To: Sweet Land
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.
303 posted on
03/23/2004 12:54:38 PM PST by
cinFLA
To: cinFLA
"we believe an independent analysis of the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) is warranted."Exactly. They can overturn the law without going as far as Hiibel wants them to.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson