Appeal of Supreme Court’s identity ruling considered

Tuesday, Dec. 24, 2002 | 8:56 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Public defenders believe they have a good appellate chance at overturning the Nevada Supreme Court ruling that people must provide identification to police upon request, even prior to being arrested.

Steve McGuire, the state public defender who worked on the case, said Monday that his appeal lawyers would talk with the defendant in the case to determine if he wants to continue the court fight. McGuire said his staff will explain "that the law is in our favor if we pursue it."

McGuire said he had expected to prevail before the Nevada Supreme Court, in part because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the Nevada law unconstitutional and Nevada is within the jurisdiction of that federal appellate court.

The state Supreme Court ruling could be appealed to the U.S. District Court in Reno. If that is unsuccessful, the appeal could then go to the federal appellate court that already has deemed the law unconstitutional. Ultimately, however, the matter may wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court because there is a split between the federal appeals courts on the issue of identification requirements.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Nevada law violates the Fourth Amendment because "the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification (might) provide a link leading to arrest."

That ruling was related to a case in which a state gaming agent was called to the Ramada hotel in Laughlin in 1996 to investigate whether two men were cheating. The agent detained the two individuals but then determined there was no probable cause to arrest them for gaming violations.

When one of the men refused to identify himself, however, the agent arrested him for failing to give his name. The court ruled that the name of the man was not relevant to determining whether he had cheated.

The Nevada ruling appears to directly conflict with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' upholding of a Utah law that requires people to present identification to an officer during an investigation.

And in a ruling released Friday in a separate case, a Nevada Supreme Court majority opinion said it found the reasoning in the prior decision by the 9th Circuit Court to be "unpersuasive."

Friday's ruling was for a case in which Larry Hiibel was questioned about suspected domestic violence against his minor daughter and alleged 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.