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 ...
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.
If your car is involved in a hit-and-run, you had better have a better alibi than that.
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.
They certainly do in the state of Washington, and many other states.
What leads you to believe that this case is an appeal from the 9th Circuit?
What leads you to believe that this case is an appeal from the 9th Circuit?
Exactly. They can overturn the law without going as far as Hiibel wants them to.
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.
At least four Justices think otherwise. If you were right, the court would have declined to hear this appeal.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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.)
Sure. They should also jail him until he IDs himself, or he dies.
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."
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.