|
United States Supreme Court case ''Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada'', , held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment ''if'' the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of ''Terry v. Ohio'', , the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name. The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there ''was'' a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.〔 In upholding Hiibel′s conviction, the Court noted :"In this case petitioner's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him.... As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business." at 190 But the Court left open the possibility of different circumstances: :"Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here." at 191 〕 == Background of the case == Nevada has a "stop-and-identify" law that allows a police officer to detain any person he encounters "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime"; the person may be detained only to "ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad." In turn, the law requires the person detained to "identify himself", but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that "identify himself" to mean to merely state his name. As of April 2008, 23 other states〔 See the article Stop and identify statutes for a list of states with "stop-and-identify" laws. 〕 have similar laws. On the evening of May 21, 2000, the sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada received a report that a man had assaulted a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. The responding deputy found a truck parked on the side of the road. A man was smoking a cigarette beside the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The deputy observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe the vehicle had come to a sudden stop. The deputy explained to the man that there had been a report of a fight between the man and the young woman, and asked the man if he had any identification on him. The man protested that he had no reason to provide identification, and became ill-tempered when the deputy continued to press him for his identification. The man then asked the deputy what crime he was being accused of, as the deputy continued his requests for identification, stating that he was "conducting an investigation". The man persisted in his refusal to provide identification, asking instead to be handcuffed and taken to jail. The deputy continued to ask for the man's identification, stating that the man would face arrest if he did not cooperate and provide identification.〔 From the opinion of the Nevada Supreme Court in ''Hiibel v. Dist. Ct.'', as well as the State of Nevada's brief to the Supreme Court (Brief for Respondent, p. 4), the Court understood the statute to require only that the suspect state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means. The majority opinion noted that Hiibel was asked to provide identification, which the Court understood as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification, 11 different times; however, it did not indicate that Hiibel was ever asked simply to identify himself. Hiibel did not raise this argument until his petition for rehearing by the Supreme Court (Petition for Rehearing, p. 1). 〕 In response, the man declared he would not cooperate because he had not committed any crime. He then turned around and was arrested by the deputy. That man was Larry Dudley Hiibel, the petitioner in this case, and the young woman was his daughter Mimi Hiibel. Larry Hiibel was charged with "willfully resist(), delay(), or obstruct() a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office."〔 Nev. Rev. Stat. (NRS) §171.123(3) provides that: :"The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer." It was determined that by refusing to identify himself, Hiibel violated NRS §199.280, which states: :"A person who, in any case or under any circumstances not otherwise specially provided for, willfully resists, delays or obstructs a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office shall be punished ..." 〕 In the Justice Court for Union Township, Nevada, Hiibel was convicted of this charge and fined $250. He appealed to the Sixth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the conviction. He then appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, arguing that the requirement that he identify himself to any police officer upon request violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected these arguments, and Hiibel asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|