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

Bruce and Jean Livingston jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:30:59 -0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C411D6.894EE8A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have not studied this closely, but with that caveat, my understanding =
is that the State of Nevada passed a state law requiring people to =
identify themselves somehow or sometime.  As I understand it, the =
argument in the Supreme Court is that the Nevada state law, under which =
the rancher who refused to identify himself was convicted, violates the =
federal Constitution.  Which amendment?  I'm guessing the Fourth =
(unreasonable search or seizure), but I haven't read any of the cases, =
just secondary sources.

Bruce Livingston
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Ellen Roskovich=20
  To: deco@moscow.com=20
  Cc: vision2020@moscow.com=20
  Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:23 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Is not giving your name a criminal offense?






  I was hoping some local legal beagle would jump right in and give us a =
clue.  There also used to be a lot of LEO's on the list. . . . what =
would/could they do faced with a similar situation?

  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 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."  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.

  It's really interesting, and maybe my ACLU info is a bit misleading, =
because in the same pamphlet it states:  "It's not a crime to refuse to =
answer questions, but refusing to answer can make the police suspicious =
about you.  You can't be arrested merely for refusing to identify =
yourself on the street."

  I notice that the article below mentions "the Bush administration" so =
does that mean that since 9/11 Homeland Security has made changes to the =
law that would make my ACLU pamphlet obsolete?  Must you identify =
yourself on demand?=20



  Ellen A. Roskovich, Moscow, ID=20



  =20

  >From: "Art Deco aka W. Fox" <deco@moscow.com>=20
  >To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>=20
  >Subject: [Vision2020] Is not giving your name a criminal offense?=20
  >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:23:40 -0800=20
  >=20
  > >From today's NY Times:=20
  >=20
  >It would be interesting to hear views across the entire Palouse =
region political=20
  >spectrum on this issue:  Is it a crime to refuse to give your name to =
a law=20
  >enforcement officer?=20
  >=20
  >W.=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >         Supreme Court Hears Case of Man Who Withheld ID=20
  >       By LINDA GREENHOUSE=20
  >=20
  >       Published: March 23, 2004=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >       ASHINGTON, March 22 - A Nevada rancher's refusal four years =
ago to tell a=20
  >deputy sheriff his name led to a Supreme Court argument on Monday on =
a question=20
  >that, surprisingly, the justices have never resolved: whether people =
can be=20
  >required to identify themselves when the police have some basis for =
suspicion=20
  >but lack the probable cause necessary for an arrest.=20
  >=20
  >            Advertisement=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >       The answer, in a case that has drawn intense interest from =
those who fear=20
  >increased government intrusion on personal privacy, appeared elusive. =

  >=20
  >       "A name itself is a neutral fact" that is neither =
incriminating nor an=20
  >undue invasion of privacy, Conrad Hafen, Nevada's senior deputy =
attorney=20
  >general, told the court in defense of a state statute that requires =
people to=20
  >identify themselves to the police if stopped "under circumstances =
which=20
  >reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or =
is about to=20
  >commit a crime."=20
  >=20
  >       "It's a neutral fact that I'm wearing a pinstripe suit," =
Justice David H.=20
  >Souter told Mr. Hafen. But if someone who had just robbed a bank was =
reported to=20
  >be wearing a pinstripe suit, that fact if reported to the police =
might no longer=20
  >be so neutral, Justice Souter added.=20
  >=20
  >       The Bush administration joined the state in defending the =
statute.=20
  >=20
  >       Lawyers for Larry D. Hiibel, who is appealing his conviction =
for violating=20
  >the Nevada law, raised two constitutional challenges to the =
identification=20
  >requirement: that it amounts to an illegal search under the Fourth =
Amendment and=20
  >that it compels self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth =
Amendment.=20
  >=20
  >       The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Mr. Hiibel's conviction, a =
misdemeanor,=20
  >and rejected his constitutional challenge to the state law.=20
  >=20
  >       Standing by his pick-up truck on a rural road, he had been =
approached by a=20
  >deputy sheriff who was investigating a passing motorist's report that =
a man in=20
  >the truck had been hitting a woman. Mr. Hiibel's adult daughter was =
in the cab=20
  >of the truck .=20
  >=20
  >       The deputy, Lee Dove, asked Mr. Hiibel 11 times for =
identification. Mr.=20
  >Hiibel, saying he had done nothing wrong, refused to give his name =
and=20
  >challenged Deputy Dove to arrest him. Eventually, the deputy did =
arrest him. A=20
  >videotape of the incident, captured by a camera in the squad car, is =
on Mr.=20
  >Hiibel's Web site, www.hiibel.com. Mr. Hiibel was never charged with =
any=20
  >criminal offense beyond his refusal to identify himself.=20
  >=20
  >       A landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1968, Terry v. Ohio, gave =
the police=20
  >the authority to briefly detain, question and conduct a pat-down =
search of=20
  >someone whose activities - casing a Cleveland storefront, in that =
case - gave=20
  >rise to "reasonable suspicion," short of probable cause for a formal =
arrest.=20
  >There is no dispute that the encounter between Mr. Hiibel and Deputy =
Dove was a=20
  >"Terry stop" within the meaning of that decision. The dispute in =
Hiibel v. Sixth=20
  >Judicial District Court, No. 03-5554, is over Mr. Hiibel's response, =
or lack of=20
  >response.=20
  >=20
  >       Robert E. Dolan, Nevada's deputy state public defender, told =
the justices=20
  >that while the deputy "certainly had the right to ask" Mr. Hiibel for =
his name,=20
  >"equally so, Mr. Hiibel had the right not to respond."=20
  >=20
  >       Justice Antonin Scalia was openly skeptical. "What is the =
meaning of=20
  >Terry?" he asked. Did Mr. Dolan mean that the police were "allowed to =
ask=20
  >questions but shouldn't expect answers?"=20
  >=20
  >       Yes, the public defender replied; the state should not be =
permitted to=20
  >criminalize silence or to "extract data from a person."=20
  >=20
  >       Justice Stephen G. Breyer appeared to agree, suggesting a rule =
under which=20
  >the police can ask but the citizen does not have to answer. "Everyone =
can=20
  >understand that," Justice Breyer said, adding, "Why complicate this =
thing?"=20
  >Several Supreme Court decisions over the years have suggested such a =
rule, but=20
  >there has never been a formal opinion to that effect.=20
  >=20
  >       One of the Fourth Amendment questions in the case is whether a =
person's=20
  >refusal to answer a seemingly benign identity question can convert a =
police=20
  >officer's "reasonable suspicion" into probable cause to make an =
arrest. Only=20
  >Justice Scalia appeared to endorse that prospect. "I would think any =
reasonable=20
  >citizen would answer," he observed.=20
  >=20
  >       One of the many wrinkles in the case is that once a person is =
arrested,=20
  >the right to remain silent is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. To =
that extent,=20
  >a person who falls under a lesser degree of suspicion might be seen =
as having=20
  >less constitutional protection. Another wrinkle is that there is no =
claim that=20
  >the police cannot run a check on a license tag or - if the suspect is =
driving -=20
  >ask to see the driver's license. In this case, Mr. Hiibel's daughter =
was behind=20
  >the wheel, Mr. Hiibel was outside the truck, and the case was not =
treated as a=20
  >traffic investigation.=20
  >=20
  >       As a matter of Fifth Amendment analysis, one question is =
whether giving=20
  >one's name is sufficiently "testimonial" to invoke the constitutional =
protection=20
  >against self-incrimination. "The question, it seems to me, is whether =
a name=20
  >itself has intrinsic testimonial consequences," Justice Anthony M. =
Kennedy told=20
  >Mr. Dolan, the public defender.=20
  >=20
  >       If it did not, Mr. Dolan replied, "the government could =
require name=20
  >tags."=20
  >=20
  >       In briefs filed with the court, civil liberties groups warned =
that a=20
  >rejection of Mr. Hiibel's claim to privacy could open the door to =
such measures=20
  >as national identification cards. One group, the Electronic Privacy =
Information=20
  >Center, said that government databases were now of such =
"extraordinary scope"=20
  >that "systems of mass public surveillance" could result from a ruling =
that=20
  >authorized "coerced disclosure of identity."=20
  >=20
  >       But the justices appeared eager to avoid a broad ruling and to =
confine=20
  >their eventual decision to the specific context of a suspected crime. =
"We're all=20
  >concerned about national ID cards and all that kind of stuff," =
Justice John Paul=20
  >Stevens said at one point.=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >=20


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
  Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans =
available. _____________________________________________________ List =
services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities =
of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net =
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com =
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=20

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C411D6.894EE8A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>I have not studied this closely, but with that caveat, my =
understanding is=20
that the State of Nevada passed a state law requiring people to identify =

themselves somehow or sometime.&nbsp; As I understand it, the argument =
in the=20
Supreme Court is that the Nevada state law, under which the rancher who =
refused=20
to identify himself was convicted, violates the federal =
Constitution.&nbsp;=20
Which amendment?&nbsp; I'm guessing the Fourth (unreasonable search or =
seizure),=20
but I haven't read any of the cases, just secondary sources.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Bruce Livingston</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=3Dgussie443@hotmail.com =
href=3D"mailto:gussie443@hotmail.com">Ellen=20
  Roskovich</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3Ddeco@moscow.com=20
  href=3D"mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A =
title=3Dvision2020@moscow.com=20
  href=3D"mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 24, 2004 =
6:23=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Vision2020] Is =
not giving=20
  your name a criminal offense?</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>
  <P><BR><BR></P>
  <DIV>
  <DIV class=3DRTE>
  <P><FONT face=3D"Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" =
color=3D#0000cc size=3D3>I=20
  was hoping some local legal beagle would jump right in and give us a=20
  clue.&nbsp; There also used to be a lot of LEO's on the list. . . . =
what=20
  would/could they do faced with a similar situation?</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT face=3D"Arial Black" color=3D#0000cc size=3D3>I have a little =
pamphlet from=20
  the ACLU, "What to do if you're stopped by the police", and it states =
"You=20
  don't have to&nbsp;answer a police officer's questions, but you must =
show your=20
  driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In any other=20
  situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify =
yourself to=20
  a police officer."&nbsp; But it sounds like failure to identify =
yourself is at=20
  least a misdemeanor in the state of Nevada based on the story that =
appears=20
  below.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT face=3D"Arial Black" color=3D#0000cc size=3D3>It's really =
interesting, and=20
  maybe&nbsp;my ACLU info is&nbsp;a bit misleading, because in the same =
pamphlet=20
  it states:&nbsp; "It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but =
refusing=20
  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=3D"Arial Black" color=3D#0000cc size=3D3>I notice that =
the article=20
  below mentions "the Bush administration"&nbsp;so does that mean that =
since=20
  9/11 Homeland Security has made changes to the law that would make my =
ACLU=20
  pamphlet obsolete?&nbsp; Must you identify yourself on=20
demand?&nbsp;</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT face=3D"Arial Black" color=3D#0000cc =
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
  <P><FONT face=3D"Arial Black" color=3D#0000cc size=3D3>Ellen A. =
Roskovich, Moscow,=20
  ID</FONT>&nbsp;</P>
  <P><FONT face=3D"Arial Black" color=3D#0000cc=20
  size=3D3></FONT><BR><BR>&nbsp;</P></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;From: "Art Deco aka W. Fox" &lt;deco@moscow.com&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;To: "Vision 2020" &lt;vision2020@moscow.com&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: [Vision2020] Is not giving your name a =
criminal=20
  offense?=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:23:40 -0800=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;From today's NY Times:=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;It would be interesting to hear views across the entire =
Palouse=20
  region political=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;spectrum on this issue:&nbsp;&nbsp;Is it a crime to =
refuse to=20
  give your name to a law=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;enforcement officer?=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;W.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Supreme Court=20
  Hears Case of Man Who Withheld ID=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; By LINDA =
GREENHOUSE=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Published: March =
23, 2004=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ASHINGTON, March =
22 - A=20
  Nevada rancher's refusal four years ago to tell a=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;deputy sheriff his name led to a Supreme Court argument =
on=20
  Monday on a question=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;that, surprisingly, the justices have never resolved: =
whether=20
  people can be=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;required to identify themselves when the police have =
some basis=20
  for suspicion=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;but lack the probable cause necessary for an arrest.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  =
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;Advertisement=20

  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The answer, in a =
case that=20
  has drawn intense interest from those who fear=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;increased government intrusion on personal privacy, =
appeared=20
  elusive.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "A name itself is =
a=20
  neutral fact" that is neither incriminating nor an=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;undue invasion of privacy, Conrad Hafen, Nevada's =
senior deputy=20
  attorney=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;general, told the court in defense of a state statute =
that=20
  requires people to=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;identify themselves to the police if stopped "under=20
  circumstances which=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is=20
  committing or is about to=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;commit a crime."=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "It's a neutral =
fact that=20
  I'm wearing a pinstripe suit," Justice David H.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Souter told Mr. Hafen. But if someone who had just =
robbed a=20
  bank was reported to=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;be wearing a pinstripe suit, that fact if reported to =
the=20
  police might no longer=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;be so neutral, Justice Souter added.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Bush =
administration=20
  joined the state in defending the statute.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lawyers for Larry =
D.=20
  Hiibel, who is appealing his conviction for violating=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;the Nevada law, raised two constitutional challenges to =
the=20
  identification=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;requirement: that it amounts to an illegal search under =
the=20
  Fourth Amendment and=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;that it compels self-incrimination in violation of the =
Fifth=20
  Amendment.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Nevada Supreme =
Court=20
  upheld Mr. Hiibel's conviction, a misdemeanor,=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;and rejected his constitutional challenge to the state =
law.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Standing by his =
pick-up=20
  truck on a rural road, he had been approached by a=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;deputy sheriff who was investigating a passing =
motorist's=20
  report that a man in=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;the truck had been hitting a woman. Mr. Hiibel's adult =
daughter=20
  was in the cab=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;of the truck .=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The deputy, Lee =
Dove,=20
  asked Mr. Hiibel 11 times for identification. Mr.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Hiibel, saying he had done nothing wrong, refused to =
give his=20
  name and=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;challenged Deputy Dove to arrest him. Eventually, the =
deputy=20
  did arrest him. A=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;videotape of the incident, captured by a camera in the =
squad=20
  car, is on Mr.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Hiibel's Web site, www.hiibel.com. Mr. Hiibel was never =
charged=20
  with any=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;criminal offense beyond his refusal to identify =
himself.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A landmark Supreme =
Court=20
  ruling in 1968, Terry v. Ohio, gave the police=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;the authority to briefly detain, question and conduct a =

  pat-down search of=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;someone whose activities - casing a Cleveland =
storefront, in=20
  that case - gave=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;rise to "reasonable suspicion," short of probable cause =
for a=20
  formal arrest.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;There is no dispute that the encounter between Mr. =
Hiibel and=20
  Deputy Dove was a=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;"Terry stop" within the meaning of that decision. The =
dispute=20
  in Hiibel v. Sixth=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Judicial District Court, No. 03-5554, is over Mr. =
Hiibel's=20
  response, or lack of=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;response.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Robert E. Dolan, =
Nevada's=20
  deputy state public defender, told the justices=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;that while the deputy "certainly had the right to ask" =
Mr.=20
  Hiibel for his name,=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;"equally so, Mr. Hiibel had the right not to respond."=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Justice Antonin =
Scalia was=20
  openly skeptical. "What is the meaning of=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Terry?" he asked. Did Mr. Dolan mean that the police =
were=20
  "allowed to ask=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;questions but shouldn't expect answers?"=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, the public =
defender=20
  replied; the state should not be permitted to=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;criminalize silence or to "extract data from a person." =

  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Justice Stephen G. =
Breyer=20
  appeared to agree, suggesting a rule under which=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;the police can ask but the citizen does not have to =
answer.=20
  "Everyone can=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;understand that," Justice Breyer said, adding, "Why =
complicate=20
  this thing?"=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Several Supreme Court decisions over the years have =
suggested=20
  such a rule, but=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;there has never been a formal opinion to that effect.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One of the Fourth=20
  Amendment questions in the case is whether a person's=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;refusal to answer a seemingly benign identity question =
can=20
  convert a police=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;officer's "reasonable suspicion" into probable cause to =
make an=20
  arrest. Only=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Justice Scalia appeared to endorse that prospect. "I =
would=20
  think any reasonable=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;citizen would answer," he observed.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One of the many =
wrinkles=20
  in the case is that once a person is arrested,=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;the right to remain silent is guaranteed by the Fifth=20
  Amendment. To that extent,=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;a person who falls under a lesser degree of suspicion =
might be=20
  seen as having=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;less constitutional protection. Another wrinkle is that =
there=20
  is no claim that=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;the police cannot run a check on a license tag or - if =
the=20
  suspect is driving -=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;ask to see the driver's license. In this case, Mr. =
Hiibel's=20
  daughter was behind=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;the wheel, Mr. Hiibel was outside the truck, and the =
case was=20
  not treated as a=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;traffic investigation.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As a matter of =
Fifth=20
  Amendment analysis, one question is whether giving=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;one's name is sufficiently "testimonial" to invoke the=20
  constitutional protection=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;against self-incrimination. "The question, it seems to =
me, is=20
  whether a name=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;itself has intrinsic testimonial consequences," Justice =
Anthony=20
  M. Kennedy told=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Mr. Dolan, the public defender.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If it did not, Mr. =
Dolan=20
  replied, "the government could require name=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;tags."=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In briefs filed =
with the=20
  court, civil liberties groups warned that a=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;rejection of Mr. Hiibel's claim to privacy could open =
the door=20
  to such measures=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;as national identification cards. One group, the =
Electronic=20
  Privacy Information=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Center, said that government databases were now of such =

  "extraordinary scope"=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;that "systems of mass public surveillance" could result =
from a=20
  ruling that=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;authorized "coerced disclosure of identity."=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But the justices =
appeared=20
  eager to avoid a broad ruling and to confine=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;their eventual decision to the specific context of a =
suspected=20
  crime. "We're all=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;concerned about national ID cards and all that kind of =
stuff,"=20
  Justice John Paul=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;Stevens said at one point.=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV>&gt;=20
  <DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=3Dall>
  <HR>
  <A href=3D"http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2737??PS=3D">Free up your inbox =
with MSN=20
  Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available.</A>=20
  _____________________________________________________ List services =
made=20
  available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the =
Palouse since=20
  1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=20
  =
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=20
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C411D6.894EE8A0--