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 ...
Yes, I agree that "Pleading the 5th" has to do with the 5th Amendment.
However, I believe that has more to due with not being forced to incriminating oneself while under oath during a criminal case, and less to due with being an obstinate cuss and refusing to even tell the police his name.
The old conservative/liberal poles should really be totalitarian/libertarian. There are both totalitarians & libertarians in each party.
Good catch. As I noted earlier, the article is pure BS. As so many here took it in completely. And they criticize conservatives for seeking the truth.
I still consider myself an independent politically, because I don't find the Republican party (under current management) to be very conservative. I should probably look into the Constitution Party.
You should probably retract your false posts about who was driving and who was hitting whom.
If a cop has a good reason to ID a guy then he has a duty to.
I don't see why the court thinks this is a good case for defining what is a "good reason" though.
Yep...mean ole 5-oh's.... *sigh*
What is not in the article is that another district (I think the court was in Utah) had ruled on another case for the right to seek identification in a similar case. (The 9th had previously ruled against this type of query). So the Nevada Supreme Court declared that there was a jurisdictional problem and did not rule on it thus punting it up. I guess it is up to the USSC to decide which Federal District Court is correct via a ruling on this case.
Your mommy is calling.
Being almost a 5 year veteran of these FR police threads, I like to have a little fun.
Sometimes I'll throw comments like that out just to get a reaction from people. Sometimes I take different sides, instead of taking the police side, I'll take the other.
Just for kicks. I don't take these threads too seriously and sometimes I like to see how venomous people here will get, let their agenda come out.
Here's a few excerpts from a letter I got from the Chief of Police in '02. (If I may be so selfserving)
'you are aggressive in dealing with the problems of our neighborhoods, yet you treat everyone, inlucding your colleagues and the public, with respect. I have personally observed your compassion for those less fortunate. You use your status as a seasoned veteran to provide quiet leadership-you lead by example. '
Theres some more but I'm too embarrassed to write it.
Unless you live in the liberal la-la land of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
...oooo... deja vu... I've typed this before....
You may want to live in Nazi Germany .... I don't.
(I know im the son of Columbus Cop of 30+ years)
Yeah. Better to let the drinking a$$hole to continue driving down the road whacking his daughter.
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.