GLENN W /// "PAPERS REQUIRED"

[NY Bearhunter]

I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING CASE LAW IN NEW YORK AND THE UNITED STATES FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR ID. THE HUGE AMOUNT OF CASE LAW IS MIND BOGGLING AND THE LAW IS BROAD AND THE READINGS ARE INTERESTING TO SAY THE LEAST NEW YORK LAWS GO HAND AND HAND WITH THE PRECEDENT OUT OF NEVADA.


CASE ON POINT /// HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA. 542U.S. 177

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING:


THEY ARE BASED ON WHAT IS CALLED " STOP AND IDENTIFY" LAWS

AND "OBSTRUCTION LAWS"

N.Y. CONSOLIDATED LAWS PENAL (PEN) 195.05

SOME OF WHICH STATES; INTENTIONALLY OBSTRUCTS, IMPAIRS OR PERVERTS THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW OR OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNCTION, OR PREVENTS OR ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT A PUBLIC SERVANT FROM AN OFFICIAL FUNCTION.

WHICH IS, IF, YOUR ASKED FOR ID OF ANY KIND AND REFUSE THE ABOVE MENTIONED LAW TAKES OVER, THE REASON WHY YOUR WERE ASKED FALLS UNDER " STOP AND IDENTIFY" LAWS.

24 STATES NOW HAVE THESE LAWS AND ENFORCE THEM;

ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, RHODE ISLAND, UTAH, VERMONT AND WISCONSIN.

HIIBEL CASE LAW STATES; UNLESS A SPECIFIC LOCAL JURISDICTION HAS PASSED A " STOP AND IDENTIFY" LAW, PERSONS IN STATES NOT LISTED ABOVE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ID THEMSELVES.

THE CASE LAW IS ENDLESS, I SPENT A FEW HOURS READING SOME OF IT AND IT GAVE ME A HEADACHE, BUT IS INTERESTING.

[Topaz Fisherman]

Wow, thanks for doing the research and for posting your findings. Very interesting. Oh yeah, I like the fact that it mentions nothing about the race of an "unsub".

[Glenn W]

Please read, it's very short and get back with me--

Hibel v. Nevada, Humboldt Cty.:

From Cornell Law Library:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

Please refer to the last three sentences of paragraph (a) and all of paragraph (b) of the syllabus or if you prefer, the entire Opinion can be read here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

[NY Bearhunter]

Please read, it's very short and get back with me--

Hibel v. Nevada, Humboldt Cty.:

From Cornell Law Library:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

Please refer to the last three sentences of paragraph (a) and all of paragraph (b) of the syllabus or if you prefer, the entire Opinion can be read here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,YOU WILL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME HERE BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY SEE YOUR POINT.

HIIBEL, WAS STILL FOUND GUILTY FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE. OUT OF THAT PRECEDENT CAME THE "STOP AND IDENTIFY" LAWS ( WHICH ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PROFILING) THAT WERE ADDED TO AN GENERAL "OBSTRUCTING" LAW (IN NEW YORK) THAT MADE THE HIIBEL CASE BROADEN EVEN MORE. THEN ADD MORE CASE LAW ON TOP OF THAT OVER TWENTY FOR A STARTER, WHICH I HAVE ALSO READ SOME OF, AND THE NEW YORK CASE LAW TAKES HIIBEL TO ANOTHER LEVEL.AFTER ALL OF THE SMOKE CLEARS, THE HIGHEST COURT DIDN'T OVER TURN THE CONVICTION AND THE CASE LAW STANDS IN 24 STATES, BOTTOM LINE YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE THERE IS SOME WIGGLE ROOM HERE AND THERE BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE PRIVY WITH THE LAW TO DO SUCH, OTHER WISE YOU WOULD BE CHARGED.

[Glenn W]

First of all, thank you for being civil and courteous. Second, this is really getting boring but I now see you are sincerely confused, so I will explain where you are missing the Point and misunderstanding what the Supreme Ct has ( and has not) said.

Without getting into the legal details ( these can be found in the full Opinion provided earlier), the issue was that the suspect (Hibel) refused to provide his name to police. The Court was very careful in distinquishing the difference in requiring one to provide his/her name orally for purposes of identifying oneself and any requirement to carry written identification.
Hibel appealed his conviction on the theory that the Police has no right to require him to orally (or otherwise) identifty himself. By a narrow margin, the Supreme Ct. Ruled that a requirement for a suspect to orally identify him/herself is not a violation of one's 4th amendment rights. However, the Court was clear in its Opinion that this finding is totally separate from previous Supreme Ct. rulings that have found laws requiring written identification to be unconsitutional. In other words, the Ct. found that the police may require you to identify yourself but in no way does this mean that you must carry or produce identification. If you go to the Cornell site and read the decenting opinions, it will shed light on this understanding. (note, the decents felt that the suspect was not required to even identify hikmself), the decenting opinions draw a corrolation to previous decisions that have found laws unconsitutional that require written identification. The majority disagreed because all Hibell had to do was provide his name orally to the Police.

Now, compare this to the Az. law that makes it illegal not to carry and produce written identification. This is precisly what the Supreme Court has found in the past to be a violation of our 4th amendment rights. Who knows how this will be decided if the Az. Governor does sign the bill, but I think its safe to say it will end up in the Courts.

No smart ass or arrogance is meant in the statement that follows, but please be aware that Supreme Court Opinions are very carefully written to focus only on the specific issue at hand. The specific issue in the Hibell case was simply that the suspect would not provide his name orally to the Police. This one and ony one, issue was found not to be violation of Hibell's 4th amendment rights. However, I do find it interesting that the Court felt compelled to clarify that this decision has nothing to do with previous cases concerning its findings that laws requiring written identification are unconstitutional.

I hope this helps. As to other state laws, I do not know and frankly I'm bored with this as well since the orginial thread was aimed at reader's in Mix it Up opinions of whether constitutional rights should or should not take precidence over current problems in society.---- it certainly wasn't my intention to get into all this legal research, but I do understand that you honestly misundertood the case you found.
regards,
Glenn

[NY Bearhunter]

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME, AND I GUESS WE WILL LET IT GO AT THAT.

BUT, I STILL THINK THE ADDED "OBSTRUCTION" LAW CHANGES WHAT CAME OUT OF HIIBEL, EVEN THE SUP.CT. COULDN'T AGREE OR GET IT STRAIGHT BUT THATS NEITHER HERE OR THERE,


OH BY THE WAY, EVEN WITH OBAMA SAYING WHAT HE DID ABOUT WHATS GOING ON IN AZ, THE BILL WAS SIGNED TODAY.

[nautiduck]

Being as civil as possible, I will state once again that the new AZ legislation does not require anyone to carry ID. It requires that if stopped with probable cause that you ID yourself (not necessarily with papers). If you are found to be an illegal during a stop it also gives the authority (to state and local LEOs) to perform immigration enforcement something they did not have before. All this legislation does is give the same immigration enforcement authority to the state agencies that the feds have. I still would like to know what exactly is unconstitutional about it, please Im a F'ing idiot, be as precise as possible.

[Glenn W]

Thank you for the civility Duck. As far as I know, the authority to perform immigration activities currently performed by Federal officials isn't really a controversial issue ( at least as far as I know). What is troubling to many are two aspects of the legislation (now law). The are as follows:

11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
.
.
.
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Whether you (we) personally agree or not, this is controversial as to illegal search and siezure.

F3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.

The key word is "confirming". See, the Courts have ruled that that a suspect has no burdon to "prove" anything. In fact he has the right to remain annonymous. In Hibell, it was determined that a law requiring a suspect to provide his/her name is not unconstitutional. But this is a far cry from requiring "confirmation" of ones identitity. It appears this this (F3) is what will be contested on the 4th amendment aspect of the right to annonymity. ( you are free to speculate on the 4th amendment aspects of illegal search and siezure of not needing a warrant to enter the home of someone that turns out to be an illegal allien).

Maybe this helps explain what some people's concerns are with this law.---- there may indeed be other peoples concerns that are not at issue here.

[nautiduck]

I will be back with a response for youon the confirmation of identity. I want to make sure I get it right.

[Big Fish Billy]