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.

[cinFLA]

That's something I have always wondered about.

Because he wasn't convicted of resisting arrest. If the article cannot even get this major fact correct, should we give it any credibility?

[connectthedots]

Go view the tape and then come back and say that the cop was hustling this a$$hole who had been reported to have been hitting his daughter, displayed signs of drinking and had 'parked' his car via a four-wheel slide on the side of the road at an angle.

Being an a$$hole is not a crime. Drinking is not a crime unless he was driving; and apparently he wasn't. Unless the cop had probable cause to believe the guy had committed a felony, he had no legal authority to arrest the guy. A cop cannot arrest a guy for a misdemeanor unless he personally witnessed the crime.

[cinFLA]

I may have been fooled by the fact that the other officers later pulled her out of the passenger side, I guess in retrospect it's possible to pull a driver out of that side in a pickup, but until now that never crossed my mind.

I think green iguana was fooled by reading the hiibel propaganda instead of the truth.

[TankerKC]

Great. I guess I just have to hope that I catch you on a good day. Seems a silly way to live, but I will submit to your moods. <sarcasm>

[cinFLA]

His daughter was hitting him.

Please source your info.

[freeeee]

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.

Two entirely different criteria are given. Either this is bad reporting, or the government is seeking new powers, not just an affirmation of their old law.

[Cap'n Crunch]

You know what gets me? Banks now ask for people's thumb prints and they comply.

Strange.

[cinFLA]

I guess you have no problem with a guy drinking, driving and whacking his daughter all at the same time.

[Veracious Poet]

Yeppers, getting harder to shoot first and ask questions later, isn't it. ;-)

You could always take out your frustration on the sheeple you patrol, asking for their IDs 3 or 4 times a day...

[Cap'n Crunch]

I don't believe we know each other, are you judging me by one sentence I've typed?

[mrsmith]

"Ms. Gina Holland, (the reporter-ette for this story)"

Interesting fact about AP's Gina Holland is that she is married to George Shelton, a rising Democrat Party operative and currently political consultant for Strother-Duffy-Strother: the "Oldest Existing Democratic Media Firm."

[Cap'n Crunch]

Oh for the days when we could shoot fleeing felons. I just can't wait until I can wear SS runes.

[Veracious Poet]

As you can tell, some "conservatives" are really totalitarians at heart.

No wonder true conservatives are joining the Constitution Party in droves...

[Cap'n Crunch]

Feldmarshall Crunch...

[TankerKC]

How could I dare to judge the judge? I'm humbled. Perhaps you could clarify your "Whatever I felt like at the moment" comment.

[American_Centurion]

My bank has that, I've never used it. But like I said before I'm already extensively cataloged by the government so it wouldn't make a difference to me.

No, I'm not a convicted criminal, military service requirements automatically supply the government with my entire personal life, plus prints, DNA, and background. But I voluntarily supplied that, a citizen who wants to remain anonymous should have that right.

[green iguana]

And just where did you read this? On Hiibel's web-site! Ha Ha ha!

No, it was in an article on Bloomberg yesterday. Of course, I do not know what their source was.

[cinFLA]

Why do you criticize those that speak the truth instead of fact distorters like green iguana!

From the court documents:

"In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck."

[cinFLA]

No, it was in an article on Bloomberg yesterday. Of course, I do not know what their source was.

Either the article was wrong or your memory is wrong or you have an agenda.

[connectthedots]

Was he convicted of any of those crimes?