If Hiibel had been arrested for driving under the influence and striking a minor child, his identity would not matter. In some of the other instances cited by the majority, such as the case of a violation of a restraining order, requesting identification under the reasonable suspicion a crime was being committed might be defensible, but under the circumstances of the case, it would seem that the conviction should have stood, but not for the reasons alleged by any of the reasons cited by the majority. Furthermore, in apprehending criminals suspected of sex offenses, terrorism, and other unspeakable acts, the minority found, that these arrests should be based upon conduct, not upon a failure to provide identification.
Volunteering one's identity is a right one has, the minority stated: "purchasing an airline ticket is a business transaction, and the airlines may condition the sale on knowing who is the purchaser. In contrast, being forced to identify oneself to a police officer or else face arrest is government coercion precisely the type of governmental intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have one's name on a credit card or checkbook in order to effect a purchase. A dedicated libertarian, for example, might deliberately eschew financial institutions, credit cards and checkbooks, engaging solely in cash transactions, in order to jealously protect his individual rights, especially his right to be anonymous, to be left alone, to wander freely." The dissenting minority opinion also noted that creating a bogeyman of terrorists and suspected child molesters was dangerous for a court entrusted to protect the rights of the public. "The court must not be blinded by fear," it wrote.
However, in 2004, the majority opinion of the Nevada State Court was upheld in a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, much to the dismay of civil libertarians. "One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority (Richey 2004). "Answering a request to disclose a name is...
Since police may only request the name of someone they find suspicious (under the upheld Nevada statute), that person is by definition a criminal suspect who may not be compelled to make statements that might incriminate him," including his identity (Richey 2004). Finding the Nevada law constitutional thus is an undoubted blemish upon the concept of the idea that suspects do not have to incriminate themselves, including by giving their names.
By upholding the Nevada decision and calling the revelation of one's name "insignificant," the U.S. Supreme Court opened "the door to the issuing of national identification cards or widespread identity operations keyed to terrorist profiling at bus terminals, train stations, sports stadiums, and on city streets" (Richey 2004). There also seems to be a blatant contradiction in calling one's identity insignificant, and the Nevada Supreme Court's statement that identity is an essential part of law enforcement, in enforcing restraining orders and preventing child molesters from congregating around school.
Works Cited
Richey, Warren. (2004, June 22). Court: If police ask, you must give your name.
Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved April 19, 2009 at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html
State Supreme Court of Nevada: Hiibel v. Dist. Ct. 118 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 88.
December 20, 2002. Retrieved April 19, 2009 at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=118NevAdvOpNo88&invol=2
All references, except where noted taken from the decision of the State Supreme Court of Nevada: Hiibel v. Dist. Ct. 118 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 88. December 20, 2002. Retrieved April 19, 2009 at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=118NevAdvOpNo88&invol=2
