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 ...
I read that. I hope that we can both agree that eyewitness' tend to be one of the least reliable types of evidence. If I hadn't read that Hiibel's daughter says that she was doing the driving and the hitting, I probably would move towards your position. But since she does, my guess (and yes, that's all that it is) is that Mr. Riddley saw some hitting going on and made the (usually correct) assumption that it was the man doing the hitting.
Must be miserable.
His legal document from my post #405 emphatically states that she was driving. I know of no one who drives from the passenger side of a vehicle.
Since this discussion is exactly about enumerated rights, please cite where this purported right is listed.
Maybe FR gives them a relief valve to vent their anger but it amazes me how they will distort the facts to try to make their case.
An erroneous factual assumption has unfortunately made its way into this case, namely, that Mr. Hiibel’s teenage daughter was the passenger and that Mr. Hiibel was driving. The trier of fact made no such finding, nor does the evidence support such a finding. See, e.g., Defendant’s Exhibit A (6 minute videotape of incident), Justice Ct. Tr. Trans. Vol. II, Feb. 13, 2001, at 21; and Trooper Merschel’s testimony that Mr. Hiibel indicated he was not driving, Justice Ct. Tr. Trans. Vol. I, Nov. 7, 2000, at 11. The Justice of the Peace who was the factfinder in this case found only that the female was in the cab of the truck, not that she was the passenger. J.A. at 4. On appeal before the district court the focus was on the officer’s investigation of an alleged domestic battery, not a drunk driving situation.
May I reiterate: An erroneous factual assumption.
Must be democrats.
Do you have a link for this writ? I would need to read the statement in context to make sure he isn't talking about some point in time when she moved over to the passenger side to talk to him after they had stopped.
Salute!
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.