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

Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

[Sweet Land]

The USSC now has to decide which jurisdiction is correct.

None of the legal documents linked at http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/legal.html appear to support the claim that the decision before the USSC is jurisdictional. Briefs by both petitioner and respondent address constitutional, not jurisdictional, questions.

[cinFLA]

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.

If your car is involved in a hit-and-run, you had better have a better alibi than that.

[cinFLA]

The United States Supreme Court has twice expressly refused to address whether a person reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal behavior may be required to identify himself or herself.[8] Therefore, the issue is unresolved.[9]

There is a split of authority among the federal circuit courts of appeals on this issue.[10] In Oliver v. Woods,[11] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah statute that requires individuals to produce identification to an officer during an investigatory stop. However, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board,[12] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NRS 171.123(3) violates the Fourth Amendment because "'the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification [might] provide a link leading to arrest.'"[13] We find the reasoning in Carey to be unpersuasive. Given the conflicting authority, we believe an independent analysis of the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) is warranted.

[harrowup]

"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. "

If your car is involved in a hit-and-run, you had better have a better alibi than that.

1. My p/u has better manners than that.

2. Your logic needs serious work.

[American_Centurion]

Wow! You really are good!

8 whole years as an MP? Goodness! I've never met anyone with that much military experience! You must have been really good to last 8 whole years.

Mr. I've got 8 years of service just in Germany. You don't know crap, you don't amount to crap, and you want to believe that you do. You exibit symptoms of the most dangerous kind of deluded power tripping personality. You should probably get help.

BTW you can call me SSG. If you can figure out the acronym there, Mr. 8 years of active duty.

[connectthedots]

Hey newsflash....you don't have to committ a felony to get arrested. People are arrested on misdemeanor charges as well.....and cops don't have to witness a misdemeanor crime to arrest someone.

They certainly do in the state of Washington, and many other states.

[connectthedots]

That is what this case is about. The 9th and Hiibel's breif have presented that argument.

What leads you to believe that this case is an appeal from the 9th Circuit?

[connectthedots]

That is what this case is about. The 9th and Hiibel's breif have presented that argument.

What leads you to believe that this case is an appeal from the 9th Circuit?

[Sweet Land]

"we believe an independent analysis of the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) is warranted."

Exactly. They can overturn the law without going as far as Hiibel wants them to.

[cinFLA]

What leads you to believe that this case is an appeal from the 9th Circuit?

I didn't say it was. I said that the Nevada SC bumped it up with no decision due to jurisdictional conflicts from previous cases decided by the CA and Utah courts.

[connectthedots]

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

At least four Justices think otherwise. If you were right, the court would have declined to hear this appeal.

[cinFLA]

The USSC can do whatever they want. I was just telling what Hiibel is arguing and that the Nevada SC decided not to rule based on jurisditional conflicts. Basically, the CA court says you never have to identify yourself and the Utah court says otherwise.

[cinFLA]

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

At least four Justices think otherwise. If you were right, the court would have declined to hear this appeal.

Wrong. At least four justices think that they have to resolve this jurisdictional conflict based on the liberal 9th CCofA's decision. After all, the 9th is the most overturned court in the nation!

[Sweet Land]

The USSC can do whatever they want.

They should rule that if it has not yet even been established as probable that a crime has been committed, citizens should be allowed to not identify themselves.

[cinFLA]

Exactly. They can overturn the law without going as far as Hiibel wants them to.

That would accomplish nothing since we would soon be back in the same boat. They have to rule on a broader basis to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.

[connectthedots]

Your point is well taken.

[Sweet Land]

At least four justices think that they have to resolve this jurisdictional conflict based on the liberal 9th CCofA's decision. After all, the 9th is the most overturned court in the nation!

According to Hiibel's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the USSC, the 7th, 8th, and 11th Circuit Courts have agreed with the 9th that "a person being detained because of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity may refuse to identify himself."

[Sweet Land]

They can overturn the law without going as far as Hiibel wants them to.

That would accomplish nothing since we would soon be back in the same boat.

Not necessarily; they could lay out clear rules that overturned the law but fell short of what Hiibel wants. (And if they did leave things incompletely decided, it wouldn't be the first time; look at how often they've revisited affirmative action.)

[spunkets]

""a person being detained because of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity may refuse to identify himself.""

Sure. They should also jail him until he IDs himself, or he dies.

[eno_]

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.

People also give false names or otherwise intend to mislead.

Which is why:

It is passing strange that the "report" of a man hitting a female passenger was not verified.

Not by calling the witness back.

Not by corroborating the report.

Not by checking the 911 logs for the calling number.

Not by checking telco records for the calling number.

And, of course, no recording of the call.

All very strange, unless, of course, the call was never made and the cop who claimed to be investigating a report of domestic violence lied and made it up to support his buddy in coercing a response out of the man who refused to identify himself.

Lies for the sake of getting around probable cause requirements are common as blades of grass. There's even a word for it: "Testilying."