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 ...
I do not believe you. I believe your agenda is to silence the truth in this issue.
Trying to silence me with personal attacks? What is your agenda?
The USA used to be better than just about every other country in the world.
About as much as I believe everything a cop says. If you don't think that many cops lie, you are wrong.
From the article: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.
For your information, this topic has a long history on FR and some of the posters on this thread have a long history with the topic. All is not as seen just on this thread.
You said stated your agenda on this thread but it is interesting that you only attacked one side. It is not your duty to personally insult others just because you feel like it. If you want to move the thread to a more factual discussion, then do so. It would be most welcome.
It pays to hit refresh before posting.
Yup, sure has; but, it ain't the training that's changed.
It's the screwed-up, hyper-vilolent, increasingly criminal and hellbent, mindlessly belligerent public.
That's what has changed.
A cop's not a shrink; which, apparently some [here] think they oughta be.
As a taxpayer-citizen I'm paying those guys to enforce the law.
Period.
If I were policing today an individual would be told *once* why we came into contact & what'd be needed for me to go away, not twice.
Putting on a badge these days just for the *privlege* of dealing with a near-psychotic public (& their warped sheisters) demands one rely on a base survival instinct, quickly; or, be eaten *alive*.
...*fact*.
The alleged hitting is not on the tape.
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.