http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/politics/22CND-SCOT.html?ex=1080622800&en=d465b07e1cd628ee&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE Supreme Court to Decide Mandatory Identification Case By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, March 22 — A Nevada rancher's refusal four years ago to tell a deputy sheriff his name led to a Supreme Court argument today on a question that, surprisingly, the justices have never resolved: whether people can be required to identify themselves to the police when the police have some basis for suspicion but lack the probable cause necessary for an actual arrest. The answer, in a case that has drawn intense interest from those who fear increased government intrusion on personal privacy, appeared elusive. "A name itself is a neutral fact" that is neither incriminating nor an undue invasion of privacy, Conrad Hafen, Nevada's senior deputy attorney general, told the court in defense of 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." Justice David H. Souter told Mr. Hafen, "It's a neutral fact that I'm wearing a pinstripe suit." But, he added, if someone who had just robbed a bank was reported to be wearing a pinstripe suit, that fact, if reported to the police, might no longer be so neutral. The Bush administration joined the state in defending the statute. Lawyers for Larry D. Hiibel , who was appealing his conviction for violating the Nevada law, raised two constitutional challenges to the identification requirement: that it amounts to an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, and that it compels self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Mr. Hiibel's conviction, a misdemeanor, and rejected his constitutional challenge to the state law. Standing by the side of his pick-up truck on a rural road, he had been approached by a sheriff's deputy who was investigating a passing motorist's report that a man in the truck had been hitting a woman. The woman in the passenger compartment was Mr. Hiibel's adult daughter. The deputy sheriff, Lee Dove, asked Mr. Hiibel 11 times for identification. Mr. Hiibel, saying he had done nothing wrong, refused to give his name and challenged Mr. Dove to arrest him. Eventually, the deputy complied. A videotape of the incident, captured by a camera in the squad car, is on Mr. Hiibel's Web side, www.hiibel.com. Mr. Hiibel was never charged with any criminal offense beyond his refusal to identify himself. _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Mar 22 2004 - 23:51:15 PST