It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man jailed a month & counting for not stating full name.

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Alright, fine lets do get to the bottom of this.

Lets specifically address the supreme court decision you cite:

The decision upheld that the states mandatory ID law was applicable in that particular situation.

Let's take a look at the law that this supreme court decision upheld:

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

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.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of his parole or probation.

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.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.


So you see, this supreme court decision is really irrelevant in this case. Apples to oranges.

The judge in this case simply thinks his title allows him to create laws on the fly.

Key words in this case being "Temporary Detention". Not "Indefinite Incarceration". That, my friend, is reserved for "enemy combatants".

Edit to add:

Oh, and I know what you're thinking. You want to cling to the last 5 words: "unless the person is arrested". Well, the "detainee" may be arrested if at any time after the onset of the "detention", the detained person may be arrested if probable cause for arrest is found. And no, refusal to identify yourself is not probable cause.

This law is simply a time waster. They can detain you for up to 60 minutes, at the location of contact, in an effort to compel you to identify yourself. If you fail to do so within 60minutes, you must be released.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Unit541]




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 





SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
No. 03—5554. Argued March 22, 2004–Decided June 21, 2004



What was the case about??




Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.



What are "stop and identify laws"?




(a) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 167—171, this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms. The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52, where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off. Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.


Why did Hiibel think he was right??




(c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination


Why wasn't he??




The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486.


What was his biggest beef?? (You should recognize this, it may sound familiar)




It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business.


What was the outcome??




While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555.


Source


What states have stop and Identify laws??


Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI


Q: Does he live in one of those states?

A: Yes he does.

Q: Was a crime committed by him in one of those states??

A: Yes, according to municipality it was.

Q: Does he need to abide by the law?

A: No, he can serve out his 90 day sentence.





AB1


[edit on 8-5-2009 by alphabetaone]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Alright, fine lets do get to the bottom of this.

The decision upheld that the states mandatory ID law was applicable in that particular situation.

This supreme court decision is really irrelevant in this case. Apples to oranges.

The judge in this case simply thinks his title allows him to create laws on the fly.

Key words in this case being "Temporary Detention". Not "Indefinite Incarceration". That, my friend, is reserved for "enemy combatants".

Edit to add:

Oh, and I know what you're thinking. You want to cling to the last 5 words: "unless the person is arrested". Well, the "detainee" may be arrested if at any time after the onset of the "detention", the detained person may be arrested if probable cause for arrest is found. And no, refusal to identify yourself is not probable cause.

This law is simply a time waster. They can detain you for up to 60 minutes, at the location of contact, in an effort to compel you to identify yourself. If you fail to do so within 60minutes, you must be released.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Unit541]


Here's the problem with your analysis. Dodson in this case is basically being held in contempt of court in relation to an arrest for another violation. I'm not sure whether this is being considered "civil" or "criminal" contempt (from the fact he goes free the moment he complies, I'd guess it's "civil").

Source


"an act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority. There are two kinds, direct and constructive." 249 S. 2d 127, 128. direct contempt openly and in the presence of the court, resists the power of the court, 102 A. 400, 406; and consequential, or constructive contempt results from matters outside the court, such as failure to comply with orders. 114 P. 257, 258.

Another classification differentiates between civil and criminal contempt. civil contempt consists of failure to do something which is ordered by the court for the benefit of another party to the proceedings (sometimes called relief to litigants), while criminal contempts are acts in disrespect of the courts or its processes which obstruct the administration of justice. 199 S.W. 2d 613, 614.

The penalty for civil contempt is usually payment of a fine, or imprisonment for an indefinite period of time until the party in contempt agrees to perform his legal obligation, unless the imprisonment clearly fails to act as coercion and acts merely to punish; 65 N.J. 257. The penalty for criminal contempt is a fine or imprisonment for a specific period of time, intended as punishment which must be tried by a jury if postconviction contempt proceedings impose sentences exceeding an aggregate of six months. 94 S.Ct. 2687, 2692.


Source

It's not apples and oranges. Law enforcement officials can hold a person for not stating their name, and judges tend to have very broad leeway when it comes to contempt of court. Had Dodson refused to identify during a traffic stop he'd probably be free. But, it was in a courtroom, where normal "rules" of law do not always specifically apply. He refused the order of the Judge, which landed him in jail. Pretty cut-and-dry. If he wants out, he can get his lawyer to fight on his behalf that the Judge in this case is being cruel and punitive-which may get him freed, or it may get the Judge to enact criminal penalties-or he can state his full name and walk away.

A judge in his own courtroom is Master and Commander. While I disagree with the SCOTUS that being forced to state your name to police should not be a violation of the 5th Amendment, in this case the real hitch is that he refused a judge's order in that judge's courtroom. That's not a smart thing to do regardless of one's beliefs.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
It just goes to show you what opinion our justice system has of the people. They treat us like dogs, trying to whip us into shape...and if we don't comply they try to traumatize us until we give in. Oh, how the constitution has fallen. It's been burned in front of our very eyes.

Somehow this is legal?????



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Theres no law requiring manditory compliance he doesnt have to tell the judge zip. The judge can be disbard for making a ruling like that if sam knows what hes doing he can disbar the judge over this. The biggest trick to beating the fed is making it more expensive for them to come after you then you going after them.

The more money they spend trying to make you guilty of something you didnt do the more likely you are to win. Even if the judge charges him with something he can still win on appel.

Falcon



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by falcon
Theres no law requiring manditory compliance he doesnt have to tell the judge zip.


Please cite a source that counters mine from 2 posts above yours that shows in fact where he DOES have to tell the judge "zip"?


Originally posted by falcon
The judge can be disbard for making a ruling like that if sam knows what hes doing he can disbar the judge over this.


I'm going to assume for a moment that you mean "disbarred", and only attorneys get disbarred, not judges. Unless, maybe I'm being too harsh and you meant he would no longer be able to put his "judgey" musing to song.


Originally posted by falcon
The biggest trick to beating the fed is making it more expensive for them to come after you then you going after them.


Would be an interesting trick....beating the fed, at what? At something that is already law? Seems like you'd be the only one paying unnecessarily.


Originally posted by falcon
The more money they spend trying to make you guilty of something you didnt do the more likely you are to win. Even if the judge charges him with something he can still win on appel.


Huh? They're not trying to make him guilty of something he didn't do, they're tryin to show that he was guilty of something he himself professes that he DID do, thus almost negating the need.



AB1



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phlegmi
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Oh I forgot that this is a conspiracy site
I have no reason to lie, also this happened in SoCal (Los Angeles area) so it was no small town department. It was back in 1995 so I think it's too late for a suit and what would be the point anyway.

I live in the SoCal region and it has been state law since before 1995 (even before 1990, IIRC) that one condition for having a California driver's license is you agree to submit to a screening if an officer has resonable doubt about your sobriety.

You might have had a case with regards to being forcefully restrained, and undeniable would have a case were you a hemophiliac or on blood thinners, etc., but not with regards to being compelled to undergo the test. The officers could have called a judge and had a warrant for the test quite rapidly so that would probably be part of their defense.

I guess my point is you may have had grounds for a suit, but were still legally required to submit to some sort of test as a condition of having the license. And this is also part of the justification for mandatory suspension if you refuse a test since one would now be in violation of the agreement for the license thus not able to have it remain in effect.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by falcon
Theres no law requiring manditory compliance he doesnt have to tell the judge zip. The judge can be disbard for making a ruling like that if sam knows what hes doing he can disbar the judge over this. The biggest trick to beating the fed is making it more expensive for them to come after you then you going after them.

The more money they spend trying to make you guilty of something you didnt do the more likely you are to win. Even if the judge charges him with something he can still win on appel.

Falcon


I'd like you to find me any courtroom in America where you can legally refuse a judge's order without consequences.

Any one will do.

Tell me where you can basically tell a judge he can't control his own courtroom, and get away with it.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by Unit541

How about the fact that he's not legally required to do so.


Where this guys lives, he IS required to do so! Plain and simple.

They want to get the law changed, let them go through the legal process.

It's cut and dry, he can move to another state, get the law changed in his state, or stop bein a prepubescent crybaby who is throwin a "I want some media attention" tantrum.

Which, it seems you support....and I find incredibly childish, unnecessary, and definitely insignificant.


AB1

[edit on 8-5-2009 by alphabetaone]


It's funny when people complain how B.S the system is and how it should be changed, and when someone, such as this guy, is actually trying to get the corruption out in the open, you get responses like this calling him a child, or crybaby. For one, how is he being a crybaby if he isn't saying anything? But anyway, good for him, the fastest way to change laws is to get everyone aware of it, if he wasn't in jail then there wouldn't have been a story about it and no one would even take notice of it. Maybe the public still won't care, but at least he's brave enough to fight for what he believes in. My guess is, the rest of you are jealous of people like him who are willing to risk all instead of just giving in because it's easier.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itinerantseeker
 


That's nonsense, plain and simple.

This isn't the first time it's ever happened and it won't be the last. I suggest perhaps maybe you should look at the circumstances surrounding the case first, then go do some research on law, then go do some more research on the laws revolving around those states.

Yes, he's being a crybaby seeking attention ... "oh he wanted my name and i didn't give it to him!!! now he wants to jail me for contempt!!" ...

If he really thought "stop and identify" was such an egregious issue within his community, I'm sure there were better ways than to get arrested for leaving a couch out in his yard, THEN refusing to abide by such law, to attain the results necessary to garner support for his cause.


He wanted the media attention, that's all there is to it.



AB1



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


The issue here, is the guy did not break a law. He may be in contempt of court by refusing to state his name when the judge asked him to, but the judge is going to find that this is frivolous use of the contempt of court angle, and could even be unseated if this guy wants to take it far enough.

The issue with your SCOTUS decision, is that it has nothing to do with ruling that you must divulge your name to a police officer. It simply upheld a *state* law, which stated that a person can be detained, on site, for no more than 60 minutes, if, and only if, there is reason to believe that the detainee has committed, is in the process of committing, or plans to commit another crime. Not identifying yourself, in and of itself, is not a crime. The SCOTUS held that there was reason to believe that he may have committed a crime (someone reported that a woman was being beaten), and therefore the state law was applicable.

In this particular case, there was no reason to believe that Sam had committed, was in the process of committing, or was going to commit a crime. So under the Nevada state law there is no justification to detain Sam, and in this case, the SCOTUS would have ruled differently.

Now is it clear why the SCOTUS argument is irrelevant?

Being held in contempt of court is another story. As you say, the judge has a lot of leeway in his own courtroom when it comes to what is contempt. The measuring stick here is whether or not a judge can uniformly apply his definition of contempt. Would this judge hold a deaf-mute in contempt for not stating his name for the record? I think not. As so many "officials" are, he was irritated by a citizen "flexing" his rights. Now he's overstepped the bounds of the law, and had this man arrested. Saying he's in contempt of court for not stating his name is like holding the accused in contempt for not admitting to a crime. Contempt of court is for situations such as someone violating a court order by not not providing documents described in a subpoena, not for cases when a member of the press refuses to act like a puppet.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Hello, and welcome to the discussion. Unfortunately, it's not about Hiibel. I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but that decision is irrelevant to this discussion. It's irrelevancy was my point.

It seems like such a cliche to say "read before you post", but hey, if the shoe fits...



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Um,

That's a precedent....I'm going to assume for arguments sake that you understand why that's important right?


AB1



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by itinerantseeker
 


That's nonsense, plain and simple.

I suggest perhaps maybe you should look at the circumstances surrounding the case first, then go do some research on law, then go do some more research on the laws revolving around those states.

AB1



ANd I'll say it again because it sounds so eloquent...... . . . .. .


"That's one of our fundamental rights as American citizens, to remain silent."

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 8-5-2009 by mrwupy]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
That's a precedent....I'm going to assume for arguments sake that you understand why that's important right?


I understand completely what a precedent is, and why they are important. What I don't understand, is why you think this particular precedent is relevant to the case that this thread is about.

Again, this thread is not about Hiibel. Again, the circumstances surrounding the Hiibel case are not even remotely similar to the circumstances surrounding this case. I guess you just don't see little things like this when you're sitting on a horse that's so high.

Additionally, the SCOTUS decision on the Hiibel case had nothing to do with the constitutionality of being required to divulge your name to a LEO. It was simply affirmation that Hiibel met the criteria for detention under the NV state law. Furthermore, not even the NV state law states that you must give your name to the LEO, only that the LEO may detain you for an hour, and no longer, in an effort to compel you to give your name. However, you've got to be let go after an hour, whether you give your name or not.

Again, the precedent set by this SCOTUS case is irrelevant to this case. It's really not rocket science either. Even the poster that was debating the SCOTUS case with me realizes that this case is about contempt of court, and really has nothing to do with the Hiibel SCOTUS decision. Don't let your pride get in the way of fully understanding something before you comment on it, doing so never casts one in a positive light.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   


The penalty for civil contempt is usually payment of a fine, or imprisonment for an indefinite period of time until the party in contempt agrees to perform his legal obligation, unless the imprisonment clearly fails to act as coercion and acts merely to punish; 65 N.J. 257.


You can be held in jail forever for civil contempt. By comparison, Grand theft auto, for first offenders, would be about a year, less with good behavior.
Lets see how long he holds out. If anything it's testament to how crazy civil contempt laws really are.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyrin
You can be held in jail forever for civil contempt. By comparison, Grand theft auto, for first offenders, would be about a year, less with good behavior.
Lets see how long he holds out. If anything it's testament to how crazy civil contempt laws really are.


What an excellent point. A few months ago, a rapist was paroled to a neighborhood near mine ( I have kids so I keep an eye on that sort of thing) after serving 14 months in prison. Yet a judge will keep someone indefinitely for contempt just to break his will.

Especially strange considering this country was born out of sheer will power. Most American's don't have much these days, so I'm sure Sam's comes as a shock to the judge.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyrin


The penalty for civil contempt is usually payment of a fine, or imprisonment for an indefinite period of time until the party in contempt agrees to perform his legal obligation, unless the imprisonment clearly fails to act as coercion and acts merely to punish; 65 N.J. 257.


You can be held in jail forever for civil contempt. By comparison, Grand theft auto, for first offenders, would be about a year, less with good behavior.
Lets see how long he holds out. If anything it's testament to how crazy civil contempt laws really are.




And you should also highlight the last part of the sentence: "unless the imprisonment clearly fails to act as coercion and acts merely to punish"

Peace.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Not only is this a load of BS, but it's simply inhumane what this judge is doing. They know who he is, so why hold him?
It's using bully tactics.
It's ridiculous!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I am not in a place where I can listen to the audio clip right now. What exactly is he even being charged with in order to justify keeping him in jail?

It must be some pretty bogus charge, assuming this is a true story and that all he did was refuse to give his full name.

Also if they now have his name anyway, how do they justify keeping him in jail still?

I have not heard the audio clip I admit, but something does not quite add up with this story to me. What charges could they have on him to keep him in jail? Has he tried to appeal this decision? Does he have a lawyer to help him out? If so it seems like this would be a simple thing to get out of.

Is he not eligible for bail? Too many questions!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join