Withholding Identity From a Law Officer: Your Right or Not?

Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

[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.

[Arpege92]

"Wow...he should have had his gun drawn too, cause anyone that's intoxicated could be a threat, right?"

Yes, they can. My hubby has gone head to head with some nasty drunks and he didn't even pull his gun out.

[Dr.Deth]

Slam dunk. Of course you have to identify yourself to police.

Yeah, under the "Your papers, please" legislation that snuck through after Kristallnacht.

Are you serious?

[cinFLA]

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 Nevada SC did not rule on the case because of jurisditional problems. The USSC now has to decide which jurisdiction is correct. Hiibel is arguing that the 9th is correct and a person has a right to withhold his identity without limits. For example, if one is observed to assault a person, the police can identify the assailant through eyewitnesses and try and convict him without knowing his name. If he had prior convictions, his giving his identity might cause him to receive a more severe sentence and he has a right to not reveal his identity for that reason.

[cinFLA]

I'm parked legally right now and I ain't driving.

How can you be driving if you are parked????

[Wolfie]

I'm serious about how I think the Court will rule. I think its a slam dunk.

[American_Centurion]

It's the screwed-up, hyper-vilolent, increasingly criminal and hellbent, mindlessly belligerent public.

Yep, every damn one of us is a criminal. That is exactly the type of thinking that put's the LEO's I'm referring to in the A-hole category.

You might want to tone down the hyperbole too a little Landy, it makes you look a little screwed-up, hyper-vilolent, increasingly criminal and hellbent, and mindlessly belligerent.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Ah, your husbands a knuckledragger, stomping on the Constitution. And besides that he's rude hahahahahaha. Prerequisite of becoming a policeman. We know all about him from your one post. That's how it works here on FR.

Thanks for joining in and tell your husband I said Hello!

Peace!

[American_Centurion]

I proud of you. Now tell him to straighten out the ones who are.

[AdamSelene235]

Slam dunk. Of course you have to identify yourself to police

Not without Reasonable Articulable Suspcion.

[af_vet_rr]

I'm serious about how I think the Court will rule. I think its a slam dunk.

I don't. Even though the court has members that lean left and seem to favor the government more than the citizen, they are cancelled out by the more Conservative members. It'll come down to those in the middle.

[harrowup]

Not interested in playing games here. If I am not in the driver's seat then the presumption is that I am not driving, whether I am on the sidewalk, in the ditch or dead. This bozo cop wanted to get tough and walked into a saw...your name has nothing to do with an investigation of suspicious activity. If the daughter had said her dad was whacking on her the cop could then inquire as to the man't identity...until that event, the cop should have calmed down. In the future I hope this fellow retires from LEO work and/or is told by everyone that their name is Jose Jimenez.

[Arpege92]

"But I'd hang the jury if needed to slap down cops like this."

Here's to hoping you never sit on any jury, anywhere, at anytime, for any reason what so ever. That behavior is no different than the bad behavior you claim cops get away with. I'm not sure what's worse, a corrupt cop or a corrupt jury!

[cinFLA]

Not without Reasonable Articulable Suspcion.

Hiibel is arguing that even with RAS you still have to right to withhold your identity.

[cinFLA]

What's your problem. Hiibel insisted that he be taken in and he was. Seems like the cop was doing a public service for this guy.

[Arpege92]

I've recieved calls from people who want to report a crime and refuse to leave a name or phone number. It's not uncommon at all.

[harrowup]

What's your problem. Hiibel insisted that he be taken in and he was. Seems like the cop was doing a public service for this guy.

Pay attention. First you say he told the cop he was legally parked which would imply he was the operator and I showed you how that was not conclusive and then you ask me what parking has to do with driving and now you jump to another conclusion based on a twenty second tape?

Don't bother me with any more of your whining.

[Landru]

"Yep, every damn one of us is a criminal. That is exactly the type of thinking that put's the LEO's I'm referring to in the A-hole category. You might want to tone down the hyperbole too a little Landy..."

Sure, baldy.
But methinks you be usin' a little hyperbole yourself, eh?

But mark my word when I was a Patrol Sup in the USArmy MP Corps (8 years, pal) & told you to move?
Trooper you'd best be assholes & elbows or you'd wind up with one of my Privates hanging off each side of you the whole way to what we *affectionately* called, "The Manchu Hilton" so fast you're head would spin.
Then you could tell it to your Company Commander when he was called down to PMO to sign ya out, & later the judge at JAG.
Capiche Specialist?

"...it makes you look a little screwed-up, hyper-vilolent, increasingly criminal and hellbent, and mindlessly belligerent."

Don't worry what I *look* like Specialist, worry about what I & my neighbors think as we sit on the jury hearing your case.

You're not an "Americam_Centurion" anywhere but in your mind, brainstem.
What you really are is an American embarrassment.

...have a *nice* day, Specialist.

[cinFLA]

From his brief.

"Respondent claims that giving one’s name is essentially neutral and thus not incriminating. Resp. Br. at 35-42; Amicus U.S. Br. at 16-24. This claim ignores the realities of the criminal law and the facts of this case. One’s name can be incriminating and aid in a criminal prosecution. For example, in Nevada the existence of a familial-type relationship is a necessary element of domestic battery and triggers greater punishments than ordinary battery. Nev. Rev. Stat. 33.018. The foundation for determining that relationship begins with one’s name. In addition, the domestic battery laws are recidivist statutes which carry increasing punishments for repeat offenders. Nev. Rev. Stat. 400.485. Repeat felony offenses can lead to punishment as a habitual criminal, which carries a maximum penalty of life without the possibility of parole. Nev. Rev. Stat. 207.010(1)(b)(1), 207.016. Thus, in some instances a person’s name, matched with the prior record associated with that name, can be used to enhance the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. Moreover, identifying oneself as someone under a restraining order against domestic violence can itself lead to criminal sanctions. Nev. Rev. Stats. 33.100, 125.560.
The privilege against compulsory self-incrimination “extends not only ‘to answers that would in themselves support a conviction . . . but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute.’”

[cinFLA]

Pay attention. First you say he told the cop he was legally parked which would imply he was the operator and I showed you how that was not conclusive and then you ask me what parking has to do with driving and now you jump to another conclusion based on a twenty second tape?

Telling a cop that you are legally parked indicate you have control of the vehicle; i.e.; you were the driver that parked the car. If he was not the driver, he would not have said "I". He might have said 'we' or 'the truck'. Regardless, what he said gave the cop a reason to believe that he was the driver.

[AdamSelene235]

Sounds like the officier had RAS to me.