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 ...
Interesting that NOT one of your posts deals with the facts of this case and ALL are about attacking and demeaning others.
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?
It's in the court records.
No, that would not be necessary in order to ask the girl, "Was this man hitting you?"
I see you're now dodging the whole question of determining if a crime had been committed.
And why was knowing his name necessary in order to ask the girl?
The guy approached the cop. The cop has a right to know who is approaching him and why he approached him.
Baloney. The guy had as much right to be walking along the shoulder as the cop did; if the cop was concerned, he needed only to say, "Stand back, sir, I'm conducting an investigation."
Yea. Did you see him wandering and rambling about how his car was parked legally? The guy was a real idiot. Notice the nice skid marks as he parked the truck.
That's not a crime (for which some FReepers should be thankful).
I have a problem with a state law that requires self-identification that is not necessary to a police investigation.
According to NV law his actions were criminal.
I see. When cops investigate crimes they should make no attempt to find out who they are interviewing ...
You have nailed the Ninth CCofA right on the head!
Just got back from lunch with the Mrs.'s. I see that I still have a way of endearing myself to some of the FReepers here.
I think your right about the National ID card. Hope I'm still young enough to tote my M-14 around.
That's not a crime
According to NV law his actions were criminal.
It's a bad law; that's the point.
I see. When cops investigate crimes they should make no attempt to find out who they are interviewing ...
They should be allowed to ask; if it has not yet even been established that a crime has been committed, citizens should be allowed to not answer.
Window curtains and blinds should be outlawed. What do people have to hide?
But it is never established that a crime has been committed until a jury finds someone guilty of a crime.
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.