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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't know. Most of the police in the area ranged in ability from the superbly competent to the French.

[Middle Man]

I asked the question first. You're in denial.

[Wolfie]

It's America, 2004. If you don't think the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of the cops, you're the one in denial.

[cinFLA]

I asked the question first. You're in denial.

I have no control over other posters. Please answer the question.

[Sweet Land]

"a person being detained because of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity may refuse to identify himself."

Sure. They should also jail him until he IDs himself, or he dies.

In the context of a legal ruling, "a person may do X" means "a person may do X without being legally punished."

Nonsense. Particular conditions were attached to the waiving of sanctions for refusal to ID.

Irrelevant; it remains true that in the context of a legal ruling, "a person who meets condition Y may do X" means "a person who meets condition Y may do X without being legally punished."

[Sweet Land]

Not everything people have to hide is criminal.

Hey! The ONLY thing being discussed in this case is whether, when upon PUBLIC property, whether or not you should be required to give an officer your NAME, upon request!

Revealing your name may render less secure a noncriminal secret. And what if I as a law-abiding citizen simply think it's none of his business what my name is?

[Defiant]

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

It's like when my kids come in in the middle of a show, and then want me to tell them what they missed. A guy says that that the 5th amendment is not where the right to remain silent comes from, which is dead wrong, and I corrected him so that people didn't repeat something and look foolish. That's all. As far as whether the 5th amendment allows police to force you to identify yourself, I don't think it does, and I think people ought to be able to tell the police to shove it if they are asked any question. "Arrest me or don't. But I'm not talking to you", ought to be a proper response, IMO. As a citizen, I would generally cooperate with the cops who are just trying to do their job. But not in all circumstances, and I'd like to decide when I want to cooperate.

[BSunday]

Anybody who doesn't give their name to a police officer when asked is a complete idiot and deserves whatever they get.

Your example of why simply giving your name involves self incrimination made no sense.

[Sweet Land]

Anybody who doesn't give their name to a police officer when asked is a complete idiot

I disagree; but in any case being a complete idiot is not a crime.

and deserves whatever they get.

That does not follow.

[BSunday]

Oh yes, you're right. They wouldn't be idiots. They would be Morons, and using the maxim The Stupid Shall Be Punished, it does indeed follow that they deserve what they get.

[Teacher317]

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.

"Hard cases make bad law."

[Sweet Land]

the maxim The Stupid Shall Be Punished

Whose "maxim" is that? Is it part of common law?

[spunkets]

"it remains true that in the context of a legal ruling, "a person who meets condition Y may do X" means "a person who meets condition Y may do X without being legally punished."

Trivial. It does not apply to condition z.

[BSunday]

Whose "maxim" is that? Is it part of common law?

Right from the Book of Freakin Common Sense I mentioned earlier. Apparently though, it doesn't work 100% of the time.

[CSM]

"You are no better than the crooked cops you claim to hate."

I may be no better in your mind, however since I have no power to ruin people's lives I am better for society than the crooked cops.

"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?"

Go back and look at the post I replied to with my original. The statement was made that an arrest would be made by whatever means the cop felt like using. Therefore, they are automatically considered guilty by the cop. The courts automatically consider the word of the cop to be gospel and will consider the defendant guilty immediately. From there it is "take a deal to get this overwith, or take your chances with a jury that automatically assumes guilt". Our society no longer practices an assumed innosense.

"It's starting to affect your personality. Get over that one experience you had with a cop...."

So. Is haveing a bad attitude towards cops a crime? You may not agree with me, that's fine, however I still have the right to not like cops. BTW, it was more than one experience, it has been multiple times I requested assistance and never received any. In addition, I have worked closely with the police community in a few situations and I have found the general cop attitude to be deplorable. They earned the attitude from me.

[RonHolzwarth]

re: "Revealing your name may render less secure a noncriminal secret. And what if I as a law-abiding citizen simply think it's none of his business what my name is?"


WELL!!!


Aren't you all TALKING BIG!


I notice that I seem to be the ONLY poster on this forum that uses a REAL NAME!!!

And, since it is so unusual, I would be easy to find!

[RonHolzwarth]

Gotta admit though, I am careful what I put on here, if I was hiding like all the rest of you, I could say anything,,,

[eno_]

"Mr. Riddley" is a very private man. According to Anywho, no Riddleys are listed in Nevada.

And if he did use a phone, it should be possible to find the location of the phone he used, for the reasons I stated.

I expect Osama bin Laden will be found long before this Mr. Riddley turns up, which, as I said, is damn hard luck in a high profile case.

So thanks for digging up this name. It only strengthens the case that the report of a phone call was retrofit to the lie told on the scene.

[Arpege92]

"....I have no power to ruin people's lives I am better for society than the crooked cops."

I can't tell you how many time people like you have walked into a police department to press charges against a cop that turn out to be false. I've seen people like you ruin the lives of a cop and I've seen people like you get away with it too. You, Tawana Brawley, and Al Sharpton would have alot in common.

"The courts automatically consider the word of the cop to be gospel and will consider the defendant guilty immediately."

What fantasy world are you living in? There's alot of liberal judges today who's court room is nothing but a revolving door for criminals to come and go through. Criminals with records walk out that door time and time again.....wake up, you are not in Oz anymore Dorothy.

You are right about one thing. You can walk around with a chip on your shoulder for the rest of your life, but that doesn't mean that a cop has to take your crap. The only person responsible for your misery.....is you. But you did earn it though right?

[eno_]

Your argument refutes itself: If I want privacy, I should pose as an illegal and get a pseudonymous ID. Which is to say, when privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.