cinFLA:
The Ninth already ruled in favor of Mr. H. The USSC is considering this case since they feel the Ninth is out to lunch and will probably overturn them as they usually have to do with the NinthSandy: What the heck are you talking about? This case is being appealed from the Nevada Supreme Court. And Hiibel lost in that court; that's why he's appealing (duh).
cinFLA: Go back and read the filings.
Here, why don't you take a look at the Supreme Court docket.
| 03-5554 |
Status: GRANTED |
| Title: |
| Larry D. Hiibel, Petitioner |
| v. |
| Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al. |
|
| Docketed: |
July 28, 2003 |
| Lower Ct: |
Supreme Court of Nevada |
And if you're still confused, look at the opinion from the lower court, and note that it says--near the top of the page--IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.
Then, a few lines later, it says
Original petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the district court's order affirming petitioner's conviction in justice court for resisting or obstructing an officer investigating a crime. Petition denied.
FYI, that means Hiibel lost his case.
From your source. Now the USSC will be able to finally overturn the 9th!
"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."