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.

[CSM]

"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?"

Mr.Leroy, is that you?

[Modernman]

hmmm. Arrest statistics for violent crimes.

That statistic, by itself, doesn't mean there are more violent crimes occurring. It just shows that police are making more arrests. Increased police efficiency in solving crimes doesn't mean there are more crimes to solve.

[cinFLA]

Put your glasses on. SHE bolted out of the car trying to run to the other cop and her father. The officer grabbed her as SHE exited the car. You are sick!

[Landru]

"Innocent until PROVEN guilty means nothing to jack boots like you!"

You're confused, Militia Man.
Means everything to me; &, the discussion's not about me either, is it.

Beat cops enforce our law(s), when required are bound by law to make arrests for violations of the law(s) as they see fit.
Period.
That's what taxpayers pay 'em to do.

The determination of "innocence" or "guilt" of a subject's left to a Judge and/or jury.
Period.

Judge and/or jury find the subject's "innocent," they walk; moreover, depending on mitigating circumstance(s) there may be civil action brought by said subject against LEO for unjust arrest et al.

Judge and/or jury find the subject's "guilty" said subject faces sentencing per the laws written by you & I, the citizens to include jail time, fines, or both.
Those are the rules in this, our civil society.

Now what's so hard about that, babycakes?

BTW?

...your main spring's a tad tight, huh. :o)

[green iguana]

Me: From the very beginning of the tape (when the officer
first pulls up)it appears his daughter is in the driver's
seat.

You: From Mr. Hiibel's brief it is stated that she was on
the passenger's side.

No, it is not. Go here:

http://washingtonpost.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-5554/03-5554.mer.pet.rep.pdf

I would have cut and paste the pertinent section, but
it's a darn pdf file. Top of page five is where to look.
The gist is Hiibel states she was driving and the jury,
arresting trooper and JP never found otherwise. I have read
where his daughter also claims she was drivng, but sorry, I
don't have a link for that.

And if you take a close, unbiased look at the large version
of the tape, paying particular attention to the drivers area
when the trooper first pulls up - there is movement in the
cab there.

[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?

Google up "Hiibel" and "witness," and it gets even more interesting: Some press accounts say the cop talked to a witness near the scene. Some say an anonymous witness called in.

Which was it? Or maybe this phantom witness never existed.

[cinFLA]

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIRORARI Page 4

"Mr. Hiibel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck."

[cinFLA]

You: From Mr. Hiibel's brief it is stated that she was on the passenger's side.

No, it is not. Go here:

See my post - page 4 or writ.

[green iguana]

"So: No name."

Not that I want to back up someone as rude as cinFLA can be
but go here:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-5554/03-5554.mer.resp.pdf

page 8 - the witness' name is Mr. Riddley. That doesn't mean
he exists, but he is at least named. I'd have cut and paste
but it's a pdf file.

[BSunday]

Many cops love to hustle people. Makes them feel powerful.

Too bad. Do you think you are ever going to live in a perfect world ? The police have a right to know who you are in the performance of their duties.

[BSunday]

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.

Neither can I.

[Defiant]

Sorry, it's not a tomato, tomahto kind of thing. The right to remain silent derives from the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination. Look it up. It's very basic stuff.

[green iguana]

I do not believe you when you say you are not involved in this case. You are way too emotional for that to make sense.

No, that's just the way cinFLA is, I think he must eat poorly or something. Check out his other posts (particularly the WOD threads) and you'll see what I mean.

[cinFLA]

Check out GE's other posts! Seems he has a penchant for entering threads and getting people riled. The last other thread he was on he left calling the guy a jerk. He reaps what he sows.

Go back and read his posts on this thread and see that they all are attacks. He is the number one on this thread for personal attacks.

[BSunday]

Something has changed in the training that manifests itself in the LEO being a A-hole.

Probably has something to do with the fact that half the people they meet are smart-@ss morons who refuse to even give you their name and the other half are paranoid conspiracy theorists who defend aforementioned smart @sses

[American_Centurion]

Typical.

It has to be the other 275,000,000 people in this country.

[BSunday]

The right to remain silent derives from the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination.

What does giving your name have to do with self-incrimination ???

[cinFLA]

(From your link) STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 21, 2000 Humboldt County Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove received a call from the Humboldt County Sheriff ’s Dispatch. Deputy Dove was informed that an individual called and stated he had observed a man hit a woman inside a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road in Humboldt County, Nevada. Deputy Dove drove his patrol vehicle south on Grass Valley Road and stopped his vehicle near the intersection of Thomas Canyon and Grass Valley Road. He had a brief conversation with the reporting person, Mr. Riddley. Mr. Riddley informed Deputy Dove that he was the person who made the call and pointed in a direction down the road where the vehicle was located. (App. 9). Deputy Dove then drove further south on Grass Valley Road where he observed a red and silver GMC truck pulled off to the side of the road. He noticed skid marks in the gravel, leading Deputy Dove to believe that the truck had been pulled off the road in a fast and aggressive manner. When Deputy Dove got out of his vehicle he saw a male, Larry Dudley Hiibel, (hereinafter referred to as Hiibel) standing outside the truck. Due to Hiibel’s mannerisms while standing outside the truck, Deputy Dove believed Hiibel was intoxicated. (App. 9-10, 16-17).

[cinFLA]

Which was it?

See my #418. The witness both called in AND talked to the officer.

[cinFLA]

What does giving your name have to do with self-incrimination ???

According the the Hiibel brief, it may mean that if they can identify you as a repeat offender then you may get a longer sentence therefore it is up to the prosecuter to identify the person.