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.

[Tench_Coxe]

The Pedestrian

I am reminded of this story every time I read about this crap.

[eno_]

He was purposely stirring up trouble with the "Whatever I felt like" comment. The sick thing is, you get fanboys like CinFLA who think that's how it actually should be.

[RonHolzwarth]

reply to: "But remember, this is a country where cops can pin you to the floor and forcibly take your blood to check for DUI. I don't think the 4th holds much water anymore."

ONLY if you were driving a car! Personally, I don't have a problem with the police enforcing the drunken driving laws, even when the drivers are to drunk to be cooperative.

BUT----> Isn't it a clear cut violation of your "rights" to HAVE to have a current license plate on your car, when driving on a PUBLIC road? Because THAT identifies you!

Actually I got a ticket once for expired tag, but the car had not ever been left private property while expired. The judge was very nice about it, but he had to look it up, seems that there is an obscure clause in MY state's law, that IF the parking spot is "generally accessible to the public", yes, indeed, you CAN be cited for expired registration. Since it was parked, undriven, in MY OWN PERSONAL parking space at an apartment complex, BUT that spot WAS accessible to the public, I lost, and had to pay the ticket.

[Cap'n Crunch]

hahahaha.. I don't go crying anywhere, frankly the only thing I care about is how I stand in the eyes of God. Which at this time in my life is pretty good.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I had a few parables there, you'll have to be a bit more specific.

How much would you like to wager that I'm not a police officer? I'll cover anything you put down.

Be happy to have anybody here on FR come to verify or even ride along with me if they like.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Thank you. And welcome again.

[cinFLA]

It doesn't pass the sniff test

Yep. Your post doesn't pass the sniff test. No source, no collaboration. Even Mr. Hiible disputes the facts of your post.

[cinFLA]

Before I left LA I was more afraid of the LAPD & LA County Sheriff than the gangbangers...and I've never so much as been suspected of a crime, don't do drugs and haven't had a drink in 19+ years.

And someone on here said I was paranoid ... Boy, you are wierd.

[cinFLA]

Please post a source for your claims. You repeatedly ignore that request so I assume you have no source. Note that your posts are in conflict with the information provided by Mr. Hiibel. That doesn't concern you?

[cinFLA]

Did you watch the video?

[FreedomCalls]

Did you watch the video?

I did. The other cop should be arrested for battery of a juvenile (Hiibel's daughter). He beat up the person he was sent to protect.

[cinFLA]

I did. The other cop should be arrested for battery of a juvenile (Hiibel's daughter). He beat up the person he was sent to protect.

Next time you watch it put your glasses back on.

[ladyinred]

After reading some of the responses here, I still have the guts to say that if an Officer asks me for my name, I will tell him or her the first time. It is respect for the law IMO, and just plain ole manners.

[FreedomCalls]

The other cop should be arrested for battery of a juvenile (Hiibel's daughter). He beat up the person he was sent to protect.

Next time you watch it put your glasses back on.

If he wasn't hitting her what was he doing to cause her to scream and flail about then? He wasn't gently consoling a victim of a crime, that's for damn sure, just beating her up for not complying with his orders to get out of the vehicle.

[CSM]

No, I didn't read all of your posts at the time of my reply. However, it is standard practice that not all posts must be read prior to a reply. After reading all of your posts I see that your response was missing the "sarcasm tag".

If you don't want responses like mine, you should post with comments that you mean. The problem is that many of the LEO's today do have the attitude that you posted, so it is very believable.

[CSM]

"I'm not sure what's worse, a corrupt cop or a corrupt jury!"

If you truly aren't sure which is worse, then you are clearly devoid of the ability to see the totality of this issue. Corrupt cops, and a corrupt CJ system, have led us to the current system that we have today. We are now a "guilty until you prove your innocense" society. No longer does a defendant have the ability to defend themselves in the normal cases. They only get a real defense when a major crime is considered. The cops, prosecutors, judges, defenders, probation officers, etc. all assume guilt until innocense is proven. Their goals are not to see justice prevail, their goal is to cut a deal and move the case along.

Given that, a corrupt cop is far worse than a corrupt jury.

[CSM]

The MP's are a different organization than the public police. Soldiers don't have the same rights as the general citizen. Good thing for you, with your attitude you are showing that personal liberty is meaningless. Innocent until PROVEN guilty means nothing to jack boots like you!

[CSM]

"Telling a cop that you are legally parked indicate you have control of the vehicle; i.e.; you were the driver that parked the car."

With your logic we can now arrest people for sitting in their living room drinking. They legally parked their car in their driveway, got drunk, but still have control of their vehicle. Great logical conclusion.

[CSM]

"If your car is involved in a hit-and-run, you had better have a better alibi than that."

Further proof that we are a "guilty until you prove yourself innocent" society. Isn't it great that we no longer are free?

[Jeff Gordon]

On what charge?

Failure to cowtow?