Discussion of the seminal Hiibel* U.S. Supreme Court case on the need to present identification to law enforcement at a traffic stop. Further discussion regarding arrests and demands for identification papers.
(* Originally, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., No. 03-5554.)
A quote from Hiibel:
“The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating. See Brown v. Walker, 161 JS 591, 598 (1896) (noting that where ‘the answer of the witness will not directly show his infamy, he is bound to answer’). A claim of Fifth Amendment privilege [sic] must establish… 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 [sic] applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.”
[Relevant cases cited in Hiibel include: Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47; Lolender v. Lawson, 461 US 352; INS v. Delgada, 466 US 210 (1984); Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968).]
Discussion of the seminal Hiibel* U.S. Supreme Court case on the need to present identification to law enforcement at a traffic stop. Further discussion regarding arrests and demands for identification papers.
(* Originally, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., No. 03-5554.)
A quote from Hiibel:
“The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating. See Brown v. Walker, 161 JS 591, 598 (1896) (noting that where ‘the answer of the witness will not directly show his infamy, he is bound to answer’). A claim of Fifth Amendment privilege [sic] must establish… 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 [sic] applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.”
[Relevant cases cited in Hiibel include: Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47; Lolender v. Lawson, 461 US 352; INS v. Delgada, 466 US 210 (1984); Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968).]