High court takes up Nevada law

Suzanne Struglinski

Monday, March 22, 2004 | 11:09 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Oral arguments began this morning in the Supreme Court case examining a Nevada law that requires people to identify themselves to police who are doing an investigation, even if they have done nothing wrong.

Deputy State Public Defender Robert Dolan of Winnemucca told the court that under the Fourth and Fifth amendments, Northern Nevada's Larry "Dudley" Hiibel did not have to identify himself to police during a roadside stop four years ago. Dolan said Hiibel had the right to remain silent and the state law violates that right.

"People have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their name," Dolan said.

Dolan pointed out that a person can lie about his or her name when an officer asks for it.

Hiibel sat in the courtroom as Dolan made his case before the nine justices.

The case stems from Hiibel's arrest in 2000 by Humboldt County Sheriff Deputy Lee Dove after Hiibel refused to show Dove identification. The officer asked Hiibel for his name 11 times as they stood on the side of the road. The officer had been called to the scene after someone called police saying they saw a man hit a woman in a pickup truck.

Later Hiibel's daughter Mimi said in a police statement that she and her father were having an argument and she hit him in the shoulder.

Some of the justices' comments questioned Hiibel's Fifth Amendment claim.

Justice Antonin Scalia said that only the person who was guilty of the beating would have the right not to answer under the Fifth Amendment, which bars self-incrimination.

"I can't imagine any responsible citizen would object to giving their name," Scalia said.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "I think one's name is just a neutral fact. It is not incriminating one way or another."

She said later that the court has not expressly said Nevada or any other state can require identification.

Meanwhile, Senior Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen, who argued against Hiibel, said the identification law is a minimal intrusion that helps to protect officers and aids in the protection and detection of crime.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked how much information fits into a neutral category that includes a name and whether that would include e-mail addresses or phone numbers. She also asked how giving a name can protect an officer.

Hafen said once an officer learns a name or other identifying information, the officer can learn if the suspect has a criminal history, is violent or a number of other characteristics.

But Dolan said it is a "false assumption a name provides more officer safety."

After the arguments Dolan said, "if the officer approaches 'Machine Gun Harry,' he could say it's 'John Smith' and relax his investigative tools."

Hiibel said there was nothing wrong with the officer asking for his name, but it was wrong to arrest him when he did not give it.

"We have the right to remain silent, the right not to incriminate ourselves and travel freely without papers on demand," Hiibel said. "This case is not really about me, but about the rights for all American people.

Dolan said he thought it would be a close vote, but was hesitant to speculate further.

"I had been told not to read too much into the questions or body language."