Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
| Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 22, 2004 Decided June 21, 2004 |
|
| Full case name | Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al. |
| Citations | 542 U.S. 177 (more)
124 S. Ct. 2451; 159 L. Ed. 2d 292; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4385; 72 U.S.L.W. 4509; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 406
|
| Prior history | Defendant convicted, Justice Court of Union Township, Humboldt County; affirmed, Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; affirmed, 59 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2002); cert. granted, 540 U.S. 965 (2003) |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied, 542 U.S. 960 (2004) |
| Holding | |
| Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. IV, V; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3) | |
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.
Nevada has a "stop-and-identify" law that allows a police officer to detain any person he encounters "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime"; the person may be detained only to "ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad." In turn, the law requires the person detained to "identify himself", but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that "identify himself" to mean to merely state his name. As of April 2008, 23 other states have similar laws.
...
Wikipedia