DOJgov.net Newswire,  June 21, 2004

In a slap at personal privacy, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled today that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.

The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity.  Now, they can be stripped of their constitutional protection under the Bill of Rights without being suspected of doing anything at all.

The court's 5-4 decision upholds local laws in at least 21 states.  These laws give police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work, although the detective work might be done on whim.

Privacy advocates say the decision gives police too much power. Once officers have a name, they can use computer databases to learn all kinds of personal information about the person by accessing linked databases.

The loser in Monday's decision was Nevada cattle rancher Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor after he told a deputy that he didn't have to give out his name or show an ID. The encounter happened after someone called police to report simple arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck parked along a road. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel repeatedly refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."

Hiibel was an unlikely constitutional privacy rights crusader. He wore a cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie to the court this year when justices heard arguments in his appeal. "A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone, but lost," said his attorney, Harriet Cummings.

The court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.

Their reasoning was that "One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances," [Editor's Note: What are they thinking?  There are numerous laws relative to identity, or name theft.  One's name is anything but "a universal characteristic."  A name is the the root identifier for securing personal information.] 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. They rejected the logic that the right to simple privacy is a fundamental primary pillar that separates a democracy from a police state.

The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses, but the precident has now been set for future rulings that can expand to capricious searches at the whim of a police officer.