SugarMyChurro
Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
"Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure" 466 U.S. 210 (1984)
Yeah, the whole quote is actually:
"Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, such questioning does not result in a detention under the Fourth Amendment. "
http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/210/case.html
So just as I have stated previously ( http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1251643 ), you simply ask: "Can I leave?" If yes, you leave without answering questions. If no, you are being stopped under the rules of Terry v Ohio (i.e. Terry Stop) or under Hiibel (Stop and Identify). In other words, the INS case is off point in the current hypothetical. Further, to work in this country you do have to have documents in order to do so - so again, the case is different. It is a tiny part of the answer the court gives in Hiibel (obiter dictum), and not quite the whole answer itself. If INS v. DELGADO were the complete answer there would be no need for Hiibel as the other case would be the precedent case containing the rule of law that is binding on all lower courts.
-----
Obiter dictum
An obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta), Latin for a statement "said by the way", is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument."[1] Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.
-----
And you are STILL confusing a demand that someone "identify" themselves with the specific demand for some kind of paper I.D. - the two things really are different as I already quoted from Hiibel. In plain english it says you don't have to show paper I.D.:
""As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206-1207."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=542&page=177
What I don't get is this: you said Hiibel was the holding case. I agree with that assessment. What you are doing now is literally arguing with what Hiibel says as if it were my fault.
< Message edited by SugarMyChurro -- 9/7/2007 11:04:37 AM >
|
RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... - 
Profile
Which is of course, why the Supreme Court referenced case law when they freed Hiibel after reversing his conviction. On your planet. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread