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]

"Interesting. You enter a conversation that I'm having with someone else, throw in your 2 cents, without bothering to read what I have written, and then tell me I am not following standard practice."

Interesting. I didn't realize that I had access to your Freepmailbox. I also didn't see the rule that an entire thread must be read prior to responding posts in that thread.

[cinFLA]

just beating her up for not complying with his orders to get out of the vehicle.

Do you get your jollies from making things up?

"Another policeman, a Nevada state trooper by the name of Merschel, was on the scene and was holding the door of the pick-up truck shut so that Mimi couldn't get out. Screaming, she finally forced the door open"

[green iguana]

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.

I respectfully disagree. And I'm moving on...

[cinFLA]

I respectfully disagree. And I'm moving on...

You can disagree but it is in black and white as a statement of fact.n The paragraph is headed by:

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

It is not headed by "Deputy observations". Thus any statements not attributed to an 'observation' are accepted by facts as submitted by the Hiibel legal team.

[CSM]

Yeah, my series problem is the fact that anytime I have ever requested assistance from the police, I was told that there was nothing they could do. They told me it would be worthless to even complete a report that random assaults occured because it would be to hard to find the perps.

I guess they were angry that I took time from their revenue gathering to try to actually report that I was the victim of a crime. Shame on me and my attitude of feeling that cops are useless.

[cinFLA]

According to your logic we would have to read:

"Mr. Hiibel was charged and found guilty ..."

as:

"The deputy said Mr. Hiibel was charged and found guilty ...

[American_Centurion]

Not everyone freely uses their name in public.

Unless you were born cinFLA you are right now not using your name. There are lots of people who go by nicknames that are unrelated to their given name.

Would it be within my rights to tell a police officer that I am American_Centurion and give them no other name than that?

Regarding the automatic loss of the right to the 5th once they start testifying, to me that strengthens the argument that one should have the right to withold their name from police, since once they speak their name they may in fact be testifying right then.

This could turn out to be a very good/bad/ugly ruling from the USSC, depending on how they rule. I lean toward individual rights, but either way opens a can of legal worms.

[cinFLA]

Yeah, my series problem is the fact that anytime I have ever requested assistance from the police, I was told that there was nothing they could do. They told me it would be worthless to even complete a report that random assaults occured because it would be to hard to find the perps.

There is not enough detail for me to comment on your situation but I have had 'situations' also.

It is frustrating but it is not all the cops fault. I recently had to call the state HP to report a kid coming around a corner at an excessive speed with his brother hanging onto the outside of the car with his stereo so loud that he set off a neighbors home security alarm. The cop acted as there was not much he could do and kept making statements that I had called because I had an 'issue' with the kid. I did but that was besides the point. After about an hour of discussion with the cop and his discussions with the kid and the kid's parents and discussions of what can and cannot be done (including citizens arrest) I have not heard the kid's stereo a single time since the incident and he drives very carefully in the neighborhood. The cop also said to the kid that if he eversaw the kid's bronco on the street he should make d@amed sure that he was driving very carefully.

Was I disappointed with the cops response? Yes. Did we work out the problem? Yes.

[cinFLA]

Not everyone freely uses their name in public.

Mr. Hiibel did.

[CSM]

"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!!!!!!"

So you are suggesting that 90% of the criminal charges settled without a jury trial and based solely on the cops words are somehow less crooked than the potential of 1 member of a jury.

I have been on a jury and I looked at the facts as presented. I didn't assume any guilt and force the defendant to prove their innocense. Unlike 95% of the police attitude of arrest them all and let the courts sort it out.

"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."

I won't deny that I have a bad attitude regarding cops. They earned it with their actions. I used to have the utmost respect for the profession, until I needed their help. After nothing was accomplished and they returned to their revenue gathering, my attitude changed. I still will treat them with courtesy, which is much better than they treat the average citizen.

[cinFLA]

Unless you were born cinFLA you are right now not using your name. There are lots of people who go by nicknames that are unrelated to their given name.

If I were arrested and gave them cinFLA as my name, my rap sheet would read xxxxxxxxxx aka cinFLA.

[Ramonan]

If you have identification, and you have committed no crime, there is no good reason for refusing to give up your identification upon an officer's request. If you refuse--Why? Sounds like you are implying that you are guilty of something.
On the other hand, the Liberals are embarked upon a crusade to provide identification in the form of Driver's Licenses to ILLEGAL ALIENS. The Libs always say it is so they can go to work, and take their kids to school (why do we pay taxes for school buses then ?)The REAL reson is the ID accepted by authorities who register you to vote is..guess what.. a DRIVER'S LICENSE!

[cinFLA]

I was once stopped by a cop in the dead of winter in Providence RI. The cop said we were yelling obsenities at him (the temperature was about 15 degrees and the windows were all rolled up). He tried to get me (my station wagon was not exactly in prime condition) on a number of minor violations but couldn't; finally settling on 'an improperly secured license plate' as the one he would write me up on. As I had just tightened it up that day I knew it was tight (I have to admit that it was only held by one screw and was tilted). I told him that the plate was secure. He left in a huff! As we had just passed a police station we decided to go back and make a report. I went up to the desk and asked to make a report and they asked for the name or badge number. I said I didn't ask for it since the cop was obviously already upset. I gave them the car number and the station went silent. As I was filling out the report, in walked the cop with his gold badge showing. Boy did hit the roof when he saw us!

[cinFLA]

Then there was the time I was in Georgia headed back to FL. It was almost dark and in GA the speed limit dropped to 50 at sunset. I was rounding the curve at about 70 when I saw him. I slowed and looked in my mirror. Here he came! Flashed his lights and I pulled over. He asked if I knew my taillights were out. I said no, they were working the night before (true) and I had just turned my lights on at sunset. (If he had not seen my headlights he would not have known my taillights were out). He then said there was a gas station about 5 miles down the road and he would follow me there to get a new fuse. He followed me closely to prevent anyone from rear-ending me (dark by this time) and made a U-turn and left as soon as I had pulled into the station.

Not a word about my speeding! And we Floridians were well aware that the GA cops considered FL plates a fair target for revenue.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Much of this has come about since the militarization of the police (under Clinton.) Some of it has been around for awhile though. I had a sheriff's deputy in class who got stopped at a roadblock (license check) and the highway patrol approached with drawn guns. He asked why are they pointing guns at a fellow officer; one of the highway patrol asked who he was; his reply was: "I sit next to you in fingerprint class."

[cinFLA]

Years ago, I had to call the sheriff about some kids raising heck near my property. He said that there was not much he could do since they were 'in the water' (the lake) and that I should be careful since one could never tell what actions the kids might take against me if I complained. I told him that his comment was out of order and that he should go tell the kids that unless they cooled it or left the area that he would start monitoring their activities and vehicles. He was taken back by my comment but he did and they did and I never had a problem with them again.

[Arpege92]

"I have been on a jury and I looked at the facts as presented. I didn't assume any guilt and force the defendant to prove their innocense."

But if that defendant were a cop....you'd hang him. You are no better than the crooked cops you claim to hate.

"Unlike 95% of the police attitude of arrest them all and let the courts sort it out."

This makes no sense at all. The cops arrest someone if they committed a crime and your upset because they leave the job of decideing who is innocent or who is guilty to the court system?

"I won't deny that I have a bad attitude regarding cops."

It's starting to affect your personality. Get over that one experience you had with a cop and move on my friend. You are not the only one to have experienced something like this. I've experienced bad cops myself, but I don't let it cloud my judgement the way its clouded yours. Go to your local police department and ask to ride along for a few hours. You'd be surprised at how your attitude will change once you've walked in their shoes for a while. People do it all of the time in my community and it not only helps them to understand the police officer's perspective, it's bridged that gap between cops and civilians.

[cinFLA]

Why did they have guns drawn at a license check point?

[Middle Man]

"Of course you have to identify yourself to police."

Is your house decorated in early National Socialism?

[cinFLA]

Is your house decorated in early National Socialism?