U.S. Supreme Court Sez: "Vee have vays uf making you talk".

Posted 6/21/2004 10:33 AM Updated 6/21/2004 9:33 PM

Supreme Court: Keeping name
private can be a crime
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A police
officer can force a person to identify himself, the
Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case involving a
Nevada rancher who was fined $250 for refusing to give
his name to an officer who was investigating a possible
assault.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices said
that as long as an officer reasonably suspects
wrongdoing is underway, the state law under which the
rancher was charged does not violate either the Fourth
Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches
and seizures or the Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. The ruling essentially validates more
than a dozen "stop-and-identify" statutes nationwide.
(Related link: Privacy ruling)

"Asking questions is an
essential part of police investigations," Justice Anthony
Kennedy wrote for the court. "In the ordinary course, a
police officer is free to ask a person for identification
without implicating the Fourth Amendment." He also said
that giving one's name is unlikely to be incriminating
under the Fifth Amendment.

The four dissenting justices, all
from the liberal wing of the court, said the ruling broke
with court precedent that had permitted people detained
in brief police stops not to give their names.

The case was brought by Larry
Hiibel, who was questioned in May 2000 by a sheriff's
deputy in Humboldt County, Nev., after the sheriff's
department received a call that a man was assaulting a
woman in a red-and-silver truck. The deputy found Hiibel
standing outside a truck parked by the side of the road
that matched that description. A young woman who
turned out to be Hiibel's daughter was in the truck.

The deputy tried to get Hiibel to
give his name. Hiibel refused, and at one point put his
hands behind his back and told
the officer to arrest him and take
him to jail. Hiibel, who owns a
small ranch outside of
Winnemucca, Nev., said he
believed he had done nothing
wrong and that there was no
reason to reveal his identity.
Hiibel was convicted of willfully
obstructing an officer and was
fined.

Civil libertarians and groups representing the homeless were among those siding with
Hiibel. They argued that individuals should be allowed to remain silent and noted the
plight of homeless people, who are less likely to avoid the police and could be subject
to greater privacy intrusions than many others.

But the court's majority said that laws such as Nevada's could benefit individuals and
police.

"Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted ...," Kennedy
wrote, and also "help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts
elsewhere."

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting were John Paul Stevens,
David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Stevens, writing only for himself, said the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent
should protect a person from having to give his or her name. "A name can provide the
key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a
police officer with access to a range of law-enforcement databases."

The other dissenters focused on Fourth Amendment protections for those who are
stopped briefly. They said people should not be compelled to respond to police
questions during such stops.