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. This would be left intact if the USSC rules against Hiibel.
You twisted his post.
But you are siding with the 9th in Califoria vs the Utah district court. That is the issue.
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,
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.
As you can see from the article, the guy wasn't drunk; and he wasn't driving. Your scenario does not fit the facts of this case (at least as presented by the article).
However, under your scenario, the cop would have been a witness since he would have seen that the guy was drunk and had hit a pole. He therefore would have had probable cause to arrest the guy. Drunk driving is a felony in many states, so the rule about it not being lawful to arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless the cop witnessed the crime would not apply.
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.
While you may not think I do not know the law concerning this issue, you are the one who is wrong.
Do you live in Canada, maybe?
Check my FR home page.
In a free country, the first step in an investigation is to determine whether a crime has been committed.
Like the other poster I guess your solution would be to take down the guy and handcuff him till you could determine if a crime had been committed.
Of course the police can require ID of a person if they have good cause to- if they don't they can't. 'Requesting' ID can't be a form of general warrant.
The court will be defining "good cause". Good luck to us all.
I guess your solution would be to take down the guy and handcuff him till you could determine if a crime had been committed.
No, that would not be necessary in order to ask the girl, "Was this man hitting you?" And why was knowing his name necessary in order to ask the girl?
I would imagine that this is asked of individuals by law enforcement personnel in just about every other country in the world.
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.