General Information

[Wallie]

OK, now about not having to identify yourself to LE, and the Hiibel case's seeming contradiction.

Based on your Miranda rights, (Miranda v Arizona, 1966) (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda..._v_arizona.pdf for a synopsis and explanation of the case), you have the protection of Miranda anytime you are experiencing "Custodial Interrogation". Miranda gives you the absolute Right to Remain Silent.

What is Custodial Interrogation? Anytime the Police are investigating a crime, and you are being detained and questioned, this could qualify as Custodial Interrogation. If you are being Detained (which can, unless you are arrested, last no longer than 20 minutes) and Questioned, you have the unrestricted Right to Remain Silent. Silent. You do not have to answer any questions you are asked by LE.

As it was explained to me, if you are pulled over, you can ask the LEO, "are you investigating a crime?" They will probably answer yes. You then have every Right to say: "I choose to remain silent", and there is nothing they can do. They will threaten and cajole, and may even threaten to arrest you. You can remain silent, although they may arrest you. You have to be prepared for that to happen, and ready to go to jail to protect your Rights. Or, you could show them your ID, and say nothing else.

If, when you ask the LEO if they are investigating a crime, they say "No", then the next thing you should do is ask "Am I free to go?" If they say "No" to that, then guess what, you are being detained, and your Right to Remain Silent is always there.

re. Hiibel: His argument was that his arrest for not showing ID violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. Here are the texts for the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Hiibel was ruled against by the US Supreme Court. The 4th doesn't apply as he was not at his house, wasn't being searched, and there were no Warrants being served. His argument as to the 5th was closer, as he was defending his Right against self incrimination. However, the Court ruled that simply giving your name wasn't, per se, going to lead to self incrimination. The Dissenting Opinion of the Court made an effort to relate the case to Miranda, saying in part:

Under the Nevada law, a member of the targeted class “may not be compelled to answer” any inquiry except a command that he “identify himself.” Refusal to identify oneself upon request is punishable as a crime. Presumably the statute does not require the detainee to answer any other question because the Nevada Legislature realized that the Fifth Amendment prohibits compelling the target of a criminal investigation to make any other statement. In my judgment, the broad constitutional right to remain silent, which derives from the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5, is not as circumscribed as the Court suggests, and does not admit even of the narrow exception defined by the Nevada statute.


“[T]here can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467 (1966). It is a “settled principle” that “the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved crimes,” but “they have no right to compel them to answer.” Davis v. Mississipi, 394 U. S. 721, 727, n. 6 (1969). The protections of the Fifth Mmendment are directed squarely toward those who are the focus of the government’s investigative and prosecutorial powers. In a criminal trial, the indicted defendant has an unqualified right to refuse to testify and may not be punished for invoking that right. See Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288, 299–300 (1981). The unindicted target of a grand jury investigation enjoys the same constitutional protection even if he has been served with a subpoena. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760, 767–768 (2003). So does an arrested suspect during custodial interrogation in a police station. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467.

There is no reason why the subject of police interrogation based on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, should have any lesser protection. Indeed, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s protections apply with equal force in the context of Terry stops, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), here an officer’s inquiry “must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for [the stop’s] initiation.’” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984) (some internal quotation marks omitted). “Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.” Ibid. See also Terry, 392 U. S., at 34 (White, J., concurring) (“Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation”). Given our statements to the effect that citizens are not required to respond to police officers’ questions during a Terry stop, it is no surprise that petitioner assumed, as have we, that he had a right not to disclose his identity.

Judge Stevens made a reasonable attempt to protect Hiibel, but, sadly was in the Minority of the Court.

The entire text of the Hiibel case finding can be found here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/03-5554.pdf.

Essentially, if Hiibel had gone to Court with the argument that the Nevada law violated his Rights as given in Miranda, he probably would have won the case. However, his 5th Amendment argument wasn't wasn't the right argument for the case.

As always, I am not an Attorney, nor an Expert on our Rights. I am not recommending anyone do anything, just stating a few of our Rights, as I understand them.

Wallie

[Wallie]

You are correct, we are talking about a citizen who is operating a motor vehicle. Legally, "drive" is a commercial term, and "travel" is the term that describes what the vast majority of us do in our everyday lives. If you are a cab driver, semi-truck driver, traveling salesman, etc., then you drive, because you are using the Public Roads for Commercial Gain. However, if go to your place of employment, to the store, to a friend's house, etc., then you travel. That's the difference. Since the courts have ruled that we have a right to travel, and that the roads are the Public's to use, etc., then you do not need a License to use those roads. The backing for the case is that you do not need a license to do something which is not otherwise illegal.

I don't have the actual citings for the Driver's License issue as of yet, since, as I understand it, there a several involved.

Since I am not an Expert, I wouldn't advise you to not renew your license. Renew it. There are a number of reasons, but here are the biggest:

1. You have to know exactly how to defend yourself should something happen. There are very specific arguments you have to present should you wish to protect this Right. Without knowing how to do it correctly, you will end up in trouble, and it will cost you more than it costs to renew your license. Like the Hiibel case, he used the wrong argument, and lost. He go the correct answer to what he asked, but asked the wrong question. With the proper case, he could have won.

2. You have to be prepared to go jail. Again, unless you know the exact argument, you will lose in court. Also, a LEO doesn't care. They are trained to do what they are told, based on the law as it has been taught to them. They aren't the Judges, just the Enforcer. Depending on the jurisdiction, the LEO may have the option of ticketing you and giving you a summonses, but they may also just go ahead and arrest you. When protecting many of our Rights, we may have to deal with the inconvenience of Arrest initially, just to win the case in Court later. You have to be prepared for that eventuality.

Ergo, renew your license until you know exactly how to defend yourself. As I have said, I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. I was just stating the facts as I understand them. I still have a valid license, and probably will for awhile to come. I can't defend myself yet either.

There are Civil Rights groups who deal with these, and other issues regularly. Here in Indy, one of the groups (the one my friend is involved with) will be giving a seminar fairly soon. It is a 2 week class that teaches all about our Rights, how to defend them, how to research laws, defend yourself, etc. They bring in experts to teach the class, and help support each other, and graduates from the class. The class is around $500 to take, which helps pay for the travel, books, materials, etc. I hope to take the class, but am not sure I can get the time off work yet.

Renew your license.

Wallie

Wallie,

I was just wondering if you were able to obtain further factual information that you do not need a driver's license to travel? I have been operating under the assumption that we are talking about an individual who actually is driving a car, as opposed to a person riding as a passenger. I admit that I am curious to find out if I do not need a license because I will not renew mine if I can find a sound, factual, legal and tested argument that I don't have to have one to drive my car. Thanks.
IrishMale2

[IrishMale]

Wallie,

I was just wondering if you were able to obtain further factual information that you do not need a driver's license to travel? I have been operating under the assumption that we are talking about an individual who actually is driving a car, as opposed to a person riding as a passenger. I admit that I am curious to find out if I do not need a license because I will not renew mine if I can find a sound, factual, legal and tested argument that I don't have to have one to drive my car. Thanks.
IrishMale2

There is no Law that says you don't need a license. It is based on, as I understand it, several Supreme Court decisions.

The word "drive" is the word in question. In the Law, "drive" infers you are doing it for monetary gain, or profit. For that, you do need a license. However, what the vast majority of us do is "travel'. For that, you do not need a license. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you let a LEO get you to agree that you are driving, you are in trouble. Traveling is not illegal regardless of the means you use to do it. If you were riding a horse down the street, you would not need a license would you? Anyway, I will again say: I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.

It's not based on state law, but Supreme Court findings, again citings to appear soon.

I did read the Hiibel finding, was as confused as ever, and asked my friend the next day when I saw him. He tried to help me understand the case as well. As I have said previously, I am not an expert, and don't claim to be.

Here's what I was told: Hiibel's claim was that the Nevada Law violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. As I was told during my conversation with my friend who is regularly involved in Civil Liberties cases, the Court's decision in the Hiibel case was the correct ruling based on his argument. However, it is only based on that argument. As he put it, "he got the right answer to the question he asked."

I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.

Amen Brother.

Finally, I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.

Wallie

[Wallie]

...Without factual basis, such as a case citation, or a specific reference to a date, time, place and court, if not a person's name. Who actually won a case in court based on law that you do NOT have to have a driver's license to drive.

There is no Law that says you don't need a license. It is based on, as I understand it, several Supreme Court decisions.

The word "drive" is the word in question. In the Law, "drive" infers you are doing it for monetary gain, or profit. For that, you do need a license. However, what the vast majority of us do is "travel'. For that, you do not need a license. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you let a LEO get you to agree that you are driving, you are in trouble. Traveling is not illegal regardless of the means you use to do it. If you were riding a horse down the street, you would not need a license would you? Anyway, I will again say: I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.

It isn't sufficiently factual to say, "I know people who have" beat it in court. This is anecdotal and not factual. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, every state's statutes are different and what may hold true in one may not hold true in another.

It's not based on state law, but Supreme Court findings, again citings to appear soon.

As for Hiibel, it was easy enough to do a google search by putting the citation provided here in the search box and get the decision as the first hit. It's at http: //supct. Law. Cornell. Edu/sup...-5554. ZO.html. You can read the entire decision there. The statutes being challenged in that case were Nevada statutes, which as quoted in the case were,

"1. Any peace officer 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.

"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer. "

I did read the Hiibel finding, was as confused as ever, and asked my friend the next day when I saw him. He tried to help me understand the case as well. As I have said previously, I am not an expert, and don't claim to be.

Here's what I was told: Hiibel's claim was that the Nevada Law violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. As I was told during my conversation with my friend who is regularly involved in Civil Liberties cases, the Court's decision in the Hiibel case was the correct ruling based on his argument. However, it is only based on that argument. As he put it, "he got the right answer to the question he asked."

I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.

The bottom line is, and I'm confident you agree with me, be safe, be careful, and do your best not to be in a situation where you have to make a decision whether or not to challenge someone asking for your identity.

Amen Brother.

Finally, I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.

Wallie

[IrishMale]

The Code and the Law are not the same thing. A Law is passed, and then the Code is written to "expand" that Law. You have to go to the Law to know what the Law is. Often, as the Staff Lawyers for the Government start writing the Code, they are interpreting the Law, and don't get it right. They often stretch the Law as is was written to fit the Code they want to see. Again, the Code is Public Policy, not the Law itself.

Additionally, a Code can be put into place that is based on something that was never codified into Law, and therefore is completely unenforceable. It does happen.

I'm not advising anyone to do anything. LOL I was just saying that those are the facts.

Again, as for case citings, I should be seeing my friend again in the next couple of days, and will hopefully have the info then.

Wallie

Wallie, with all due respect. And I concede and recognize you are trying to be helpful to anyone reading this stirng. You may not be trying to advise anyone to do anything. But then you say, "I was just saying that those are the facts, " without providing the factual foundation. Consequently, some people will tend to believe what you say. Without factual basis, such as a case citation, or a specific reference to a date, time, place and court, if not a person's name. Who actually won a case in court based on law that you do NOT have to have a driver's license to drive. It isn't sufficiently factual to say, "I know people who have" beat it in court. This is anecdotal and not factual. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, every state's statutes are different and what may hold true in one may not hold true in another. As for Hiibel, it was easy enough to do a google search by putting the citation provided here in the search box and get the decision as the first hit. It's at http: //supct. Law. Cornell. Edu/sup...-5554. ZO.html. You can read the entire decision there. The statutes being challenged in that case were Nevada statutes, which as quoted in the case were,

"1. Any peace officer 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.

"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer. "

There is even reference in this decision to circumstances where one may not have to identify one's self but I'm not so confident of what I read there to refuse to identify myself or provide a driver's license when requested. I might be willing to say I don't wish to provide any information and want an attorney.

Essentially, my contribution to this discussion is to say we should not rely on anecdotal statements, or statements saying they are fact without factual foundation. Or, even someone's interpretation of case law. When the citation is provided as it is here. Whether it's your interpretation of the decision, my interpretation of the decision, or someone else's interpretation of the decision.

The bottom line is, and I'm confident you agree with me, be safe, be careful, and do your best not to be in a situation where you have to make a decision whether or not to challenge someone asking for your identity.

[Wallie]

The Code and the Law are not the same thing. A Law is passed, and then the Code is written to "expand" that Law. You have to go to the Law to know what the Law is. Often, as the Staff Lawyers for the Government start writing the Code, they are interpreting the Law, and don't get it right. They often stretch the Law as is was written to fit the Code they want to see. Again, the Code is Public Policy, not the Law itself.

Additionally, a Code can be put into place that is based on something that was never codified into Law, and therefore is completely unenforceable. It does happen.

I'm not advising anyone to do anything. LOL I was just saying that those are the facts.

Again, as for case citings, I should be seeing my friend again in the next couple of days, and will hopefully have the info then.

Wallie

[IrishMale]

Unless you're a constitutional lawyer, with lots of experience, I'd be very cautious, if not reluctant to play that role in front of a cop or judge who do this all day long, have seen every variation of the game and if they are unsure, have very deep resoures to explore it.

And even more cautious, if not reluctant to advise someone else to do so. Good point NY Monger.

[NY Monger]

Unless you're a constitutional lawyer, with lots of experience, I'd be very cautious, if not reluctant to play that role in front of a cop or judge who do this all day long, have seen every variation of the game and if they are unsure, have very deep resoures to explore it.

[IrishMale]

The statutes of each state are, in fact, law. In federal law, the code of federal regulations (which I think you may be referring to) is the interpretation of the US Code, which is federal law. For instance, Title 38 of the US Code is veterans law, but you refer to 38 Code of Federal Regulations for the federal government's interpretation of that law. Here again, someone references a Supreme Court decision that grants a citizen the right do drive from one's home to the grocery store without a license. In the absence of a Supreme Court citation of the specific case that determined this, there is nothing to rely on as factual. If such a case exists and is helpful to others, especially in the sense we are talking about on this forum, then the case citation should be provided. In the absence of a case citation I would be extremely reluctant to rely on something such as, "I know people who do" go into court and beat a driving without a license ticket. Standing up for one's rights is often very important but it's more important to know what one's rights are and are not.

Very good points.

However, you also have to keep in mind that the Code, from ANY Jurisdiction is not necessarily the Law. Many Codes are passed which are not codified into Law. the Code is Public Policy, which is different than the Law. It's a big subject, and I don't pretend to be an expert by any means.

For example, states say that driving is a privilege and not a Right. In the Legal sense of the word "drive", they are correct. However, a Private Citizen going, from say, home to the grocery store or work, is not, in the Legal sense, Driving. They are traveling. Traveling is Constitutionally Protected, according to the US Supreme Court. They have also said that the Public Roads are the Public's to use. "Driving", in the Legal sense, infers that you are using the Public Roads for Profit. So, as an example, a Semi-Truck Driver would need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know exactly how to defend yourself, (which I am still learning) you can go into any Court and beat a "driving without a license" ticket. I know people who do.

I did as I said I would do, and talked to my friend about the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004 case. He is familiar with that case, and said that the Opinion of the Court was the right Decision based on the argument put forth by Hiibel. The problem is, his case was flawed. Hiibel didn't present the proper argument to the Court. My friend is getting the exact case reference, but the Court has ruled that you are not required to give a LEO your name if you are stopped. It is part of Miranda, and thus protected. Basically, the Dissenting Opinion in the Hiibel case is standing on that same argument (that your name is protected by Miranda). As soon as I get that Case Reference, I will post it here.

Regardless of all Opinions, I am glad that re-posting the Cincy Conversation has spurred a conversation. That was my main intent anyway.

Wallie

[Wallie]

Very good points.

However, you also have to keep in mind that the Code, from ANY Jurisdiction is not necessarily the Law. Many Codes are passed which are not codified into Law. the Code is Public Policy, which is different than the Law. It's a big subject, and I don't pretend to be an expert by any means.

For example, states say that driving is a privilege and not a Right. In the Legal sense of the word "drive", they are correct. However, a Private Citizen going, from say, home to the grocery store or work, is not, in the Legal sense, Driving. They are traveling. Traveling is Constitutionally Protected, according to the US Supreme Court. They have also said that the Public Roads are the Public's to use. "Driving", in the Legal sense, infers that you are using the Public Roads for Profit. So, as an example, a Semi-Truck Driver would need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know exactly how to defend yourself, (which I am still learning) you can go into any Court and beat a "driving without a license" ticket. I know people who do.

I did as I said I would do, and talked to my friend about the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004 case. He is familiar with that case, and said that the Opinion of the Court was the right Decision based on the argument put forth by Hiibel. The problem is, his case was flawed. Hiibel didn't present the proper argument to the Court. My friend is getting the exact case reference, but the Court has ruled that you are not required to give a LEO your name if you are stopped. It is part of Miranda, and thus protected. Basically, the Dissenting Opinion in the Hiibel case is standing on that same argument (that your name is protected by Miranda). As soon as I get that Case Reference, I will post it here.

Regardless of all Opinions, I am glad that re-posting the Cincy Conversation has spurred a conversation. That was my main intent anyway.

Wallie

Buffalo Bill,

Yours is the best example of what members should refer to if they have questions. Just because someone puts it on the board does not mean that it's fact. And just because someone refers to a website that supposedly displays legal advice or information OTHER than a state or federal website does not make it fact. One of the other quotes in the lengthy pasted posts below refer to Supreme Court cases. In the absence of the case citation, such as Buffalo Bill made concerning Hibel v. 6th Judicial District of Nevada 2004, it would be unwise to rely on such statements as factual. If you cannot read the state or federal statute for yourself or cannot find or read the text of a case citation, then I would be reluctant to rely on the information as gospel. You can find just about every state's statutes as well as the US Code online. You can also find and research just about every court's cases, including the Supreme Court, online. We might all be surprised to find that what holds true for one state may not hold true in another. A little research of statutes, or even a google search for, say, "Michigan Statutes" would be a wise expenditure of time.

[IrishMale]

Buffalo Bill,

Yours is the best example of what members should refer to if they have questions. Just because someone puts it on the board does not mean that it's fact. And just because someone refers to a website that supposedly displays legal advice or information OTHER than a state or federal website does not make it fact. One of the other quotes in the lengthy pasted posts below refer to Supreme Court cases. In the absence of the case citation, such as Buffalo Bill made concerning Hibel v. 6th Judicial District of Nevada 2004, it would be unwise to rely on such statements as factual. If you cannot read the state or federal statute for yourself or cannot find or read the text of a case citation, then I would be reluctant to rely on the information as gospel. You can find just about every state's statutes as well as the US Code online. You can also find and research just about every court's cases, including the Supreme Court, online. We might all be surprised to find that what holds true for one state may not hold true in another. A little research of statutes, or even a google search for, say, "Michigan Statutes" would be a wise expenditure of time.

Right you are !

Doubters might check 'Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004.

Here is a web site with info on your rights , I understand youtube doesn't like the video and condems it. I watched the free ones and am considering ordering it when I get past the first of the year bills. Worth a look I think.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

[AmIaCriminal2]

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/index.html

It is apparently a place forming a coalition for lobbying to legalize prostitution in the USA. I urge you to send this link to local Escorts, AMP's, Libertarian Parties, Stripclubs and others in your area suffering persecution in this country; Other groups have won freedom in this country; it is time to take action and end this idiotic opression against men in this country.

[Nightflyerx1]

Some interesting sites for legal discussion .

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/

http://www.unknownnews.net/cops.html

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

[Nightflyerx1]

Here is a web site with info on your rights , I understand youtube doesn't like the video and condems it. I watched the free ones and am considering ordering it when I get past the first of the year bills. Worth a look I think.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

[Wallie]

I could very well be wrong, I will double-check with my source, and take a copy of the case cited with me, and get an opinion.

Wallie