Hiibel v sixth judicial court of
Why or why not?
Walker, U. He appealed to the Sixth Judicial District Court , which affirmed the conviction. See U. In United States v. In short, disclosing one's identity is an essential part of everyday life. Argued March 22, —Decided June 21, Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. During the detention, the officer may ask the detainee his name and question him concerning matters relevant to the basis for the stop. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Hiibel petitioned for rehearing, seeking explicit resolution of his Fifth Amendment challenge. Florida, U. Production of identity documents might meet the definition as well. Finally, if a person were released without knowledge of his identity, officers generally would lack the ability to locate him should the need later arise. As for the other side of the balance, the court concluded that the identification requirement "involve[s] a minimal invasion of personal privacy. Lawson, U.
The reasonableness of a law enforcement practice is determined "by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.
New York, U.
Jacksonville, U. See Haynes, U. We disagree.
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 identification requirement thus is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The officer observed skid marks which led him to believe that the truck had been pulled over "in a sudden and aggressive manner.
Terry v ohio
In other States, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty. Bouknight, U. In McIntyre v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court is poised to address the question of whether an individual has the right to refuse to identify himself to a law enforcement officer before arrest. Because no court has addressed the merits of that argument or whether petitioner waived any Fifth Amendment claim by failing to raise the privilege as a defense at trial, see Vajtauer v. Petitioner suggests Br. Neither of those interests thus implicates the basic Fifth Amendment concern with requiring the government to make its evidentiary case through its own independent efforts. Although an officer can conduct a frisk for weapons based on a reasonable fear that a detainee is armed and dangerous, see Terry, U. Requiring a person to identify himself during an investigative stop does not intrude on any legitimate expectation of privacy. As we stated in Kastigar v. Deputy Dove told petitioner that he had received a report that petitioner had been fighting with the passenger, and Dove asked petitioner to identify himself.
But the focus remains on the potential for incrimination in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The plurality acknowledged that "the compelled disclosure of identity could have led to a charge that might not have been made had the driver fled the scene.
Ohio, U. See J.
The supreme court in hiibel v. sixth judicial district court of nevada quizlet
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. To safeguard that core guarantee, this Court has permitted assertion of the privilege outside of a criminal trial when the information sought could prove incriminating in any eventual prosecution. See Brown v. As a result, the Fourth Amendment itself cannot require a suspect to answer questions. The court found it "untenable" to "hold that a name, which is neutral and non-incriminating information, is somehow an invasion of privacy. The Court has held that the Fourth Amendment affords no basis for declining to provide a voice or handwriting exemplar, reasoning that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in his voice or handwriting. Noting that a government invasion of privacy does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as it is reasonable, the court found that any intrusion of privacy under Nev. An officer may not investigate a soft object he detects, even though it might be drugs. Individuals exchange their names as a matter of course in everyday social interactions, and regularly display their names when using credit cards or checks in commercial transactions. In Papachristou v. Consequently, when the government is engaged in the process of developing its evidentiary case for a criminal prosecution, the Fifth Amendment prevents the government from making its case through the expedient of compelling the defendant to furnish the government with incriminating disclosures. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, a case in which the Supreme Court will determine whether an individual may refuse to identify himself to police when there is no probable cause to arrest. See, e. For example, the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, see United States v. Similarly, an officer may not detect a wallet and remove it for search.
See Chavez v. Procedural History This case arises from the arrest of Larry Dudley Hiibel for refusing to identify himself to a law enforcement officer prior to arrest.
Although an officer can conduct a frisk for weapons based on a reasonable fear that a detainee is armed and dangerous, see Terry, U. Although the identification requirement can have the effect of facilitating further investigation, that is equally the case with "regulatory" requirements like the one at issue in Byers, yet the Court there denied application of the Fifth Amendment privilege. The opinions forming the majority emphasized that the law was not intended to facilitate criminal conviction, and that the identification requirement did not relieve the State's burden to determine through its own independent investigation whether the accident involved criminal conduct. 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. Instead, they have already attracted the attention of officers by virtue of the officers' independent observations. See also United States v. Walker, U. Wardlow, U. The Government must locate that evidence by the independent labor of its officers. Furthermore, the officer's request that Hiibel identify himself did not implicate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See, e.
based on 49 review