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 ...
Look at arrest warrants today. The usually aka five to ten aliases.
No source; no credibility. Even Mr. Hiibel does not support this claim.
I'm glad you agree, I'd hate for my law school tuition to have been wasted.
Then why is the SCOTUS hearing it?
Well we shall soon find out won't we?
Personally, I find your response to this a little bit frightening. This certainly should NOT be a 'slam dunk' and less than two decades ago, the answer was clearly and legally "No, you do NOT have to identify yourself".
These days, I'm not so sure. What does scare me is that there are a large number of people who believe you ARE required to identify yourself and that believe this is acceptable.
"Your papers please!"
Was the call? on what charge would you lock him up? For being arrogant enough to challenge your self importance as an officer of the law?
Get a life, and remember who you serve.
Well, based on your responses throughout this thread, maybe you are personally reaping the responses of your own attitude toward those you encounter each day.
I can say with certainty that if you were the officer stopping me, and you approached me with the attitude you've displayed in this thread, that I will have just been the rudest person you will have met on that day.
You apparently have not read the briefs nor my explanation on this thread.
We can all speculate and take sides, but the SCOTUS is charged with clarifying the conditions for upholding or striking the decisions of the lower courts and hence, the law.
Your opinion is not likely to sway their decision.
And we all know that the liberal 9th is the most overturned court in the land.
I believe the disposition will be that you have to identify yourself to the police and the police must have probable cause that you are involved in a crime. If you are asked to identify yourself and it is subsequently shown that the police did it just to hastle you, then they will be repremanded.
Some time ago a car with plainclothes police stopped me walking along the highway. I showed identification and they gave me a ride home to confirm my address. I was told I fit the description of a man they were looking for seen in the area where I was walking. (I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.) Since my story checked out, I ended up with a free ride home. If I decided I had no identification, I am certain these officers would have taken me in. Were my rights violated? I did not think so. Would I have helped the police if I could? Yes. Have I ever been falsely accused by the police? No, Does it happen? Of course. So get those cops off the street.
It would have been settled if the 9th had not ruled that a driver was not required to show his DL during a traffic stop.
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.