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 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 501-515 next last
To: wallcrawlr
The Pedestrian I am reminded of this story every time I read about this crap.
To: 21st Century Man
He was purposely stirring up trouble with the "Whatever I felt like" comment. The sick thing is, you get fanboys like CinFLA who think that's how it actually should be.
382
posted on
03/23/2004 5:34:54 PM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: Wolfie
reply to: "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."
ONLY if you were driving a car! Personally, I don't have a problem with the police enforcing the drunken driving laws, even when the drivers are to drunk to be cooperative.
BUT----> Isn't it a clear cut violation of your "rights" to HAVE to have a current license plate on your car, when driving on a PUBLIC road? Because THAT identifies you!
Actually I got a ticket once for expired tag, but the car had not ever been left private property while expired. The judge was very nice about it, but he had to look it up, seems that there is an obscure clause in MY state's law, that IF the parking spot is "generally accessible to the public", yes, indeed, you CAN be cited for expired registration. Since it was parked, undriven, in MY OWN PERSONAL parking space at an apartment complex, BUT that spot WAS accessible to the public, I lost, and had to pay the ticket.
To: Modernman
hahahaha.. I don't go crying anywhere, frankly the only thing I care about is how I stand in the eyes of God. Which at this time in my life is pretty good.
To: 21st Century Man
I had a few parables there, you'll have to be a bit more specific.
How much would you like to wager that I'm not a police officer? I'll cover anything you put down.
Be happy to have anybody here on FR come to verify or even ride along with me if they like.
To: GreatEconomy
Thank you. And welcome again.
To: eno_
It doesn't pass the sniff test Yep. Your post doesn't pass the sniff test. No source, no collaboration. Even Mr. Hiible disputes the facts of your post.
387
posted on
03/23/2004 8:20:56 PM PST
by
cinFLA
To: 21st Century Man
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. And someone on here said I was paranoid ... Boy, you are wierd.
388
posted on
03/23/2004 8:24:37 PM PST
by
cinFLA
To: eno_
Please post a source for your claims. You repeatedly ignore that request so I assume you have no source. Note that your posts are in conflict with the information provided by Mr. Hiibel. That doesn't concern you?
389
posted on
03/23/2004 8:26:22 PM PST
by
cinFLA
To: Tench_Coxe
Did you watch the video?
390
posted on
03/23/2004 8:28:08 PM PST
by
cinFLA
To: cinFLA
Did you watch the video? I did. The other cop should be arrested for battery of a juvenile (Hiibel's daughter). He beat up the person he was sent to protect.
391
posted on
03/23/2004 8:46:25 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: FreedomCalls
I did. The other cop should be arrested for battery of a juvenile (Hiibel's daughter). He beat up the person he was sent to protect. Next time you watch it put your glasses back on.
392
posted on
03/23/2004 8:52:52 PM PST
by
cinFLA
To: wallcrawlr
After reading some of the responses here, I still have the guts to say that if an Officer asks me for my name, I will tell him or her the first time. It is respect for the law IMO, and just plain ole manners.
393
posted on
03/23/2004 8:56:30 PM PST
by
ladyinred
(democrats have blood on their hands!)
To: cinFLA
The other cop should be arrested for battery of a juvenile (Hiibel's daughter). He beat up the person he was sent to protect. Next time you watch it put your glasses back on.
If he wasn't hitting her what was he doing to cause her to scream and flail about then? He wasn't gently consoling a victim of a crime, that's for damn sure, just beating her up for not complying with his orders to get out of the vehicle.
394
posted on
03/23/2004 9:05:27 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Cap'n Crunch
No, I didn't read all of your posts at the time of my reply. However, it is standard practice that not all posts must be read prior to a reply. After reading all of your posts I see that your response was missing the "sarcasm tag".
If you don't want responses like mine, you should post with comments that you mean. The problem is that many of the LEO's today do have the attitude that you posted, so it is very believable.
395
posted on
03/24/2004 5:00:02 AM PST
by
CSM
(Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
To: Arpege92
"I'm not sure what's worse, a corrupt cop or a corrupt jury!"
If you truly aren't sure which is worse, then you are clearly devoid of the ability to see the totality of this issue. Corrupt cops, and a corrupt CJ system, have led us to the current system that we have today. We are now a "guilty until you prove your innocense" society. No longer does a defendant have the ability to defend themselves in the normal cases. They only get a real defense when a major crime is considered. The cops, prosecutors, judges, defenders, probation officers, etc. all assume guilt until innocense is proven. Their goals are not to see justice prevail, their goal is to cut a deal and move the case along.
Given that, a corrupt cop is far worse than a corrupt jury.
396
posted on
03/24/2004 5:08:49 AM PST
by
CSM
(Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
To: Landru
The MP's are a different organization than the public police. Soldiers don't have the same rights as the general citizen. Good thing for you, with your attitude you are showing that personal liberty is meaningless. Innocent until PROVEN guilty means nothing to jack boots like you!
397
posted on
03/24/2004 5:12:57 AM PST
by
CSM
(Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
To: cinFLA
"Telling a cop that you are legally parked indicate you have control of the vehicle; i.e.; you were the driver that parked the car."
With your logic we can now arrest people for sitting in their living room drinking. They legally parked their car in their driveway, got drunk, but still have control of their vehicle. Great logical conclusion.
398
posted on
03/24/2004 5:14:40 AM PST
by
CSM
(Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
To: cinFLA
"If your car is involved in a hit-and-run, you had better have a better alibi than that."
Further proof that we are a "guilty until you prove yourself innocent" society. Isn't it great that we no longer are free?
399
posted on
03/24/2004 5:15:56 AM PST
by
CSM
(Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
To: Sweet Land
On what charge? Failure to cowtow?
400
posted on
03/24/2004 5:20:00 AM PST
by
Jeff Gordon
(LWS - Legislating While Stupid. Someone should make this illegal.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson