Right to Remain Silent Undermined by Supreme Court's Hiibel Ruling
By The Washington Post editorial board
First published June 22, 2004
Editor's note: This editorial preempted an op-ed we were ready to write on the June 21 Supreme Court ruling. It represents our concerns well.
"You have the right to remain silent." At least, you did before the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada yesterday. Now, when a police officer suspecting you of a crime stops you in the street and asks your name, you can be prosecuted for refusing to answer.
That's what happened to Larry Dudley Hiibel, who was approached by a police officer investigating a report of an assault. Repeatedly asked to identify himself, Mr. Hiibel insisted he had done nothing wrong and refused. This was illegal under Nevada law, which requires any person stopped by the police "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed . . . a crime" to "identify himself" if asked. But as justices have long presumed in previous cases, refusing to talk was also Mr. Hiibel's right under the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that a person shall not be forced to act as a witness against himself. Not anymore.
The Supreme Court, voting 5 to 4, declared that there was nothing wrong with compelling people to answer police questions if the police were merely asking their names. It was okay to demand Mr. Hiibel's name, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, "because in this case disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination." That might be true of Mr. Hiibel, but what if you're wanted for a crime? What if your name is similar to that of a fugitive? What if your first name is Osama? Justice Kennedy doesn't answer these questions, leaving them to future cases. But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent, "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases. And that information, in turn, can be tremendously useful in a criminal prosecution."
We believe that people generally ought to cooperate with law enforcement. But we also believe that targets of law enforcement have a right not to do so. Carving out exceptions, even seemingly innocent ones, is a bad idea.
© 2004 Washington Post
For more background on Hiibel v. Nevada: Your ID or Your Freedom
Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute wrote this interesting op-ed, which digs deeper into some problems with the Hiibel ruling
Travel writer and civil liberties advocate Edward Hasbrouk offers interesting analysis of the Court decision on his blog
See
the Supreme Court ruling (pdf)
More Features on Civil Rights and Liberties
Home Page
We review dozens of articles and essays from both corporate and independent media sources each weeek and occassionally post those we believe offers unique or important information or perspectives relating to democracy and corporate power. Opinions presented do not necessarily reflect those of ReclaimDemocracy.org. Index of past features
Fair Use Notice
This site occasionally reprints copyrighted material, the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We make such material available free of charge in our efforts to advance understanding
of issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.. For more information go to: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner. Article titles here are not always those used by the originating publication.
