Withholding Identity From a Law Officer: Your Right or Not?

Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

[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.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Someone else said the truck was parked illegally, that plus being sent there on a complaint of two people arguing, that's my in.

[American_Centurion]

"The cop was way too full of himself"

90% of them are. It's been years since I met a young LEO who wasn't on a power trip. Something has changed in the training that manifests itself in the LEO being a A-hole.

Still, I believe, that if the cop had simply asked for an operators license he would have been justified completely due to Mr. Hiibel obviously being the driver.

[green iguana]

I have viewed the tape, and I believe that since Mr Hiibel freely admitted to parking the truck where it was

No, his daughter was driving.

[kahoutek]

Seems to be the norm lately.

I live in Fairfield County, CT and the town in which I live voted the police dept out of existence in favor of a resident State Trooper program. Cheaper and a lot more efficient.

The underlying reason for the outcome of the vote was exactly as you stated. They could (and did) turn routine traffic stops into near riots (car searches, personal searches).

A perfect example of PC and no-tolerance policies self destructing.

[Sweet Land]

Here it would have been Obstructing Official Business. [...] or Disorderly Conduct, Persisting.

That's the question: should there be laws against refusal to give one's name?

Or Domestic Violence

Neither the article nor the charges filed suggest there was sufficient evidence to support that charge.

Whatever I felt like at the moment.

A telling remark.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I don't think it's the training because cops have to eat alot more crap today then we did say 10 years ago.

My opinion is that it's our society as a whole that has changed. People in general are ruder than they used to be, from my observations anyhow.

[jeffo]

Here's an interesting corollary to that - if the Supreme Court rules that we must provide identification to a police officer if asked, does that mean that soon will follow a requirement to carry identification documents at all times? Of course, when driving you already must have your license, but what about just walking down the street?

It does start to sound like the "your papers, please?" kind of scenario. On the one hand, sure, if someone has done something wrong, why should they mind providing identification? But conversely, if someone has done nothing wrong, why should they be compelled by law to provide it?

Here's a scenario and it happens a couple times a year. Police are doing one of their "beat the bushes" operations looking for suspects. They run into someone who has a name LIKE someone they are looking for. Boom, ruin one perfectly good day for an innocent civilian. (Actually happened to a brother in law of mine about 12 years ago).

It will be very interesting to hear what the Supremes have to say about this.

[Sweet Land]

Someone else said the truck was parked illegally, that plus being sent there on a complaint of two people arguing, that's my in.

How is that an "in" for demanding names?

[American_Centurion]

He said on the tape "Am I parked illegally? I'm not parked illegally." Several other times during the tape he spoke similar words, and never did he say he wasn't the driver.

Based on those statements, the officer could reasonably believe, as I did, that Mr. Hiibel was the operator, and the officer could rightfully ask him for a license.

Don't get me wrong, the officer did not ask him for a license, he asked Mr. Hiibel to ID himself and gave no legal justification for doing so. The officer did not ask the right questions, and Mr. Hiibel was within his rights to refuse.

[green iguana]

Or Domestic Violence

Then the cop wold be arresting the wrong person - Hiibel's daughter hit him. He didn't hit her abck, he asked for her to stop to let him get out of the car where he was smoking a cigarette when the cop pulled up. If interested, here's his web site:

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

[Cap'n Crunch]

I've had people not tell me their names before, no big deal, they didn't have to. I conducted my business and went on my way. In this particular incident I believe the cop was justified (from what I've seen) on identifying this guy.

I don't know how the cop conducted himself the entire time but from what I saw he did OK.

I wonder what Hiibles screen name is?

[7.62 x 51mm]

Don't forget the portable retina scan machines, coming soon to a police cruiser near all of us.

[dljordan]

With the new Matrix database they'll probably be able to do just that. Oh, and don't forget CAPS II. If you have nothing to hide it shouldn't be a problem for you. You want to help in the war on terror don't you?

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

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.

Ms. Gina Holland, (the reporter-ette for this story) should go back to journalism school.
The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

The "right to remain silent" is not part of the fifth amendment. It is the Maranda (sp?) rights which (I believe) only comes into play AFTER one has been charged/arrested.

[kahoutek]

90% of them are. It's been years since I met a young LEO who wasn't on a power trip. Something has changed in the training that manifests itself in the LEO being a A-hole.

Good point. The zero-tolerance attitude begins right in the academy.

"Do everything to CYA and nothing to get sued for".

Judgement is out of the question. And litigation costs as a result of it have skyrocketed.

[Sweet Land]

In this particular incident I believe the cop was justified (from what I've seen) on identifying this guy.

What about this particular incident justified it?

[American_Centurion]

IMO people being ruder is no excuse for the "professional" in a situation to reciprocate.

Salesmen know if they are rude to a rude customer they won't make much money. Waiters know the same thing. If LEOs want to lean on authority instead of manners and dignity when faced with rudeness, those of us who aren't rude will rightfully view them as a-holes.

Every job has to deal with bad clientelle, professionals don't get emotionally caught up with that and rise above it. IMO you LEOs with more than 10 yrs in should be leading the younger ones by example, I think you would see a huge change in how LEOs are treated by society at large.

[Cap'n Crunch]

A cop coming on scene probably doesn't know who hit who. That's why he has to ask some questions.

I'll take people's word (here) for the cop not asking the right questions. You have to know how to talk to people, I believe in treating people with respect and dignity.

[cinFLA]

NO! They charged him with resisting arrest according to the article.

Actually, the article says he was convicted of resisting arrest but that is false. The article is so full of errors it is worse than worthless.

[connectthedots]

Hiibel was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest. He was fined $250.

How can one be guilty of resisting arrest if they aren't also convicted of another crime?