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 ...
But it is never established that a crime has been committed until a jury finds someone guilty of a crime.
False. If a body is found with a knife sticking out of his back, it is established that a crime has been committed.
But my statement was too restrictive. If it has not yet even been established as probable that a crime has been committed, citizens should be allowed to not answer.
Because we are free men not vassals of the State.
Go read Hiibel's brief. They are arguing that the person has a right to not identify himself even to the point of trial and sentencing.
now i respect the cops and all,but some cops take there authority too far
Not everything people have to hide is criminal.
Yes, you are new here so I'll take it easy on you.
Let me give you some advice. Read the whole thread first, then make comments. I can see that you are making comments as you read posts, then when things twist and turn, you've made comments that aren't relative to the current conversation.
No charge for that by the way. And welcome to FR.
Go read Hiibel's brief. They are arguing that the person has a right to not identify himself even to the point of trial and sentencing.
That I don't agree with. There is such a thing as obstruction of justice.
Hey Tanker, see what I mean? Caught me another one.
Like hell we do.
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.
If the man had been driving it is a fact that he would be required to show his driving license. The officer responding to this dispute only needed to determine if any assault had occured and that would be testimony from the driver...the man's daughter.
This hot shot was annoyed with the rancher's attitude...tough luck, Scalia; I don't like your attitude either.
That is what this case is about. The 9th and Hiibel's breif have presented that argument.
Look Tanker, I'm rackin' 'em up!
Since the man tells the cop that 'I am parked legally' it indicates to the cop that he was the operator of the car.
The USSC doesn't have to agree with the 9th or Hiibel to decide that the officer went too far, or that the Nevada law is overbroad.
The officer didn't ask for his license.
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.