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.

[green iguana]

You completely ignore my post relating to his statement that the girl was on the passenger side.

No, I am not. I just want to read the statement in context.

[cinFLA]

http://www.abditum.com/hiibel/pdf/sc_pet_cert.pdf

I think this is the link. It is not loading for me right now. Page 4 of the writ (not the pdf page 4).

[American_Centurion]

How exactly would that trump rights enumerated to a person specifically for his/her protection from abuse by the state?

Do those rights also trump the entire Bill of Rights?

I don't hate cops, regardless of how my words have been twisted and turned, I just get sick of the large number that expect everyone else to have to bend over so they can do a job they knew was difficult before they entered the profession.

[BSunday]

Nah, it's probably just "taking up offenses" on behalf of my brother, a former police officer. I used to ride along with him alot when I was younger and saw the kinds of idiots he had to deal with all the time. I mean, let's face it, the kinds of people who attract the attention of the police are not exactly rocket scientists.

[cinFLA]

How exactly would that trump rights enumerated to a person specifically for his/her protection from abuse by the state? Do those rights also trump the entire Bill of Rights?

I think you missed the fact that I quoted the X (Part of the Bill of Rights!)

[BSunday]

please cite where this purported right is listed.

In the Book of Common Freakin Sense. Do all rights of all peoples have to be spelled out specifically ?

[cinFLA]

I don't hate cops, regardless of how my words have been twisted and turned, I just get sick of the large number that expect everyone else to have to bend over so they can do a job they knew was difficult before they entered the profession.

No one diagrees that their are bad cops but this cop was NOT a bad cop. He was just trying to do his job inaccordance with the laws of Nevada and his training. Was he perfect? No. But he was also dealing with an a$$hole. If the guy had been at all reasonable, there would have been a short, friendly discussion by the three of them and that would have been the end of it (assuming the girl would not be spiteful against her father).

[green iguana]

That link worked. However, the bit about her being in the passenger side of the car is not what Mr. Hiibel said, but a statement of what the officer claims to have seen when he drove up to the car. I'm not calling the officer a liar (unlike others here.) I just think it's reasonable to assume that she moved over to talk to her dad after he got out of the car, since they both claim she was driving.

[Arpege92]

"If you truly aren't sure which is worse, then you are clearly devoid of the ability to see the totality of this issue."

Nice try cop hater. This was a lame attempt to clear yourself of any wrong doing should you sit on a jury just so you can nail a cop. Your type of cure is worse than the disease itself and here's to hoping you never sit on any jury!!!!!!

"We are now a 'guilty until you prove your innocent' society."

That includes you as well. Your attitude towards cops sucks and that's why you assume they are all guilty. You are a strong reason why I want my hubby out of this profession as soon as possible. When that day comes....I will be free to tell people like you to kiss my.....that day hasn't come, but it will.

[cinFLA]

Please go back and review the 431 / 440 / 443 / 445 sequence and note that I (on purpose) left out the source of my statement in #440.

[cinFLA]

However, the bit about her being in the passenger side of the car is not what Mr. Hiibel said, but a statement of what the officer claims to have seen when he drove up to the car.

It does not say that the 'cop stated'. It says SHE WAS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE.

[BSunday]

To be honest, I'm too lazy. You'll have to quote them for me if you want me to read them

[American_Centurion]

No, all rights don't have to be, but the ones that are are specially protected.

Don't get me wrong, if you read all my posts relating to this you will see that I only condemn the deputy for not asking the right question. I have condemned Hiibel several times for doing himself no favors with his attitude, and the way he "acted" guilty. Cops pick up on that faster than anything.

My post that you quoted me about LEO's and A-holes, was specifically aimed at the younger, newer, officers, based on ones I have met in the last 8 or so years. I still believe that there is something in the training that gives them that aura, and the feeling they can abuse their power without reprisal.

I know there are reprisals within the LEO community, but to the average citizen they never know that the rude patrolman giving them a ticket with attitude, was previously a corporal who got busted for something. Compound that with the public stories of "accidental" shootings where the officer is not publicly charged and you get those folks who "hate cops".

Additionally the LEO community as a whole gives the public the impression that no one should question their actions. Being the enforcement arm of the government is exactly why every action by the police should be looked at seriously. Not criticized for political reasons, but at least debated on the merits of how much should the government hassle citizens?

IMO as little as possible. This case will be decided and will become Law of the Land. I prefer that the ruling lean much farther toward the right to remain silent and freedom from unlawful search and seizure.

[HitmanLV]

I dunno. You have a right to not incriminate yourself. Identifying yourself can be incriminating yourself. I don't know if its a slam dunk at all.

[ActionNewsBill]

I mean, let's face it, the kinds of people who attract the attention of the police are not exactly rocket scientists.

For what it's worth, at the end of the day, police aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer either, you'll have to admit.

I'm sure that your brother and Cap'n Crunch are the exceptions to the rule.

[American_Centurion]

If the guy had been at all reasonable

I agree with you.

This case is about much more than how Hiibel and the officer acted that day. It will be viewed as Law of the Land however it is ruled on.

I think it isn't so bad that a person can remain silent and not give their name, that doesn't mean they can't be arrested.

The brief is correct in pointing out your name can be used against you as in "3 strikes" as well as the likelihood of you being arrested if the officer sees you have a rap sheet.

[green iguana]

It does not say that the 'cop stated'. It says SHE WAS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE.

It says: "When Deputy Dove approached the truck he noticed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting the truck had been parked in a sudden and aggressive manner. Deputy Dove saw the petitioner Larry D. Hibbel standing outside the truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech and odor. Mr. Hibbel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck. When Deputy Dove asked..."

The statement of the daughter being in the passenger side clearly comes from Dove's observation. The statement of the daughter being in the passenger side clearly does not state who was driving.

[cinFLA]

The state makes the case that the person has freely given up the 'right to remain silent' since he freely uses his name in public. (my simple restatement). I know that there is a legal point that when a person testifies, they have to invoke the 5th right away or if they start testifying on a subject they automatically lose the right to invoke the 5th.

These issues are related (as the state points out).

[cinFLA]

It says: "When Deputy Dove approached the truck he noticed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting the truck had been parked in a sudden and aggressive manner. Deputy Dove saw the petitioner Larry D. Hibbel standing outside the truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech and odor. Mr. Hibbel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck. When Deputy Dove asked..."

The statement of the daughter being in the passenger side clearly comes from Dove's observation.

Notice that every statement other than the underlined one references the deputy. The underlined statement is a statement of fact as presented by the Hiibel petition for writ.