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 ...
The deputy did not need to know the guy's name to determine whether the fight had occurred, as the alleged victim was right there.
In Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, yes; in the United States of America, no.
Noted.
14+ before I left.
May God be with you.
But I believe, like I said in my last post, that we will all pay for what we have done when we stand before God.
Why a felony? He could have arrested the guy for a misdemeanor as well.
Ahhh... "a report" of someone striking a female passenger. Forst there was a witeness, then the witness could not be found. No 911 tape. No name. No address. No phone call. No verification.
A cop made up that "report" and lied to a court. Or they were so very unlucky to have the magic disappearing witness call that "report" in on a completely untracable phone in the most important case ever for that PD. How terribly unlucky.
Banks, to my knowledge, are privately-owned businesses. They should be allowed to ask for any type of security-related identification as they see fit.
If you don't like it, carry it.
It's when the government starts to act like a privately-owned business that bothers me.
Huh?
All harmless fun and games, because we are not sworn officers with a badge and gun.
Maybe you have an objective chief, but from my experience, it sounds like you're a "chief's pet."
How often do you wash his unit?
And I think the government does act like a privately owned business, with unjust taxes, compulsory education, mandatory insurance, etc.
But that's another thread.
Huh?
Just what I said. What's puzzling to you?
How about the First? Shouldn't freedom of speech include the right to keep one's mouth closed?
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.