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 ...
No source; no credibility. So far I have seen you on three threads claiming this. But you are the only one. No source; no credibility. Even Mr. Hiibel disagrees with you!
Really.
You find it credible such an investigation was under way?
It may be it was, but if cops only have to claim such a thing, that's no protection at all.
There is nothing wrong with police asking people to identify themselves. This is what normal people do in normal situations.
The question is whether people should be able to decline the request.
And THAT is what irks cops: As soon as it becomes normal to decline requests and question the need to answer, cops become equals of the people they make these requests of. And that, they think, is pretty much the End of the World.
I'm glad you agree, I'd hate for my law school tuition to have been wasted.
No, your tuition wasn't wasted. (That is as long as you don't think it was! :~D)
I just don't agree that "Pleading the 5th" is the same thing as "the right to keep silent." In my opinion, the two are entirely different.
But, I say tomato... etc.etc.etc.
Oh? He knows the magic disappearing witness? Wonderful! What's his name? What's his excuse for not being findable?
Did you even look at the video?
Nothing on the video could possibly answer my question. Nor, it seems, can you.
The truth. I am ONLY a FR poster seeking the truth.
I guess your actions would be to knock the guy down, handcuff him and then get the girl's statement.
We can agree to disagree, but I said if I refused to identify myself, my trip would have been to the station instead of home. I would eventually have been cleared. I could then protest and file suit for false imprisonment, and if the police could back up their story, I suspect my claim would be dismissed.
That way I could have struck a blow for my rights, I guess. Maybe the cops were just out hastling people and I could have won big money? Is that what you would have done?
If the Supreme Court decides we must provide ID, then I guess it simplifies the situation in a dangerous way. Now those without IDs will be hauled in, something I guess illegal aliens would not like, but I could live with. But it also means that the police do not have to show probable cause, and this sets a bad precident in favor of police power. Are we closer to agreement now?
You sure are demanding for a person that thinks that one has the right to withhold his DL when stopped for speeding.
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.