Actions

::Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

::concepts

Court::nevada    Supreme::hiibel    Person::police    United::states    Officer::fifth    Fourth::suspect

{{#invoke:Infobox|infobox}} United States Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), 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.<ref name="FifthAmendmentHolding"> In upholding Hiibel′s conviction, the Court noted

"In this case petitioner's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him.... As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business." — 542 U.S. 177, at 190

But the Court left open the possibility of different circumstances:

"Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here." — 542 U.S. 177, at 191

</ref>


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada sections
Intro   Background of the case    Majority opinion    Dissenting opinions   See also   Notes    External links   

PREVIOUS: IntroNEXT: Background of the case
<<>>