Papers Bitte!

An interesting case is making it's way to the US supreme court. In Nevada a man named Dudley Hiibel was standing by his van on the side of a road when a policeman showed up and demanded to see his ID.

He refused as he could see no reason why they would need to see his ID, he was not illegally parked. There were repeated demands and he was then arrested.

It turns out that the police pulled up as there were reports of a domestic disturbance, yet in investigating this nobody talked to his daughter who supposedly was the victim. He was arrested failing to show ID, and was only told that they were 'Investigating an investigation'. How seeing a bit of paper would advance the task of discovering if there had been domestic abuse I don't know.

After the father was arrested, the daughter got out of the van only to be immediately thrown to the ground and handcuffed herself!

By the way, the original report of a domestic was found to be without foundation.

The argument of the Hiibel's is that there was no 'probable cause' for arrest. There was 'reasonable suspicion' which allows the officer to investigate further, but this had not turned into 'probable cause'

Yet people wonder what possible objections there could be to mandatory ID cards.... The most common argument used is that If you have nothing to hide, why would you object? However, how does carrying an ID card prevent, say, the attacks on the world trade centre, or someone burgling a house? People say it would help with illegal working, but to work (in the UK at least) a reputable employer will need a tax code. A disreputable one won't. The same will apply for ID cards.

Various groups, such as EPIC and the ACLU have filed 'amicus' briefs. This means 'friend of the court'.

Obviously, this has implications in the whole ID card 'debate'.