The U.S. Supreme Court just released its opinion in the Hiibel case. That is the Nevada man who was arrested for failing to ID himself after an officer responded to a call from a citizen that a man and woman were fighting in a truck parked on the roadside. Unlike Texas, in Nevada (and 24 other states) it is against the law to refuse to identify oneself if lawfully detained by a police officer.

The decision was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy writing for the majority and Justice Stephens writing for the dissent.

Wonder if the leg might change Section 38.02, Penal Code??

Janette Ansolabehere

Is anyone really pushing for a change here? I sure haven't heard from anyone yet, but maybe it's still too early ...

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that 4 judges would have said you have a constitutional right to keep your identity a secret when a police officer, conducting a lawful investigation asks for it?

What in the world would police investigations look like if that were true? That is just nuts.

Perhaps my cynicism is consuming me, but it seems likely that four of the judges would have voted to hold that a suspect has an affirmative right to lie if they believed that such a holding would be outcome-determinative against the state (or at least if it would significantly hamstring law enforcement and prosecution). And, yet, on the same day as Hiibel was decided, these four sentinels of personal liberty and individual rights sang along in perfect harmony with the chorus of extending the reach of ERISA preemption to protect HMOs against employee claims. Seems incongruent, don't you think? Too bad we aren't an insurance company.

Even the majority refused to hold that giving one's name when asked is non-testimonial. They seem to be saying that, in a different case, where identity is an important part of the officer's investigation that would connect the suspect with a crime, the suspect might have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer:

"In this case petitioner�s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it �would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute� him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer�s business. Even today, petitioner does not explain how the disclosure of his name could have been used against him in a criminal case."