This is what I didn't like about the US when I was there.
If the officer has 'reasonable cause' i.e. he doesn't like your face, he can demand ID.
----------------------------
FOURTH, FIFTH AMENDMENTS: U.S. Supreme Court to hear rancher's case
Fallon native's refusal to identify himself to Humboldt sheriff's deputy to be heard
CARSON CITY - When Larry "Dudley" Hiibel saw the flashing lights of a sheriff's cruiser approaching him outside of Winnemucca on May 21, 2000, he never imagined the resulting confrontation would involve him in a constitutional dispute in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
But that is where Hiibel will be March 22 after being arrested for failing to identify himself to a sheriff's deputy almost four years ago.
"It's sort of awesome in one sense, but other times I wonder how I got tied up in this," said the Fallon native in a rare interview Monday. "I just gotta go and see it through.
"Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected this to happen," he said.
Hiibel's constitutional challenge to a state law requiring him to identify himself to a peace officer will be considered by the nation's highest court.
The case pits the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination against a state's right to conduct a criminal investigation based on reasonable suspicion.
Speaking by telephone, Hiibel, 59, said he will attend the hearing in his first ever trip to the East Coast.
A rancher who likes his privacy, Hiibel said that if Humboldt County Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove had approached him differently, there might never have been a constitutional case.
"He just walked up and started demanding my papers," Hiibel said. "I was there on that road minding my own business, and he just started pushing."
The deputy was investigating a report of a domestic disturbance between Hiibel and his daughter, Mimi.
Mimi Hiibel was driving the family's red 1988 GMC pickup. She had stopped it on the side of Grass Valley Road and Larry Hiibel was outside smoking a cigarette when the deputy arrived.
Hiibel said he was upset because the deputy immediately asked him for his identification rather than investigating the alleged domestic disturbance. Hiibel was asked repeatedly for identification but refused.
"In America people have the right to remain silent," Hiibel said. "I didn't have to kowtow to the guy. I don't bother people and I don't appreciate them bothering me."
Ultimately, Hiibel was fined $250 for causing a delay to a peace officer. Prosecutors dropped a domestic battery charge against him.
But state Deputy Public Defender Robert Dolan took the case to the Nevada Supreme Court, which, on Dec. 20, 2002, issued a contentious 4-3 decision against Hiibel upholding the state law.
Dolan then sought U.S. Supreme Court intervention, which was granted.
Harriet Cummings, a state deputy public defender helping prepare the case, said it is being argued on both Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds.
"Everyone knows that when someone is being arrested for probable cause for a crime that has been committed, the person is given a Miranda warning about the right to remain silent," Cummings said. "We are asserting you also have the right to remain silent when an investigating officer comes up and demands your identification.
"We're also saying that demanding identification in such circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure."
The Nevada law being challenged says a peace officer can detain a person suspected of a crime and ask for identification.
The senior deputy attorney general who will argue in support of the state Supreme Court ruling could not be reached Monday for comment.
Hiibel said the best result would be for all seven Supreme Court justices to rule in favor of the Bill of Rights and strike down the Nevada law and 32 others like it.
Hiibel said he has always taken his constitutional rights seriously, both as a Nevadan and a U.S. citizen.
"This case is called Hiibel versus Nevada, but it should be called Hiibel versus the federal government," he said. "This is about our rights. I don't want anyone walking over my rights."
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hiibel also may clarify a 1996 Nevada case, in which a state gaming agent investigated two men on cheating allegations at a Ramada hotel in Laughlin.
One of the men was arrested after refusing to give his name. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 ruled the arrest of professional gambler James Carey was a violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
-------------------------------------------
Nicked from 'another gambling forum' so I wont post the link.
Credit/Thx to insomniac.
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/
If the officer has 'reasonable cause' i.e. he doesn't like your face, he can demand ID.
----------------------------
FOURTH, FIFTH AMENDMENTS: U.S. Supreme Court to hear rancher's case
Fallon native's refusal to identify himself to Humboldt sheriff's deputy to be heard
CARSON CITY - When Larry "Dudley" Hiibel saw the flashing lights of a sheriff's cruiser approaching him outside of Winnemucca on May 21, 2000, he never imagined the resulting confrontation would involve him in a constitutional dispute in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
But that is where Hiibel will be March 22 after being arrested for failing to identify himself to a sheriff's deputy almost four years ago.
"It's sort of awesome in one sense, but other times I wonder how I got tied up in this," said the Fallon native in a rare interview Monday. "I just gotta go and see it through.
"Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected this to happen," he said.
Hiibel's constitutional challenge to a state law requiring him to identify himself to a peace officer will be considered by the nation's highest court.
The case pits the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination against a state's right to conduct a criminal investigation based on reasonable suspicion.
Speaking by telephone, Hiibel, 59, said he will attend the hearing in his first ever trip to the East Coast.
A rancher who likes his privacy, Hiibel said that if Humboldt County Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove had approached him differently, there might never have been a constitutional case.
"He just walked up and started demanding my papers," Hiibel said. "I was there on that road minding my own business, and he just started pushing."
The deputy was investigating a report of a domestic disturbance between Hiibel and his daughter, Mimi.
Mimi Hiibel was driving the family's red 1988 GMC pickup. She had stopped it on the side of Grass Valley Road and Larry Hiibel was outside smoking a cigarette when the deputy arrived.
Hiibel said he was upset because the deputy immediately asked him for his identification rather than investigating the alleged domestic disturbance. Hiibel was asked repeatedly for identification but refused.
"In America people have the right to remain silent," Hiibel said. "I didn't have to kowtow to the guy. I don't bother people and I don't appreciate them bothering me."
Ultimately, Hiibel was fined $250 for causing a delay to a peace officer. Prosecutors dropped a domestic battery charge against him.
But state Deputy Public Defender Robert Dolan took the case to the Nevada Supreme Court, which, on Dec. 20, 2002, issued a contentious 4-3 decision against Hiibel upholding the state law.
Dolan then sought U.S. Supreme Court intervention, which was granted.
Harriet Cummings, a state deputy public defender helping prepare the case, said it is being argued on both Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds.
"Everyone knows that when someone is being arrested for probable cause for a crime that has been committed, the person is given a Miranda warning about the right to remain silent," Cummings said. "We are asserting you also have the right to remain silent when an investigating officer comes up and demands your identification.
"We're also saying that demanding identification in such circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure."
The Nevada law being challenged says a peace officer can detain a person suspected of a crime and ask for identification.
The senior deputy attorney general who will argue in support of the state Supreme Court ruling could not be reached Monday for comment.
Hiibel said the best result would be for all seven Supreme Court justices to rule in favor of the Bill of Rights and strike down the Nevada law and 32 others like it.
Hiibel said he has always taken his constitutional rights seriously, both as a Nevadan and a U.S. citizen.
"This case is called Hiibel versus Nevada, but it should be called Hiibel versus the federal government," he said. "This is about our rights. I don't want anyone walking over my rights."
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hiibel also may clarify a 1996 Nevada case, in which a state gaming agent investigated two men on cheating allegations at a Ramada hotel in Laughlin.
One of the men was arrested after refusing to give his name. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 ruled the arrest of professional gambler James Carey was a violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
-------------------------------------------
Nicked from 'another gambling forum' so I wont post the link.
Credit/Thx to insomniac.
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/
