Steve 41oo wrote:Piffka wrote:hurumph...
I'll leave now.
please dont
hurrumph away
Okay, hijacking continuing ...
Quote:US Supreme Court Opinion in Hiibel vs. State of Nevada
Release Date: June 23rd, 2004
The U. S. Supreme Court has upheld the ruling by Union Township Justice of the Peace Gene Wambolt that citizens are subject to arrest and criminal conviction if they fail to identify themselves when asked by law enforcement officers. The Nevada Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ challenging the decision by a 4-3 vote.
The 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down June 21 affirms the Nevada law that allows the government to arrest and punish people who refuse to cooperate by revealing their identities.
The case involved Winnemucca rancher Larry Hiibel who had refused to reveal his name to a sheriff's deputy investigating a report that a man was seen striking a girl. Mr. Hiibel was standing beside a truck where his daughter was sitting when he was approached by the officer. After refusing 11 requests by Deputy Lee Dove for his identity on May 21, 2000, Mr. Hiibel was arrested and charged with failing to identify himself.
Judge Wambolt fined him $250 and the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision expands the right of police to detain and obtain information from individuals without arresting them. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that "officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim."
The U.S. Supreme Court had been asked to rule that forcing a person to provide a name violated the person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
Justice Kennedy stated that Mr. Hiibel did not explain how disclosing his name could be used against him.
Justice Kennedy was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquest and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Mr. Hiibel "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute.'' The justice also criticized the majority for declaring that a name can be incriminating "only in unusual circumstances."
In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the Hiibel ruling contradicted a 1968 decision that in brief detentions - commonly referred to as "Terry stops" - citizens were not required to answer questions from police officers.
Justice Breyer was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Nevada is one of 21 states with laws requiring persons stopped by police to identify themselves. The other states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Note a few things in the opinion, Piffka:
(1) Hiibel was not observed committing any infractions of the law. He just refused to ID himself.
(2) The US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Nevada court, which found Mr. Hiibel guilty of the crime of not revealing his identity. (According to the annotation I quoted, Georgia has a similar law.)
(3) Justice Breyer's reference to Terry v. Ohio is to a situation similar to that of Hiibel's -- where the defendant is not observed by a law enforcement officer, but refuses to answer questions.
So, the legal opinion you cited upheld the Nevada law, even if the person detained has not been observed committing an infraction. In the instant case, History prof. was observed violating the law, and was subject to a citation. When he failed or refused to identify himself, he was properly arrested. Did you think that opinion supported your position, and if so, how?
