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.

[cinFLA]

To tell you the truth, I just skimmed this article/thread,

I suggest you should do your homework more carefully. See the previous post.

[cinFLA]

To tell you the truth,

That is the point. You want to not let the truth get out? You condemn me but let go without comment lies and distortions on this thread.

[longtermmemmory]

That is a very large problem. There are far too many bad cops to make up for the good cops. If you watch criminal trials over time you will see police lie on the stand again and again. (some DUI/DWI taskforce officers even pre-fill out their police reports lacking only defendant ID details)

There has to be some form of psychological screening to keep the nutcases off the force. Its not the gun, its the badge that just makes them go "democrat".

(I will never forget a young lady cop who took glee in aresting a man towing his car over some technical violation. There was no emotional distance, she had actually enjoyed screwing some man's life. In the end what got her was she turned the traffic stop camera off during the good parts.)

[Landru]

"Wow! You really are good!"

Thanks.
I like to think so, too.

"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."

Seasoned, & I know a phoney when I hear one too, Specialist.

"Mr. I've got 8 years of service just in Germany."

Well ya got the "Mr." right, anyway.
You're still a liar, though; &, not just an ordinary liar, either.
You're a bald-faced LIAR.
To match that bald head head of yours, right baldy?

"You don't know crap, you don't amount to crap, and you want to believe that you do."

I do "OK," thanks.
I'm beginning to *suspect* you've been given a ride outa here off the end of the Old Man's foot before too, Baldy.
Only this time you're back complete with phoney photos & the whole nine yards, huh.

"You exibit symptoms of the most dangerous kind of deluded power tripping personality. You should probably get help."

HA!!
And you're a pathological LIAR who -- somehow -- thinks he's Sigmund Freud; which, makes you a delusional liar, at that.

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

Staff Sgt E6 myass, liar.
NO Staff Sgt would ever have come to a public forum and spoken the way you have concerning their nation, way of life, showing a complete & total disrespect for the uniform, the country you're supposed to be serving AND the laws of that country as well as the people who're entrusted to uphold and enforce the laws.

See, that's *how* I know you're *not* what you say you are, liar.
In fact, if you're even in the miltiary on active duty you're probably a PFC, liar.

I can tell you one more thing about you, liar, you're severly torqued-off for having had the book thrown at 'em (recently?) -- for something you deserved -- & you didn't like that.
So you bring cloaked America hating bile here, eh? :o)

Well, that makes you a double LIAR, a fruad, & a cheat.
The only question I have now, is what else.

Heinlien described psychos like YOU to a 'T' Private, when he wrote "He was the kind of person who'd hit himdeslf in the head with a hammer, because it felt so good when it was over."

...>doink!< ;^)

[cinFLA]

How's your goosestep?

I think you are a very sick person that delights in coming to threads to make personal attacks.

[cinFLA]

I knew better too. But it was hard to resist the little twerp.

I notice you are back with the personal attacks. Let's see. ALL you have posted on this thread are personal attacks. hmmm

[cinFLA]

Seems we have two peas in a pod. Come to this thread, do not bother to learn the facts and only post personal attacks.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Landru]

"I think you are a very sick person that delights in coming to threads to make personal attacks."

Would appear so, wouldn't it cin.

I'll say one other thing I know you already know, too.

None of 'em -- not one -- are what they say they are.

...& ya can take that to the *bank*. ;^)

[American_Centurion]

I guess you caught me.

All that MP training not only made you long winded and irritating, it turned you into instant Columbo.

[21st Century Man]

Yeppers, I read a bit more of the thread/article and it's unanimous! - He REALLY needs to join T.A. (Trols/Twerps Anonymous).

So what's your bet on how the SCOTUS is gonna rule?

I'm expecting another BIG goose-step towards the abyss, but hey I thought the Patriot Act was a collectivist piece of you-know-what, just call me crazy...

[eno_]

I'm not saying they should not investigate. Police are, and should be, free to act on information that comes their way, up to the point where it infringes on citizen's rights.

The problem in this case is that it is unlikely they ever got any such information.

Calls to PDs are logged by computer at the PD. Calls are also logged for billing purposes by the telco. PDs use digital recording systems to record their calls. Those systems have a database of calls. All this on top of the fact the dispatcher was supposed to take a name number and address from the caller.

So if the caller existed, it should be easy to find them. If their testimony was needed, they should be on the stand.

Instead there is no name, no number, no telco billing record, no 911 recording, no call log at the PD... no nothin'. The dog ate all that information, it seems.

It doesn't pass the sniff test that, in this one very high profile case, nobody seems to know WHO this mysterious witness to the supposed abuse is.

[21st Century Man]

And what is it that "they say they are"???

I'm waiting anxiously by the keyboard for your reply...

LOL

[eno_]

Crunch probably is a cop, and a reasonable one as far as it goes.

CinFLA, on the other hand, is a seething mass of neuroses sitting in a cheap Chevy in a mall parking lot with a green light bar and a polyester "smokey" suit busting kids for making out in the back of mom's van.

[21st Century Man]

"Crunch probably is a cop, and a reasonable one as far as it goes."

Well, I doubt a "reasonable" cop would say he would arrest a fellow American for "Whatever I felt like at the moment", that just sounds pure fascist-pig to me.

I've spent most of my adult life working around LEOs, and the amount of them I would say were "reasonable" human beings I could count on both hands with a finger or two left over...

After living on the Left Coast, Midwest & now in New Yawk Seety I am of the belief that only control-freaks and yes-men are entering the Police Academies - Ever hear about the guy from Queens that was turned away from the NYPD Academy because his IQ was too high?

Long gone are the days when the local cop was the guy that was every one's friend and made this former So-Cal kid feel safe in his presence - Before I left LA I was more afraid of the LAPD & LA County Sheriff than the gangbangers...and I've never so much as been suspected of a crime, don't do drugs and haven't had a drink in 19+ years.