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.

[RonHolzwarth]

Done. Here's what it says:

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.

[21st Century Man]

Aww...tell us more, that was an inspiring parable.

Hell, go ahead and fictionalize it a bit while your at it, cause I don't believe a word of it.

Moreover, I'd bet your probably not even a cop - Lot's of people suffering from illusions of grandeur while hiding behind keyboards...besides, I doubt you would even waste your time here if that accolade was true.

You'd be too busy trying to be a good example to the overwhelming majority of jack-booted thugs...

[cinFLA]

Done. Here's what it says:

I said you should read the writs; not the ramblings of some liberal AP reporter.

[FreedomCalls]

I guess you have no problem with a guy drinking, driving and whacking his daughter all at the same time.

Drinking - But he wasn't drinking, no was he charged with drinking, nor did the officer suspect him of drinking.

Strike one!

Driving - But he wasn't driving. His daughter was sitting behind the wheel. He was standing outside her door talking to her. The complaint didn't involve driving, nor he was not chrged with a moving offence, nor was he charged with a parking violation.

Strike Two!

Whacking his daughter - But he wasn't "whacking" his daughter, she was whacking him! The complaint was that there was an argument, not that he was hitting her. The officer never saw him so much as touch his daughter at all. In fact, the other officer viciously beat Hiibel's daughter when she wouldn't get out of the pick-up on the officer's demand. He hit her far harder than anything Hiibel was even suspected of doing. It's the old "destroy a village to save a village" concept. "I suspect someone is hitting her, so I need to beat her up with a nightstick to help her!" Gah.

Strike Three!

YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!

[cinFLA]

hmmm. Arrest statistics for violent crimes.

18 to 20 21 to 24 25+
1970 462 404 108
1980 640 549 154
1999 737 637 201

per 100k population.

[cinFLA]

Drinking - But he wasn't drinking >>> He cerrtainly looked that way.

Driving - But he wasn't driving. His daughter was sitting behind the wheel. >>> Hiibel's own brief say she was not behind the wheel. Are you saying Hiibel is lying?

Whacking his daughter - But he wasn't "whacking" his daughter, she was whacking him! >>> The complaint says he was.

[cinFLA]

I notice you give no source or basis for your claims.

[Wolfie]

I certainly hope you're right. But remember, this is a country where cops can pin you to the floor and forcibly take your blood to check for DUI. I don't think the 4th holds much water anymore.

[WhiteGuy]

Seig Heil !

[cinFLA]

In fact, the other officer viciously beat Hiibel's daughter when she wouldn't get out of the pick-up on the officer's demand.

Liar.

[21st Century Man]

"Why? Are we free men or vassals of the State?"

We have been "vassals of the State" for quite awhile now, IMHO.

The ability of men to stand together against abuse of power in the gov't. died over a 100 years ago...

[cinFLA]

The complaint was that there was an argument, not that he was hitting her.

Liar.

[21st Century Man]

ROFLMBO...you are a cute little troll, aren't you?

[cinFLA]

ROFLMBO...you are a cute little troll, aren't you?

When one has no rebuttal to the truth, he resorts to name-calling.

[21st Century Man]

Hey, I'm just observing your handywork on this thread, where it appears you've spent the WHOLE DAY!

I know better than to get in arguments with trolls...

[cinFLA]

nor did the officer suspect him of drinking.

"Deputy Dove saw the petitioner standing outside his truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech and odor".

[cinFLA]

I know better than to get in arguments with trolls...

You know better than to argue with the facts. Good for you!

[cinFLA]

offence

You have been watching too many ball games.

[21st Century Man]

To tell you the truth, I just skimmed this article/thread, but the malevolence displayed by you was more than apparent - I started to imagine your sitting on a rock with a laptop in a wet, moldy cave somewhere...LOL!

I suggest you take a deep breath, stand-up, take two paces back and smash you PC on the rock!!!

It'll do ya good...