From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
      
   >>Hiibel gives me rights? Terry is the decision in which the cop must   
   >>have "reasonable suspicion" and have "articulable facts" that the   
   >>person being stopped but not seized is connected to a crime.   
      
   >To borrow from a friend, you couldn't be more wrong if you covered   
   >yourself in wrong musk and ran naked into a field of horny wrongs.   
      
   >There is no such thing as "stopped but not seized." A stop is a   
   >seizure. The Terry opinion is not ambiguous on this point.   
      
   Sorry. That's seized without probable cause for arrest. I have no   
   ability to spot my own errors.   
      
   >>Hiibel doesn't apply unless I'm in a state that reuires me to   
   >>identify myself, and if that identification in and of itself is self   
   >>incriminating, uh, they never ruled on how I might avoid the   
   >>conflict.   
      
   >Hiibel applies everywhere. It's *particularly* important in states   
   >without a "provide ID on demand" statute.   
      
   >>A state law forcing me to identify myself where Terry applies isn't   
   >>unconstitutional.   
      
   >Of course not.   
      
   I have no idea why you said that. Neither "reasonable suspicion" nor   
   "articulable facts" are constitutional language. Is it in common law?   
      
   Mr. Terry was arrested after the frisk during his, er, Terry stop   
   uncovered a concealed gun. With the modern Supreme Court decisions,   
   could he have successfully asserted his rights under the Second   
   Amendment?   
      
   >>I don't see what Hiibel does for me beyond that.   
      
   >It prevents police from arresting you for refusing to identify   
   >yourself absent the relevant factors. I see a good number of police   
   >bodycam videos where they stop a driver for a traffic infraction (OK),   
   >demand the driver ID himself (totally OK), *then demand ID of the   
   >passenger and arrest him if he refuses* (very not OK). What Hiibel   
   >does is a) declare unambiguously that the passenger has a right to   
   >refuse to identify himself and b) make it so that a citizen so wronged   
   >has unambiguous recourse under sec 1983.   
      
   That makes it clear. Thank you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)