Supreme Court Hears Case: Refusing to Give Your Name to a Cop?

the argument is that since a cop can run your name, forcing you to tell your name (and come up with all the stuff on your record) is a violation of the right not to incriminate yourself (5th ammendment)

Oral Argument Date Set. The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear oral argument in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada on March 22, 2004. For more information, see the press release from the Office of the Nevada State Public Defender. (Jan. 13, 2004)

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html

i like that

i just saw the tape on tv of the guy refusing to give his name to a trooper, andf the trooper threatening him, and the guy just sayin "Cuff me."

It was Money.

and now he's doing the awesome thing, and suing them for his, and now our, rights..

that is the shit, seriously

link that vid up...i cant check it cuz im at work, but im sure others would like to see it

now that is what i call a good arguement! can't wait to hear the verdict on this one.

i didn't see the whole video, why did the cop arrest the daughter ?

all i saw was a short clip on a tv show a minute ago, i think it's "CBS up to the minute" i'm not usually up this late/early..

it's !@#$% i can't log in on this comp for some reason.

uh oh.

i gave my name up.

anyway, i have no idea about the daughter.

i just heard the think on the news for a sec and thought i'd post it up cuz it's in the courts right now, as in yesterday and today etc...

check out that link for more info..

it's the case 'official site'

the whole story...

Court weighs giving name to police

Rancher's case will clarify post-9/11 privacy issues

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Posted: 2:27 PM EST (1927 GMT)

Hiibel refused to give his name to police.

Do you have to tell the police your name? Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the answer could be the difference between arrest and freedom.

The justices heard arguments Monday in a first-of-its kind case that asks whether people can be punished for refusing to identify themselves.

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 road four years ago.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, 59, was prosecuted, based on his silence, and finds himself at the center of a major privacy rights battle.

"I would do it all over again," Hiibel, dressed in cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie, said outside the court. "That's one of our fundamental rights as American citizens, to remain silent."

The case will clarify police powers in the post-September 11 era, determining if officials can demand to see identification whenever they deem it necessary.

Nevada senior deputy attorney general Conrad Hafen told 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? What about a national identification card?

"The government could require name tags, color codes," Hiibel's lawyer, Robert Dolan, told the court.

An intersection of amendments

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 the court never has given police the authority to demand someone's identification, without probable cause they have done something wrong. But she also acknowledged police might want to run someone's name through computers to check for a criminal history.

The encounter in this case, which was videotaped, shows Hiibel by a pickup truck parked off a road near Winnemucca, Nevada, on May 21, 2000.

An officer, called to the scene because of a complaint about arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in the truck, asked Hiibel 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."

Hiibel never acted in a threatening manner and cooperated when handcuffed. His daughter, a teenager at the time, was thrown to the ground and arrested when she protested his arrest, the video shows. She was not convicted of any crime.

Hiibel was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest. He was fined $250.

Nevada is supported by the Bush administration and two criminal justice groups. Organizations backing Hiibel include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, privacy groups and advocates for the homeless.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said if Hiibel loses, the government will be free to use its extensive data bases to keep tabs on people.

"A name is now no longer a simple identifier; it is the key to a vast, cross-referenced system of public and private databases, which lay bare the most intimate features of an individual's life," Rotenberg told the court in a filing.

The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, case no. 03-5554.

the link...there is a video clip link there

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/23/police.id.ap/

Very very tricky situation. I'm quite torn on it.

i dont know, i guess its cool that you might not have to, but i mean, its the cops job to run all that this and what not, thats so going to slow down the capture of people like me

big man

the troopers always ask that question whenever anyone gets caught......even if u tell them the truth they never look into the previous stuff......atleast thats hat i know.....

damn interesting. I'll definitely be curious as to how it turns out. While its tricky...I'm leaning in favor of it. I like my privacy.

as the law currently stands, it is at the discretion of the officer to ask for your name and identification, then they can detain you while they check you out to make sure you have no warrants. i'm with the guy, the police don't need that right. if you're "suspicious" or whatever, they can arrest you and find out your information then when they charge you with something. othewrwise it's just harassment.

This is something I've always wondered about. Cause we do have the right to remain silent. So what about names? If a cop is fucking with me I like to l give him a fake name just because of that. Alot of times cops will fuck with you just cause they don't like the way you look or act or something. Then if they get your name they keep it in their own kind of reports database. Doesn't mean you commited a crime it just means they have more reason to fuck with you.

It's tricky, but they don't need your name. Especially if they aint got nothing on you in the first place. Hmm... I dunno. The problem is profiling I guess.

hmm...

i think that more so than the minor intrusion of an officer knowing ur name for no reason, the implication of using a name to cross tab for much more private and confidential information of oneself is the heart of the matter. in that cnn article it is only mentioned with a lil three line comment from the director of that private information consortium. i think that this will end up being what the case is about. it is a scary proposition though to think that a cop can just ask for ur name and find out things that even some people close to u might not know. another thing, how do we know how much information these lil private groups actually have. i wonder if their level of knowledge on a person will come into question because of this. somehow i doubt it.

ooo funny story, but true, it seems that a couple years ago, whenever mcdonalds hired someone to be a representative for the company as a ronald mcdonald the clown, the hiree was under contract to always state that there name was in fact ronald mcdonald for the duration of their employment. well one day, one of their clowns was pulled over while in his suit. the cop asked him his name, and he replied, legally, ronald mcdonald. the cop took it in ill humor and took him to jail. im not sure if the company's policy is the same, but i found all that funny.