Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Withholding Identity From a Law Officer: Your Right or Not?
Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: hiibel; id; privacy; scotus; yourpapersplease
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-515 next last
To: cinFLA
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.

301 posted on 03/23/2004 12:48:39 PM PST by Sweet Land
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: 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.

302 posted on 03/23/2004 12:49:34 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Sweet Land
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.

303 posted on 03/23/2004 12:54:38 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

2. Your logic needs serious work.

304 posted on 03/23/2004 12:55:27 PM PST by harrowup (So perfect, just naturally humble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Landru
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.
305 posted on 03/23/2004 1:00:26 PM PST by American_Centurion (Daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime - Nicole Gelinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92
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.

306 posted on 03/23/2004 1:01:55 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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?

307 posted on 03/23/2004 1:06:04 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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?

308 posted on 03/23/2004 1:06:05 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"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.

309 posted on 03/23/2004 1:07:06 PM PST by Sweet Land
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
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.

310 posted on 03/23/2004 1:08:08 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
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.

311 posted on 03/23/2004 1:09:44 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Sweet Land
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.
312 posted on 03/23/2004 1:11:22 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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!

313 posted on 03/23/2004 1:13:21 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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.

314 posted on 03/23/2004 1:13:43 PM PST by Sweet Land
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Sweet Land
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.

315 posted on 03/23/2004 1:14:50 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Your point is well taken.
316 posted on 03/23/2004 1:17:29 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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."

317 posted on 03/23/2004 1:19:47 PM PST by Sweet Land
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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.)

318 posted on 03/23/2004 1:24:00 PM PST by Sweet Land
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Sweet Land
""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.

319 posted on 03/23/2004 1:29:59 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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."

320 posted on 03/23/2004 1:30:20 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-515 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson