Withholding Identity From a Law Officer: Your Right or Not?

Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

[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.

[cinFLA]

What am I "making up?"

Just about everything in your post.

[A2J]

I just give him free pizza. He's got two captains that wash his car.

LOL!

Gotta hate those captains, eh?

[eno_]

Just about everything in your post.

Then I suppose you could find that magic "witness?"

Or the magic phone line he called on where no records of the call exist?

Or the magically malfunctioning recording system?

Or the magically tragically overworked dispatcher who noted the call but did not call back or otherwise confirm the caller's identity?

There's some powerful magic going on here. Important case. Terribly bad luck with the witness. No wonder cops feel so put upon.

[cinFLA]

Please post a link to your claims.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Yeah, they get all the overtime, don't have to work the road, make up a bunch of stupid rules... you know how it is.

Well, now it's time for me to do something important. Going to lunch with my beautiful bride of 20+ years.

Hope the cops don't pull me over.

Adios.

[freeeee]

Shouldn't freedom of speech include the right to keep one's mouth closed?

Absolutely. That is the heart of the matter. You can say what you like, or say nothing at all. Government has no legitimate power to compel speech of any sort.

Because driving on a road paid for by the public has been declared a privilidge, one must legally consent to give ID when driving a car.

This does not apply to other situations, such as walking down a street, being a passenger in a vehicle, etc... And to be perfectly honest, I really don't care if SCOTUS says otherwise - their legitimacy and respectibility lies in their willingness to uphold the Constitution and they have failed miserably in that respect.

[Sweet Land]

"Deputy Dove asked Hiibel to identify himself. Hiibel asked “why”? Deputy Dove explained that he needed his identification because of the reported fight." (LARRY D. HIIBEL, Petitioner, vs. THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AND THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT AND THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. WAGNER, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent - On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Nevada - BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT)

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.

All the more reason to get his identity.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Why would he need the guy's name in order to ask the girl, "Was this man hitting you?"

[connectthedots]

The charge of resisting arrest is not dependent upon the primary charge; it stands alone.

If the person did not commit a crime, the arrest was not lawful and a citizen has no obligation to resist an unlawful arrest.

[eno_]

It was admitted in the case that the witness could not be located. That is not in dispute. What do you want me to find a link for?

[eno_]

That, and the "report" of a "fight" was bogus to begin with. The cops lied for convenience. Nobody reported a fight. Nobody could be found who made such a report. No evidence of such a report being called in exists.

[cinFLA]

Because I want to compare it to your post of made-up items.

[Servant of the 9]

of course you have to identify yourself to police.

That's just a polite way of saying 'Your Papers, Please' and means the same thing. If your papers aren't 'in order' you are going downtown for 'clarification'.

This is something that happens to subjects, not citizens.

So9

[cinFLA]

That, and the "report" of a "fight" was bogus to begin with. The cops lied for convenience. Nobody reported a fight. Nobody could be found who made such a report. No evidence of such a report being called in exists.

Please post a source for your blithering.

[Wolfie]

The SC will rubber stamp it. There's a war on, doncha know.

[Shadow Deamon]

"I don't know how the cop conducted himself the entire time but from what I saw he did OK."

Cap'n, I just want to say first, thanks for doing the job you do, and in my limited exposure to police dealings, I've always been treated with respect and professionalism.

That said, I do have concerns with what I've seen in the news lately in the manor that officers seem to literally go ballistic during arrests. Beatings that go way over the edge, shootings where the victim is shot 20 some odd times, etc.

I personally feel this is the result of a militarizaion of the police forces which started some 30 years ago. Officers are routinely brought in from other areas which means that they don't know the people in their precinct.

It used to be that the police officer knew the families in the area and watched the kids grow up. He really could be their friend, not anymore.

This in turn breeds distrust which leads to that rude behavior we've been talking about.

[connectthedots]

A cop cannot legally arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless he personally witnessed the crime. The reasoning is that misdemeanors are minor crimes and because the cop did not witness it, it does not warrant arresting the suspect. The cop should issue a citation to the individual to appear in court.

Now if at that point, the suspect refused to provide some sort of identification to the cop, it would not be improper for the cop to arrest him in order to assertain his identification.

[Servant of the 9]

Here it would have been Obstructing Official Business. Or Domestic Violence or Disorderly Conduct, Persisting. Whatever I felt like at the moment.

It must make you very sad that you never got to work for Lavrenty Beria at the NKVD.

So9

[cinFLA]

Nobody reported a fight

Are you calling Hiibel a liar?

"Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department came on the scene - siren a-wailing - in response to a domestic violence report. Someone saw Mimi arguing with her dad and thought it had come to blows. The witness said that he saw "a man with a black cowboy hat" who "slugged the female". Dove was there to investigate the report."

[Servant of the 9]

You know what gets me? Banks now ask for people's thumb prints and they comply

Banks can ask for anything they want, they are not the Govt.

You don't have to comply with a bank if you don't want to. there are other ways of getting your money.

So9

[A2J]

A cop cannot legally arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless he personally witnessed the crime.

So, a cop arrives at the scene of an accident, which he didn't personally witness, and where a driver has wrapped his car around a light pole. No injuries.

When the cop approaches the driver, he detects the odor of alcohol and proceeds with ascertaining whether alcohol had anything to do with the accident. He finds that it did and arrests the subject for DWI (DUI in some states), which is a misdemeanor.

Are you telling me that he has to let the driver go after he issues a citation to him?

You're wrong as far as attempting to establish that a cop has to witness a misdemeanor before he can arrest and book a suspect.

Do you live in Canada, maybe?