Criminal Procedure Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Procedure 2020 Lecture Notes: Case Brief on hiibel...

Description

Criminal Procedure Chapter 23 Case Brief Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada United States Supreme Court 542 U.S. 177 (2004) Facts: Larry Dudley Hiibel (defendant) repeatedly refused to identify himself to a police officer investigating a reported assault. The officer arrested Hiibel and charged him with obstructing a police officer from performing his duty in violation of Nevada law. Hiibel was found guilty in the Justice Court of Union Township and fined $250. Issue: Does an arrest for failure to provide identification violate the Fourth Amendment? Rule: An arrest for failure to provide identification does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the request was reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. Analysis & Holding: • No. An arrest for failure to provide identification does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the request was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified’ the stop. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a police officer with reasonable suspicion that a suspect is or has been engaged in criminal behavior may briefly detain that person to investigate without violating the Fourth Amendment. • Nevertheless, the stop must be valid at the outset, reasonably related to the facts giving rise to the stop, reasonable in length, and less than a full custodial arrest. Case law indicates that requests for identification during Terry stops are constitutional and serve important governmental interests in effectively investigating crimes and protecting police and others from dangerous suspects.

• Based on these principles, a state may legally require a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop. Balancing the infringement of individual privacy interests against the achievement of legitimate governmental goals, it is clear that Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute is reasonable. The request for identification is properly related to the legitimate needs of a Terry stop. • Further, Nevada’s law adds force to requests for identification, but does not otherwise have any affect on such stops. An officer may only arrest for failure to provide identification if the request was reasonably related to the facts giving rise to the stop, and thus this rule in no way permits police to avoid the traditional probable cause requirement for an arrest. In this case, the officer was investigating a domestic violence allegation, and the request for identification was reasonably related to the situation that justified the stop. • There was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Dissent (Stevens): The arrest violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Dissent (Breyer): Terry stops are strictly limited under the Fourth Amendment, and suspects cannot be forced to respond to questioning by police. The Court’s rule today departs from longstanding precedent and creates uncertainty for police conducting Terry stops....