High court says names must be given to police

Monday, Dec. 23, 2002 | 9:43 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- In these times of international terrorism and sniper attacks, a person must reveal his name when stopped by police during an investigation, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled.

The court, in a 4-3 decision, upheld the validity of a Nevada law "because it strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public," according to Friday's ruling.

"Knowing the identity of a suspect allows officers to more accurately evaluate and predict potential dangers that may arise during an investigative stop," Chief Justice Cliff Young wrote in the majority opinion. "To deny officers the ability to request identification from suspicious persons creates a situation where an officer could approach a wanted terrorist or sniper but be unable to identify him or her if the person's behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause necessary for an arrest."

The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Deborah Agosti, said the court should not take away civil liberties that the nation has guaranteed, even in these uncertain times. She wrote that under the majority's decision, "the officer can now, figuratively, reach in, grab the wallet and pull out the detainee's identification."

Agosti said a police officer can question a person, but the individual does not have to answer any questions. An individual has a right to privacy and the majority decision "carves away at that individual liberty," she said.

Agosti said the majority opinion "appeals to the public's fear during this time of war."

The case involved Larry Hiibel, who was questioned about suspected domestic violence against his minor daughter and driving under the influence of alcohol in Humboldt County. Hiibel refused 11 requests by a sheriff's deputy to identify himself. Instead he placed his hands behind his back and challenged the deputy to take him to jail.

Hiibel was convicted in Justice Court of the misdemeanor of resisting or obstructing an officer investigating a crime by refusing to reveal his name.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this issue of identity, and there is a split between the federal appeals courts on the question.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah law requiring people to show identification to an officer during an investigatory stop, but the 9th Circuit ruled against the Nevada law that required a person to identify himself if stopped by police during an investigation.

The Nevada Supreme Court said it found the reasons of the 9th Circuit to be "unpersuasive." Given the conflicting decision, the court said an independent analysis of the law was warranted.

The majority opinion was signed by Young and Justices Myron Leavitt, Nancy Becker and Bill Maupin, who wrote a concurring opinion that said the majority decision "has not somehow overreacted to the dangers presented by the war against domestic and international terrorism."

Joining with Agosti in the dissent were Justices Miriam Shearing and Bob Rose.

Agosti said the court "must not be blinded by fear."

"Now is precisely the time when our duty to vigilantly guard the rights enumerated in the Constitution becomes most important," Agosti wrote. "