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 ...
Why? Are we free men or vassals of the State?
Yeah, and let's see the permit for that smoke pole. Don't have it handy? In jail for you until you find it!
"a person being detained because of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity may refuse to identify himself."
From Mr. Hiibel's brief it is stated that she was on the passenger's side.
"a person being detained because of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity may refuse to identify himself."
Don't make a fool of yourself. In the context of a legal ruling, "a person may do X" means "a person may do X without being legally punished."
In response to a call from police dispatch ....
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. you are just making this all up.
And of course no source for your claims therefor your claims are imaginary.
Nonsense. Particular conditions were attached to the waiving of sanctions for refusal to ID. It puts the burden on the police to obtain the persons ID some other way. If they are unable to ID the suspect any other way they should keep him until they are sure he is someone. If they can't determine he is someone, they should declare him fruit and toss him in the recycling bin for composting.
And cops wonder why people don't like them. Don't come crying here for sympathy the next time a cop takes a bullet.
What "conditions"?
"articulable suspicion of criminal activity"
Violent crime in every category has been steadily declining over the last 20 years. Society is not getting any more dangerous, so there is no reason for cops to get more belligerent towards the people who pay their salaries.
I think you should go back and read the writs.
The United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants went from 1,887.2 in 1960 to 5,897.8 in 1996. By 1996 the crime rate was 313% the 1960 crime rate. In 1996 your risk of being a victim of a crime in the United States was 5.079%, and of a violent crime 0.634%. In 1960 these rates were 1.89% of being a victim of a crime and 0.161% of becoming victim of a violent crime.
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.