Nevada is one of the states where the law states that any member within the state is supposed to identify him or herself before a police officer if requested during the investigation. Larry Hiibel is one of the people that have been charged by the court in relation to this kind of law. Hiibel was arrested by the police officer and later convicted by the Nevada court because of their failure to identify himself during the investigation (Ginn 1). Hiibel later argued against the conviction on the view that it violated his right of not being incriminated, which is the Fifth Amendment right as per the constitution of Nevada. The fourth amendment right states that every person has the right not to be searched without a valid reason. The problems he encountered did not help him because he was convicted and charged a fine of $250 (Ginn 1) The court had ruled his case on the basis that the search did not violate the fourth amendment right. The search had a reasonable suspicion since, during the investigation of the assault, Hiibel was within the area of search, and when he was asked his name, he failed to answer the police officer. There was no violation of rights because Hiibel did not have a valid reason for failure to identify himself before the police. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment was not found to override the legislature judgment of Nevada because it does not state that the disclosure of his identity could incriminate him (Ginn 1). The ruling was therefore based on the decision of 1968, which affirms that the police officer may detain a person briefed on reasonable suspicion to gather more information even though there is no evidence that the person in question is a criminal. Justice demands that during instances when people have been detained briefly, which was also termed as Terry stops. According to the 1968 ruling, they are supposed to answer the questions asked in relation to the disclosure of their identities (Ginn 1) In most cases, police officers are faced with ethical dilemmas when trying to enforce the law. There are different areas where dilemmas of ethics are identified, such as corruption, failure to perform the assigned duties, use of force, bribery as well as discretion. The police officers view the seriousness of the ethical dilemmas differently compared to the public views. For instance, the public views gratuities and brutality as a big challenge in the police force, while the police officers view sleeping on duty and sex on the workplace as the major challenges (Heffernan 43). The police officers are therefore faced with dilemmas of discretion since they face challenges of using power when making choices in their workplace. In this situation, the officers feel uncomfortable executing the law because they fail to understand what the laws and regulations require. They, therefore, face challenges of whether to enforce the law or not. For instance, the officers might be faced with the dilemma of compassion and enforcing the law, like in the case where the police officer was called to arrest a child whom he knew very well that he lived with the grandparents and they were very poor. The child was to be arrested by one of the statio