Larry Hiibel Supreme Court 03-5554 Is Providing Name To Police Invasion Of Privacy

Featured: Featured Stories | Picture Gallery

American Civil Rights Coalition January 27 2004 Letter | Google Adwords Directory/Bookmark

Chat11.com Web Bible11.com MyBibleCenter.com

Number 03-5554 Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

Supreme Court Brief

Are police violating fourth or fifth ammendment protections when they demand your name during a brief stop?

Supreme Court rules that it is reasonable for police to ask for identification, and that no reasonable person expects any privacy in their name, the sound of their voice, or the look of their handwriting.

Subjects > Law (Search for Law) > Privacy Issues (Search for Issues)

See also Larry Hiibel Required To Provide Name To Cops

No. 03-5554

In the Supreme Court of the United States

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

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT

THEODORE B. OLSON

 Solicitor General
 Counsel of Record

 Assistant Attorney General

 Deputy Solicitor General

 Assistant to the Solicitor
 General

 Attorney
 Department of Justice
 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
 (202) 514-2217

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether a person stopped for an investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion may be required, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to identify himself.

1. Whether requiring the subject of an investigative detention to identify himself infringes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

Summary

• Requiring the subject of an investigative detention to identify himself infringes neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
• The government interests in compelling self-identification include promoting the safety of law enforcement officers and preventing imminent crime, both of which stand apart from the interest in facilitating criminal prosecution.
• A LAW REQUIRING THE SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF IS CONSTITUTIONAL
  • I. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROHIBIT REQUIRING THE SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF
    • A. Because There Is No Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy In One's Name, An Identification Requirement Does Not Constitute A Search
      • The Court has reached the same conclusion with respect to handwriting exemplars, observing: "Handwriting, like speech, is repeatedly shown to the public, and there is no more expectation of privacy in the physical characteristics of a person's script than there is in the tone of his voice." United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 21 (1973).
      • For those reasons, a requirement to state one's name, like a requirement to supply a voice or handwriting exemplar, exposes nothing "that has not previously been exposed to the public at large."
      • Requiring the individual to respond to an officer's request for his name entails no additional interference with freedom of movement beyond that inherent in the detention itself.
    • B. An Identification Requirement For Investigative Stops Is Reasonable Under The Fourth Amendment
      • 1. First, the identification requirement promotes the ability of law enforcement officers to protect themselves and others in the fluid and potentially volatile circumstances of an investigative stop.
        • Knowledge of a person's identity enables officers to determine whether he has a criminal record. That information is highly useful. Although an officer can conduct a frisk for weapons based on a reasonable fear that a detainee is armed and dangerous, see Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, an officer who lacks information about the detainee's criminal record may not recognize that he presents a danger. Regardless of any frisk, moreover, an officer's awareness that a person has a criminal record could justify special safety precautions -ranging from calling for backup assistance to drawing his weapon and handcuffing the suspect if there is indication that he is especially dangerous.
      • 2. The identification requirement also promotes the government's interests in effective crime prevention and ensuring public safety.
      • 3. Finally, without knowledge of identity, "subsequent apprehension of [a] released suspect, if he is later shown to have perpetrated the suspected crime or some other offense, will usually be impossible."
  • II. REQUIRING THE SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF DOES NOT INFRINGE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION
    • A. The Fifth Amendment Does Not Bar The Government From Requiring Disclosure Of Essentially Neutral Information In Service Of Interests Unrelated To Criminal Prosecution
      • The Fifth Amendment thus affords no basis for refusing to comply with a law requiring individuals to provide information when the requirement serves government interests other than facilitating criminal prosecution and the information sought is narrowly circumscribed and inherently neutral, such that providing it does not relieve the government's "burden[] of independent investigation."
      • "The Court has on several occasions recognized that the Fifth Amendment privilege may not be invoked to resist compliance with a regulatory regime constructed to effect the State's public purposes unrelated to the enforcement of its criminal laws."
        • Byers involved a California law requiring individuals involved in an automobile accident causing property damage to stop and provide their name and address to the owner or person in charge of the affected property. This Court rejected Byers's argument that the Fifth Amendment privilege afforded him a defense to his prosecution for failing to stop and leave his name after an accident.
          • The hit-and-run law "was not intended to facilitate criminal convictions but to promote the satisfaction of civil liabilities arising from automobile accidents."
    • B. Nevada's Identification Requirement Calls For Disclosure Of Inherently Neutral Information In Service Of Interests Other Than Facilitating Criminal Prosecution
      • As with the law upheld in Byers, Nevada's requirement that the subject of an investigative stop reveal his identity promotes significant government interests other than furthering criminal prosecution and does so through a narrow requirement to provide fundamentally neutral information.
        • 1. A requirement to provide one's name calls for disclosure of inherently neutral information
          • a. In Garner v. United States, this Court left open the question of "what types of information are so neutral that the [Fifth Amendment] privilege could rarely, if ever, be asserted to prevent their disclosure." 424 U.S. at 651 n.3. A person's name fits squarely in that category. A name asserts no fact other than identity, and it implies nothing about one's activities, licit or illicit. As the Byers plurality explained, a name "identifies but does not by itself implicate anyone in criminal conduct."
          • c. Officers whose own observations lead them to focus their attention on a particular person ordinarily could determine his identity through means other than compelling him to state his name during an investigative detention.
            • If arrested: Fingerprint evidence, address, license plate number, search of wallet or purse giving them the individuals drivers license. The police could even follow the person and ask questions of neighbors.
        • 2. Nevada's identification requirement serves important interests other than facilitating criminal prosecution
          • Significantly, Nevada's identification requirement is narrowly circumscribed, requiring a statement of one's name and nothing more. The targeted nature of the requirement confirms that it serves substantial interests other than facilitating criminal prosecution.
          • By contrast, Nevada's law, far from compelling an admission of crime, merely compels disclosure of a name. In addition, while Nevada's identification requirement only arises with respect to persons reasonably suspected of engaging in crime, those persons are not required to bring themselves to the attention of law enforcement by making incriminating disclosures.
    • C. Petitioner Cannot Establish That Nevada's Identification Requirement Infringes The Fifth Amendment On Its Face

03-5554 Supreme Court Decision Identification Upon Investigative Detention By Police

Bobsgear - Get A Free Enterrpise Wiki Space!
Review: The Bobsgear Project was started to develop a variety of Confluence plugins. This installation of the Confluence Enterprise wiki includes flexible attachments, many Confluence plugins, personal blogs, interesting articles, and more. Bobsgear already has spaces related to politics, art and photography wiki, technical issues wiki, ediscovery wiki, health, Christian theology and Sabbath School wiki, the bible, book reviews, and quotations. Bobsgear allows free signup, and invites anyone to create a free hosted Confluence wiki space.

NEW USERS CLICK HERE! for a quick introduction to Wiki.

Elapsed:1