The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop allowed by Terry v. OhioU.
The Court's resolution of that issue will have significant implications for the conduct of investigative detentions by federal law enforcement officers. The United States therefore has a substantial interest in the Court's disposition of this case. On the evening of May 21,Humboldt County, Nevada Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove received a report that a witness had seen an individual striking a female passenger inside a pickup truck.
Dove drove to the location of the incident and spoke to the witness, and the witness directed him to a truck that was parked nearby. When Dove approached the truck, he observed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting that the truck had been pulled over in an aggressive manner.
Petitioner was standing outside the truck and his minor daughter was seated inside. Based on petitioner's mannerisms, speech, eyes, and odor, Dove believed that petitioner was intoxicated.
Deputy Dove told petitioner that he had received a report that petitioner had been fighting with the passenger, and Dove asked petitioner to identify himself. Petitioner refused, instead placing his hands behind his back and challenging Dove to take him to jail.
Dove continued to ask petitioner for identification, and petitioner continued to refuse.
Petitioner stated that he had done nothing wrong, and he continued to place his hands behind his back and to ask Dove to take him to jail. After eleven unsuccessful attempts to determine petitioner's identity, and after warning petitioner that his failure to provide his identity would result in his arrest, Dove handcuffed petitioner and placed him under arrest.
Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.
Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer. At the conclusion of his trial, petitioner moved for dismissal of the charge on the ground that the identification requirement of Section The justice of the peace denied the motion.
Petitioner appealed to the Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, contending that the identification requirement was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The district court first concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain petitioner's conviction.
The court then addressed petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim, balancing the "public interest" served by the identification requirement against "an individual's constitutional right to remain silent.
The court determined that the balance weighed in favor of the identification requirement, observing that, "with both domestic battery and DUI the identity of the suspect may be crucial to determine not only for the officer's safety but also for the protection of possible victims.
The district court did not separately discuss petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed.
As to the first of those considerations, the court found an "overwhelming" public interest in requiring individuals detained on reasonable suspicion to identify themselves. The court explained initially that the identification requirement enhances the safety of law enforcement officers.
The court observed that the "most dangerous time for an officer may be during an investigative stop-when a suspect is approached and questioned.
After reviewing statistics indicating that many officers are killed while attempting to effect a stop or arrest and that the suspects in those killings frequently have a criminal record, the court stated: The court next found that the identification requirement furthers the government's interest in effective crime prevention.
For instance, the court observed, identification might reveal that an individual loitering in the vicinity of a daycare center is a registered sex offender, or that a person stopped for suspicious conduct is the subject of a restraining order or is a "wanted terrorist or sniper.
In those situations, the court reasoned, the identification requirement helps an officer to determine whether the suspect is engaged in crime. As for the other side of the balance, the court concluded that the identification requirement "involve[s] a minimal invasion of personal privacy.
In the court's view, "[r]easonable people do not expect their identities-their names to be withheld from officers" because "we reveal our names in a variety of situations every day without much consideration.
The court found it "untenable" to "hold that a name, which is neutral and non-incriminating information, is somehow an invasion of privacy.
The court thus held that "[r]equiring a person reasonably suspected of committing a crime to identify himself or herself to law enforcement officers during a brief, investigatory stop is a commonsense requirement necessary to protect both the public and law enforcement officers.
Petitioner sought rehearing, asking the court to address his Fifth Amendment claim.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 $ The state appellate court affirmed “rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the application of [the Nevada statute] to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.” The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment challenges.
5. Hiibel was convicted and fined $ The Sixth Judicial District Court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel's argument that the application of § to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. On review the Supreme Court of Nevada rejected the Fourth Amendment challenge in a divided opinion. Nev. , 59 P.
3d (). 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 Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault. Nevada, and many other states, has a law that requires a person to tell an officer his name if asked.
App. 5. Hiibel was convicted and fined $ The Sixth Judicial District Court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel's argument that the application of § to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
On review the Supreme Court of Nevada rejected the Fourth Amendment challenge in a divided opinion. Nev. , 59 P.