Supreme Court Hears Case of Man Who Withheld ID: "Supreme Court Hears Case of Man Who Withheld ID
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: March 23, 2004


ASHINGTON, March 22 � A Nevada rancher's refusal four years ago to tell a deputy sheriff his name led to a Supreme Court argument on Monday on a question that, surprisingly, the justices have never resolved: whether people can be required to identify themselves when the police have some basis for suspicion but lack the probable cause necessary for an arrest.
Advertisement


The answer, in a case that has drawn intense interest from those who fear increased government intrusion on personal privacy, appeared elusive.
'A name itself is a neutral fact' that is neither incriminating nor an undue invasion of privacy, Conrad Hafen, Nevada's senior deputy attorney general, told the court in defense of a state statute that requires people to identify themselves to the police if stopped 'under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.'
'It's a neutral fact that I'm wearing a pinstripe suit,' Justice David H. Souter told Mr. Hafen. But if someone who had just robbed a bank was reported to be wearing a pinstripe suit, that fact if reported to the police might no longer be so neutral, Justice Souter added.
The Bush administration joined the state in defending the statute.
Lawyers for Larry D. Hiibel, who is appealing his conviction for violating the Nevada law, raised two constitutional challenges to the identification requirement: that it amounts to an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment and that it compels self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Mr. Hiibel's conviction, a misdemeanor, and rejected hihis constitutional challenge to the state law"