Court to rule on identity issue

Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004 | 9:43 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- On March 22 the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments regarding a Nevada case that should establish whether it is a crime to refuse to identify oneself when stopped by a law enforcement officer.

Harriet Cummings, appellate deputy for the state's Public Defenders Office, said the court will decide for the first time whether it is unconstitutional for police officers investigating a crime to arrest persons who, because they believe they've done nothing wrong, refuse to identify themselves.

The case involves Larry Hiibel, who was questioned about suspected domestic violence against his minor daughter and about whether he was 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. Because he refused to give his name to the deputy, Hiibel eventually was convicted of a misdemeanor of resisting or obstructing an officer investigating a crime.

With a 4-3 decision in December 2002, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the validity of the state law under which Hiibel was convicted.

There is a split between federal appeals courts on the question of whether a person must identify himself to law enforcement in every circumstance.

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 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a civil case, ruled against the Nevada law.

Cummings said the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to take the Hiibel case, in part, because of the split decision in the federal appeals courts.

Cummings and Chief Appellate Deputy James Logan argue in their briefs that the law violates the constitutional right against self-incrimination. They also say it violates the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The state says a person's name is not entitled to privacy protection, and that any right of privacy is outweighed by the public interest in crime prevention and effective law enforcement. It also said giving one's name is not incriminating.

The majority opinion in the Nevada Supreme Court said: "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 said civil liberties, guaranteed by the nation, should not be taken away even in these uncertain times.