Nevada Supreme Court rules suspect must give police ID

[Anonymous]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:26:40 -0500, you wrote:
>
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Dec-21-Sat-2002/news/20327620.html
>
>
> Las Vegas Review Journal
>
> Saturday, December 21, 2002
> Hiibel refused to identify himself during a May 2000 stop just outside of
> Winnemucca because he did not believe he did anything wrong. After Dove
> asked him 11 times to produce identification, Hiibel was arrested. The law
> requires people to identify themselves to police when ordered to do so.

> Hiibel later was convicted in district court of resisting and obstructing a
> police officer in carrying out his duties. He appealed that verdict -- and
> a fine of $320 -- to the Supreme Court.

So if you are sitting on a public park bench in Nevada, with no 
ID that you can "produce" on your person, and you so inform an 
officer asking you for ID, are you now guilty of "resisting and 
obstructing a police officer" in the state of Nevada?

Should you wear your ID with a neck chain, when showering, for 
example, to avoid the possibility of "resisting and hindering", 
or would it be reasonable to simply wait for your chip 
implantation?

We need to remember that police officers are not here to protect 
our freedom, rather we are here to protect their safety, and we 
just have to accept the destruction of the Bill of Rights and 
other risks, so they can be safer. We must understand that 
police don't exist to make us safe, rather we exist to make 
police safe. Do we get a badge or something? Bagpipes playing 
when they shoot the remaining tatters of the 6th amendment?

Home of the surveilled, land of the cowards, God bless America. 
Please tune into your TV now for the next Homeland Security 
threat warning. Be afraid.