues I was visited on they didn't ask anyone for ID.

But I'm not convinced that asking for an ID at a scene of reported assault wasn't proper.

I'm not particularly convinced it wasn't proper either. OTOH, I'm not convinced that the $250 fine and conviction is proper either.

- Collapse -
It will be interesting to see what :Extenuating Circumstances: our police can come up with for this one ...
by Mosonnow Feb 20, 2004 3:03AM PST
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/3506409.stm

Today

Quote: A police officer has been "removed" from front line duties after he was allegedly caught by CCTV cameras assaulting a man in Manchester. Unquote

The incident was in June 2003, with the video clearly showing the man being kicked repeatedly whilst he was on the ground (reported to be in handcuffs).

I am not trying to hijack your post - just want to say that it seems that three years later, things are certainly moving in the wrong direction.

Regards
Mo
- Collapse -
Re:It will be interesting to see what :Extenuating Circumstances: our police can come up with for this one ...
by Roger NC Feb 20, 2004 3:27AM PST

Unfortunately we've seen some of the same here in the US.

Up until he was down, as far as I could tell from the video clip shown, I wouldn't fault the police, he did pull free and walk away. Even if that was mace that was apparently sprayed in face, that is normally a safer means of subduing someone.

But the kicking after he was down was definately out of line, no doubt about that I don't think.

The head bump is too far away from video angle to say if police did it or some struggle or just movement of his caused it.

But there is definately wrong shown with the downed kicking if nothing else, IMO.

- Collapse -
If this had been a :one on one: there might have been some justification ....
by Mosonnow Feb 20, 2004 5:53AM PST

and I would question even that. This was CS spray not mace, clearly affecting the guy, then the baton and on it goes.

My point is that several policemen were on the scene, so when the "kicking when down" started, we don't see the others rushing to stop this.

Clearly I am raising this only to receive others' comments - and equally clearly it is pretty obvious what I think about this. I don't know if this was because the guy was black - our "current record" (another oxymoron) isn't too good on this.

We have our Police Complaints Authority (being police who investigate police), but apparently there are civil suits pending so we must wait and see.

I've kinda closed off this discussion by being so single minded here, but this can't be right?

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Re:If this had been a :one on one: there might have been some justification ....
by Roger NC Feb 20, 2004 6:42AM PST

All present were in the wrong after the guy was down. The rest? some of it looked too much, but I wasn't sure I was seeing enough to judge. When he pulled away and walked away, that may have been reason enough for the arrest.

I'm not sure what CS spray is vs some form of mace?

Anyway, something was wrong here, I'd agree.

- Collapse -
It seems that Mace is a generic term in the US ...
by Mosonnow Feb 20, 2004 8:48AM PST

Here are two sites which don't really explain the difference between Mace and CS Gas, (but maybe there isn't one vis a vis my title line).

http://www.keme.co.uk/~mack/Chemical.htm

http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_05/20010512.html

I'm going out now to get my protective suit, hat, etc in case I step off the sidewalk accidentally. OK he, Delbo King, made a slightly bigger mistake than that, but not that much bigger a mistake - he broke a glass panel at a bus stop (the nearest equivalent is what I think you call a car port) - i.e it is a simple overhead and side cover which protects people from overhead rain whilst waiting for a bus. Sure it's vandalism but it was a piece of glass is all - and it could take me a long time to find out the statistics for how many times these get broken.

We cannot know all of the facts at this stage; the video was shown in court however which appears on the face of it to show the most incontrovertible elements. I would be a bit surprised it this "news story" dies quietly.

Regards
Mo

Back to Speakeasy forum

CNET Forums

Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Brand Forums
Roadshow Autos
Off Topic

Other Forums

Forum Info