Replies

From his brief.

"Respondent claims that giving one’s name is essentially neutral and thus not incriminating. Resp. Br. at 35-42; Amicus U.S. Br. at 16-24. This claim ignores the realities of the criminal law and the facts of this case. One’s name can be incriminating and aid in a criminal prosecution. For example, in Nevada the existence of a familial-type relationship is a necessary element of domestic battery and triggers greater punishments than ordinary battery. Nev. Rev. Stat. 33.018. The foundation for determining that relationship begins with one’s name. In addition, the domestic battery laws are recidivist statutes which carry increasing punishments for repeat offenders. Nev. Rev. Stat. 400.485. Repeat felony offenses can lead to punishment as a habitual criminal, which carries a maximum penalty of life without the possibility of parole. Nev. Rev. Stat. 207.010(1)(b)(1), 207.016. Thus, in some instances a person’s name, matched with the prior record associated with that name, can be used to enhance the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. Moreover, identifying oneself as someone under a restraining order against domestic violence can itself lead to criminal sanctions. Nev. Rev. Stats. 33.100, 125.560.
The privilege against compulsory self-incrimination “extends not only ‘to answers that would in themselves support a conviction . . . but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute.’”