The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a case that has provoked much public attention: Can citizens be forced to answer a law enforcement officers’ questions against their will? For example, providing the police with your first and last name if an officer asks for it?
For us, immigrants from the former Soviet Union, this dilemma might seem meaningless. Should we be responsive to government representatives simply on principle? I’m certain many of us would say no, it is not worth it; why tease the geese? Such a response makes sense from people who have spent all or most of their lives in a country where uttering the words “human rights” was definitely not recommended. Even today, with all of the changes that have transpired in the post-Soviet environment, just try telling a police officer who has asked for your identification to “take a hike.” The officer’s response is not difficult to guess: he would handcuff you with your face in the snow – that’s the best case scenario.
The United States, however, is clearly not Russia. Here your identification is requested in defined and concrete circumstances, for example after a breaking a traffic law. Beyond that, if you have broken no laws or engaged in suspicious activities, no one may stop you and question you on who you are, what you do, and where you’re from. Should this happen, it is considered a violation of the citizen’s private life, which is protected by the United States Constitution. Additionally, because of an American resistance against widespread intrusions by the federal government into a person’s private life, a significant number of Americans are conclusively opposed to the national identity registry currently favored by the Bush administration.
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, in the case of Terry v. Ohio, that short-term detentions, searches and interrogations of individuals who arouse “well-grounded suspicion” were legitimate. Some states , including Nevada, passed other laws allowing the police to get the first and last names of people they considered possible suspects of violating the law. If a person refused to cooperate, even a U.S. citizen, he could be tried in court and punished. Even if this person was 100 percent innocent, the unwillingness to cooperate with law enforcement was itself considered a violation of the law.
The Supreme Court is now reviewing the case of Nevada resident Larry Hiibel, who believes that the state law violates his constitutional rights. Four years ago, watchful citizens thought they noticed the driver of a small truck hit the passenger, a young woman. The police were called. When the deputy sheriff arrived at the scene of the alleged incident, Mr. Hiibel, who was standing next to his truck with a young woman in the driver’s seat, was singled out by police. An officer approached him and demanded to know his first and last name. Hiibel refused to answer. The officer asked Hiibel 11 times to provide his name and 11 times he got the same response. The officer ran out of patience and arrested him. Although the punishment was not serious, Hiibel sued.
Hiibel, a principled man, was seeking justice. Four years later, he is still pursuing his suit, hoping to reverse the ruling against him. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Nevada ruled in favor of the authorities, although the judges’ opinions were split. Not satisfied, Hiibel took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hiibel’s lawyers argue that any fine or jail time for an individual, innocent of breaking any laws, for refusing to answer a police officer’s question is in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. It must be noted that Hiibel’s lawyers are not challenging the verdict of Terry v. Ohio.
During the opening remarks, Justice Antonin Scalia asked: “If you and your client agree with the prior verdict, then you must agree that police have the right to question a suspect?”
“Yes,” acknowledged one of Hiibel’s lawyers. “But, you must also agree with us that the given verdict does not grant authorities the right to demand an answer to their questions or to attain a response by pressuring the individual.”
Justice Stephan Breyer upheld the lawyers’ position: “Why complicate matters? The law, as it stands, grants the police the right to pose questions and citizens the right to respond or not to respond.”
With the exception of Scalia, the judges agreed in principle with Justice Breyer: In accordance with the Fourth Amendment, the arrest of a suspect because he or she refuses to respond to questions posed by police officers cannot be considered well-grounded.
In the end, Hiibel’s lawyers concluded that Hiibel has fewer rights than an incarcerated individual. Isn’t that nonsense? Citizens in police custody may use their right to remain silent and not communicate with police, since anything they say may be used against them in court. Suspects who are not in custody, however, must answer questions posed to them by police. Where’s the logic?
The case continues under review. It is not clear what the Supreme Court’s ruling will be. In recent years, the conservative side of the Supreme Court has not often been able to tilt the scales of justice in favor of law enforcement. If they support the Nevada authorities, it will allow other states as well as Federal authorities to adopt similar laws. The individual rights of citizens would certainly be narrowed, while the prerogatives of law enforcement authorities would be broadened.
Interestingly, the White House declared that it is totally and fully on the side of Nevada.
