From: INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid   
      
   In the previous article, 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.   
      
   > 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 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 § 1983.   
   --   
   jd   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)