[Vision2020] Is not giving your name a criminal offense?

Ellen Roskovich gussie443@hotmail.com
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:23:02 -0800


<html><div style='background-color:'><P><BR><BR></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" color=#0000cc size=3>I was hoping some local legal beagle would jump right in and give us a clue.&nbsp; There also used to be a lot of LEO's on the list. . . . what would/could they do faced with a similar situation?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#0000cc size=3>I have a little pamphlet from the ACLU, "What to do if you're stopped by the police", and it states "You don't have to&nbsp;answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In any other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer."&nbsp; But it sounds like failure to identify yourself is at least a misdemeanor in the state of Nevada based on the story that appears below.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#0000cc size=3>It's really interesting, and maybe&nbsp;my ACLU info is&nbsp;a bit misleading, because in the same pamphlet it states:&nbsp; "It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to answer can make the police suspicious about you.&nbsp; You can't be arrested merely for refusing to identify yourself on the street."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#0000cc size=3>I notice that the article below mentions "the Bush administration"&nbsp;so does that mean that since 9/11 Homeland Security has made changes to the law that would make my ACLU pamphlet obsolete?&nbsp; Must you identify yourself on demand?&nbsp;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#0000cc size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#0000cc size=3>Ellen A. Roskovich, Moscow, ID</FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#0000cc size=3></FONT><BR><BR>&nbsp;</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: "Art Deco aka W. Fox" &lt;deco@moscow.com&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: "Vision 2020" &lt;vision2020@moscow.com&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: [Vision2020] Is not giving your name a criminal offense? 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:23:40 -0800 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;From today's NY Times: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;It would be interesting to hear views across the entire Palouse region political 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;spectrum on this issue:&nbsp;&nbsp;Is it a crime to refuse to give your name to a law 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;enforcement officer? 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;W. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Supreme Court Hears Case of Man Who Withheld ID 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; By LINDA GREENHOUSE 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Published: March 23, 2004 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ASHINGTON, March 22 - A Nevada rancher's refusal four years ago to tell a 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;deputy sheriff his name led to a Supreme Court argument on Monday on a question 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;that, surprisingly, the justices have never resolved: whether people can be 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;required to identify themselves when the police have some basis for suspicion 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;but lack the probable cause necessary for an arrest. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Advertisement 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The answer, in a case that has drawn intense interest from those who fear 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;increased government intrusion on personal privacy, appeared elusive. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "A name itself is a neutral fact" that is neither incriminating nor an 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;undue invasion of privacy, Conrad Hafen, Nevada's senior deputy attorney 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;general, told the court in defense of a state statute that requires people to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;identify themselves to the police if stopped "under circumstances which 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;commit a crime." 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "It's a neutral fact that I'm wearing a pinstripe suit," Justice David H. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Souter told Mr. Hafen. But if someone who had just robbed a bank was reported to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;be wearing a pinstripe suit, that fact if reported to the police might no longer 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;be so neutral, Justice Souter added. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Bush administration joined the state in defending the statute. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lawyers for Larry D. Hiibel, who is appealing his conviction for violating 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the Nevada law, raised two constitutional challenges to the identification 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;requirement: that it amounts to an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment and 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;that it compels self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Mr. Hiibel's conviction, a misdemeanor, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;and rejected his constitutional challenge to the state law. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Standing by his pick-up truck on a rural road, he had been approached by a 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;deputy sheriff who was investigating a passing motorist's report that a man in 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the truck had been hitting a woman. Mr. Hiibel's adult daughter was in the cab 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;of the truck . 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The deputy, Lee Dove, asked Mr. Hiibel 11 times for identification. Mr. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Hiibel, saying he had done nothing wrong, refused to give his name and 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;challenged Deputy Dove to arrest him. Eventually, the deputy did arrest him. A 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;videotape of the incident, captured by a camera in the squad car, is on Mr. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Hiibel's Web site, www.hiibel.com. Mr. Hiibel was never charged with any 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;criminal offense beyond his refusal to identify himself. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1968, Terry v. Ohio, gave the police 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the authority to briefly detain, question and conduct a pat-down search of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;someone whose activities - casing a Cleveland storefront, in that case - gave 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;rise to "reasonable suspicion," short of probable cause for a formal arrest. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;There is no dispute that the encounter between Mr. Hiibel and Deputy Dove was a 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;"Terry stop" within the meaning of that decision. The dispute in Hiibel v. Sixth 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Judicial District Court, No. 03-5554, is over Mr. Hiibel's response, or lack of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;response. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Robert E. Dolan, Nevada's deputy state public defender, told the justices 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;that while the deputy "certainly had the right to ask" Mr. Hiibel for his name, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;"equally so, Mr. Hiibel had the right not to respond." 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Justice Antonin Scalia was openly skeptical. "What is the meaning of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Terry?" he asked. Did Mr. Dolan mean that the police were "allowed to ask 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;questions but shouldn't expect answers?" 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, the public defender replied; the state should not be permitted to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;criminalize silence or to "extract data from a person." 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Justice Stephen G. Breyer appeared to agree, suggesting a rule under which 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the police can ask but the citizen does not have to answer. "Everyone can 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;understand that," Justice Breyer said, adding, "Why complicate this thing?" 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Several Supreme Court decisions over the years have suggested such a rule, but 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;there has never been a formal opinion to that effect. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One of the Fourth Amendment questions in the case is whether a person's 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;refusal to answer a seemingly benign identity question can convert a police 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;officer's "reasonable suspicion" into probable cause to make an arrest. Only 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Justice Scalia appeared to endorse that prospect. "I would think any reasonable 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;citizen would answer," he observed. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One of the many wrinkles in the case is that once a person is arrested, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the right to remain silent is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. To that extent, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;a person who falls under a lesser degree of suspicion might be seen as having 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;less constitutional protection. Another wrinkle is that there is no claim that 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the police cannot run a check on a license tag or - if the suspect is driving - 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;ask to see the driver's license. In this case, Mr. Hiibel's daughter was behind 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the wheel, Mr. Hiibel was outside the truck, and the case was not treated as a 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;traffic investigation. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As a matter of Fifth Amendment analysis, one question is whether giving 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;one's name is sufficiently "testimonial" to invoke the constitutional protection 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;against self-incrimination. "The question, it seems to me, is whether a name 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;itself has intrinsic testimonial consequences," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Mr. Dolan, the public defender. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If it did not, Mr. Dolan replied, "the government could require name 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;tags." 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In briefs filed with the court, civil liberties groups warned that a 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;rejection of Mr. Hiibel's claim to privacy could open the door to such measures 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;as national identification cards. One group, the Electronic Privacy Information 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Center, said that government databases were now of such "extraordinary scope" 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;that "systems of mass public surveillance" could result from a ruling that 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;authorized "coerced disclosure of identity." 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But the justices appeared eager to avoid a broad ruling and to confine 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;their eventual decision to the specific context of a suspected crime. "We're all 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;concerned about national ID cards and all that kind of stuff," Justice John Paul 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Stevens said at one point. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2737??PS=">Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available.</a> </html>