[Sweet Land]

The USSC now has to decide which jurisdiction is correct.

None of the legal documents linked at http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/legal.html appear to support the claim that the decision before the USSC is jurisdictional. Briefs by both petitioner and respondent address constitutional, not jurisdictional, questions.

[cinFLA]

The United States Supreme Court has twice expressly refused to address whether a person reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal behavior may be required to identify himself or herself.[8] Therefore, the issue is unresolved.[9]

There is a split of authority among the federal circuit courts of appeals on this issue.[10] In Oliver v. Woods,[11] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah statute that requires individuals to produce identification to an officer during an investigatory stop. However, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board,[12] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NRS 171.123(3) violates the Fourth Amendment because "'the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification [might] provide a link leading to arrest.'"[13] We find the reasoning in Carey to be unpersuasive. Given the conflicting authority, we believe an independent analysis of the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) is warranted.