The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday against a Nevada rancher, upholding a state law that allows police to arrest people for refusing to identify themselves in a narrow decision that drew sharp criticism from civil liberties groups.
Reno Gazette-Journal article
That decision permits a police officer to briefly detain, question and conduct a pat-down search of a person whose behavior has given rise to "reasonable suspicion," short of the probable cause necessary for a formal arrest. Such an encounter is widely known as a "Terry stop."
"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests," Justice Kennedy said. "The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale and practical demands of a Terry stop," he added.
But as Justice Kennedy pointed out, in the 36 years since the Terry decision, the court, while permitting a police officer to question a suspect, had never explicitly decided whether the suspect had to answer or could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing. He acknowledged that a number of opinions, including a concurring opinion by Justice Byron R. White in the Terry case itself, had indicated that there was not an obligation to respond.
NY Times article
"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests," Justice Kennedy said. "The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale and practical demands of a Terry stop," he added.
But as Justice Kennedy pointed out, in the 36 years since the Terry decision, the court, while permitting a police officer to question a suspect, had never explicitly decided whether the suspect had to answer or could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing. He acknowledged that a number of opinions, including a concurring opinion by Justice Byron R. White in the Terry case itself, had indicated that there was not an obligation to respond.
Earlier this week, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.
Hiibel--who claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply the victim of mistaken identity--believed he had no obligation to tell the officer his name. But the Court found that neither Hiibel's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was violated.
In so doing, the Court took some liberties in construing its own past precedents, prompting four Justices to dissent. But despite its technical deficiencies, the Hiibel decision does not threaten civil liberties.
Nor does it, as some commentators have suggested, pave the way for a system of compulsory national identification cards. Moreover, even if it did, such a system would not necessarily be unwise or unconstitutional.
Findlaw article
Hiibel--who claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply the victim of mistaken identity--believed he had no obligation to tell the officer his name. But the Court found that neither Hiibel's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was violated.
In so doing, the Court took some liberties in construing its own past precedents, prompting four Justices to dissent. But despite its technical deficiencies, the Hiibel decision does not threaten civil liberties.
Nor does it, as some commentators have suggested, pave the way for a system of compulsory national identification cards. Moreover, even if it did, such a system would not necessarily be unwise or unconstitutional.
And that, appropriately, was written by one Michael Dorf, an attorney that we will probably see in Congress one day, if he isn't there already.
Ben Sargent
Like most legal questions, this one isn't black and white like those patrol cars - hmmmmmm, maybe those car colors are a message. The New York Times article has the most thorough explanation and analysis of the case.
In addition to the links, Jay offered a comment from someone else: "So according to the Supreme Court, if a policeman asks you to identify yourself and you refuse, its a crime and you can be arrested..... requiring the police to read you your Miranda Rights....which includes the right to remain silent.
Ah yes, the irony of it all.
But, here's the little twister, for me. The police who stopped Mr. Hiibel were responding to a call claiming a man was hitting a woman in a pickup. (The woman turned out to be the guy's daughter.) What are the options in a case like that? It does seem like the police officer could have started out by simply asking the man if there was a problem, and explaining that he'd gotten a phone call, instead of the first thing out of his mouth being something of a challenge - let me see your identification. Mr. Hiibel, however, returned the challenge, and they were off to the races.
The bizarre scene is shown on Mr. Hiibel's website in the police video. He's looking for sympathetic corroboration, but I'm having a hard time giving it to him considering what the video shows. But, idiots and jerks have rights, too. Just like all Americans. Or we used to before we turned this country into a kingdom. Well, in theory we did. Well, that's what they told us in school.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!