Posted on 03/23/2004 6:10:30 AM PST by wallcrawlr
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Do you have to tell the police your name? Depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a case before it Monday, the answer could be the difference between arrest and freedom.
The court took up the appeal of a Nevada cattle rancher who was arrested after he told a deputy that he had done nothing wrong and didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural highway four years ago. Larry Hiibel, 59, was prosecuted under a state statute that requires people to identify themselves to the police if stopped "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime."
The case will clarify police powers in the post-Sept. 11 era, determining whether officials can demand to see identification whenever they deem it necessary.
Nevada Senior Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen told the justices that "identifying yourself is a neutral act" that helps police in their investigations and doesn't -- by itself -- incriminate anyone.
But if that is allowed, several justices asked, what will be next? A fingerprint? Telephone number? E-mail address?
"The government could require name tags, color codes," Hiibel's attorney, Robert Dolan, told the court.
At the heart of the case is an intersection of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches, and the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Hiibel claims both of those rights were violated.
Justice Antonin Scalia, however, expressed doubts. He said officers faced with suspicious people need authority to get the facts. "I cannot imagine any responsible citizen would have objected to giving the name," Scalia said.
Justices are revisiting their 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Nevada argues that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people should be required to answer questions about their identities.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that the court has never given police the authority to demand someone's identification without probable cause that they have done something wrong. But she also acknowledged that police might want to run someone's name through computers to check for a criminal history.
Hiibel was approached by a deputy in May 2000 next to a pickup truck parked off a road near Winnemucca, Nev. The officer, called to the scene because of a complaint about arguing between Hiibel and his daughter, asked Hiibel 11 times for his identification or his name. He refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail."
Hiibel was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest. He was fined $250.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Do you have any idea how much of a fascist you sound like right now? Cops should not be able to lock people up and charge them jsut because 'they feel like it'.
Your comment is disgusting in its lack of regards for citizens' rights.
If I'm distorting facts, it is unintentional. After just looking at them, you are correct, the court documents do claim a male hitting a female. The male and female in the case claim otherwise.
I also just looked at the large version of the tape. The court documents also state that the female was a passenger (again, contradicted by Hiibel and his daughter.) In the tape Hiible says "You've got a driver" (or something to that effect) and gestures towards the truck. From the very beginning of the tape (when the officer first pulls up) it appears his daughter is in the driver's seat.
I don't have an agenda beyond hoping for a reversal of the continuing erosion of our rights. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but you seem very hostile towards this case.
If after being arrested the person refuses to give his/her name, their booked as "John" or "Jane Doe," fingerprinted and must provide documentation as to their identity before they can be released on bond.
Finished business.
That is becoming the public perception of the police. They do what they "feel like at the moment" rather than whether a law is being violated. The more this goes on, the less the public believes that police are there for protection than for harassment.
Actually, you're seeing the manifestation of a lack of training in the area of service or being a servant of the people. This type of training is absent from academies.
And some of the people here fell for it, hook, line and sinker and "arrested me" (by labeling me a fascist Nazi) just like the cop in this story.
Ah, I love this game.... some folks here would make great cops... hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Anymore we're just 'wage slaves.' That's how I see it anyhow.
That's because people like me: White, middle-aged, prosperous, who used to be law-n-order hardliners now see cops as corrupt, obsessed with revenue enhancement, and almost totally useless against real crime.
With my short hair and polite manners the prosector would never see me coming on the jury. But I'd hang the jury if needed to slap down cops like this. And at town meeting, I always vote to cut the PD before almost anything else (well, maybe those school "advisors" first).
Police who embrace the "click it or ticket" way of life deserve nothing better than to be spat on.
I think people run over by trains are my favorite. Right up there with decomposing maggot filled bodies. Gotta love when they explode.
There's rotten cops, no doubt. But all of us will pay for our deeds when we stand before Almighty God. That's what I believe anyway.
Easy.
The charge of resisting arrest is not dependent upon the primary charge; it stands alone.
For example, a man is arrested for domestic abuse and resisting arrest after refusing to identify himself or scuffling with police.
Later, in trial he is found innocent of domestic abuse but is found guilty for resisting police. The acquittal does not mean that there wasn't probable cause for the arrest, just that the evidence AT THE TRIAL didn't support a conviction. The resisting charge is looked at singularly and, because there's sufficient evidence, the man is convicted.
Case closed, pay your fine or do your time. Legit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.