Hiibel v sixth judicial court of

Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer.

Lawson Hiibel v sixth judicial court of, U. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

The judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court is Affirmed. See also Note, Stop and Identify Statutes: First, in each of those cases, the nature of the information required to be disclosed itself amounted to an outright admission of crime.

Inclusion of the information simply distracts from the main issue. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.

Because no court has addressed the merits of that argument or whether petitioner waived any Fifth Amendment claim by failing to raise the privilege as a defense at trial, see Vajtauer v.

Although an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in his name, he does have a cognizable Fourth Amendment interest in moving about free of unreasonable government intrusion. He then appealed to the Nevada Supreme Courtarguing that the requirement that he identify himself to any police officer upon request violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. The disclaimer should cover it. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. Individuals exchange their names as a matter of course in everyday social interactions, and regularly display their names when using credit cards or checks in commercial transactions.

Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

The officer explained that he wanted to find out who the man was and what he was doing there. As the target of that investigation, [Hiibel], in my view, acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating.

There was no "articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel's] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it 'would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute' him. Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States. The judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court is Affirmed.

Beginning with Terry v. The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that "identify himself" to mean to merely state his name.

The unidentified man became agitated and insisted he had done nothing wrong. 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.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District - Amicus (Merits)

Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.

In recent decades, the Court has found constitutional infirmity in traditional vagrancy laws. The narrow scope of the disclosure requirement is also important. Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

Here, the source of the legal obligation arises from Nevada state law, not the Fourth Amendment. As we stated in Kastigar v.

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.

Finally, if a person were released without knowledge of his identity, officers generally would lack the ability to locate him should the need later arise. Delgado, supra, at ; United States v. Four Terms later, the Court invalidated a modified stop and identify statute on vagueness grounds.

If the list is eliminated, should it be replaced with a sentence specifically directing the reader to the Stop and identify statutes article or should it be assumed the reader will figure this out own on her own?

Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

Alert The holding and reasoning section includes: United States, U. This Court rejected that claim, holding that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the sound of his voice.The officer arrested Hiibel and charged him with obstructing a police officer from performing his duty in violation of Nevada law.

Hiibel was found guilty in the Justice Court of Union Township and fined $ Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, U.S. (), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, U.S. (), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.

LARRY D. HIIBEL, PETITIONER v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA [June 21, ] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada

The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.

The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.

The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

Download
Hiibel v sixth judicial court of
Rated 0/5 based on 43 review