Document: 542 U.S. 177 HIIBELv.SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL. No. 03-5554. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 22, 2004. Decided June 21, Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself police officer during an investigative stop involving reported assault. Nevada's "stop identify" statute requires person detained by under suspicious circumstances himself. The state intermediate appellate affirmed, rejecting Hiibel's argument that the law's application his case violated Fourth Fifth Amendments. affirmed. Held: Petitioner's conviction does not violate Amendment rights or Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 182-191. (a) State statutes often combine elements traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended regulate behavior course investigatory stops. They vary from State, but all permit ask require suspect disclose identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 156, 167-171, this invalidated law vagueness because its broad scope imprecise terms. recognized similar constitutional limitations Brown Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52, where it violating Texas grounds, Kolender Lawson, 461 352, grounds California's modified required give "credible reliable" identification when asked himself, id., at 360. This begins those cases left off. Here, initial based reasonable suspicion, satisfying requirements noted Brown. Further, has alleged is unconstitutionally vague, as Kolender. narrower more precise. contrast requirement Kolender, interpreted instant only name. It apparently him produce driver's license any other document. If he chooses either name communicate means, satisfied no violation occurs. 182-185. (b) officer's conduct did rights. Ordinarily, investigating free without implicating Amendment. INS Delgado, 466 210, 216. Beginning Terry Ohio, 392 1, suspicion may be involved criminal activity permits brief time take additional steps investigate further. Although well established stop, see, e. g., States Hensley, 469 221, 229, been open question whether can prosecuted refusal answer, see Brown, supra, 53, n. 3. now view principles stop. Terry, 34. consistent prohibitions against unreasonable searches seizures properly balances intrusion individual's interests promotion legitimate government interests. See Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 654. An identity request immediate relation stop's purpose, rationale, practical demands, threat sanction helps ensure become legal nullity. On hand, alter nature itself, changing neither duration nor location. argues unpersuasively circumvents probable-cause allowing arrest being suspicious, thereby creating impermissible risk arbitrary conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Papachristou. are met justified inception "reasonably related which justified" 20. Under principles, failure if reasonably justifying Cf. Hayes Florida, 470 811, 817. commonsense inquiry, effort obtain after yielded insufficient evidence. request, State's response contravene 185-189. (c) contention violates self-incrimination fails disclosure presented danger incrimination. prohibits compelled testimony incriminating, Walker, 161 591, 598, protects disclosures witness believes could used prosecution lead evidence might so used, Kastigar States, 406 441, 445. articulated real appreciable fear would incriminate him, furnish needed prosecute him. Hoffman 341 479, 486. appears refused thought none business. While recognizes strong belief should have identity, override Legislature's judgment contrary absent tend Answering likely insignificant incriminating unusual circumstances. See, Baltimore City Dept. Social Servs. Bouknight, 493 549, 555. arises there substantial allegation furnishing given link chain convict individual separate offense, then consider privilege applies, violated, what remedy must follow. Those questions need resolved here. 189-191. 118 Nev. 868, 59 P. 3d 1201, KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, post, p. 191. BREYER, SOUTER GINSBURG, joined, 197. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME NEVADA. 2 Robert E. Dolan argued cause petitioner. With briefs were James Logan, Jr., Harriet Cummings. 3 Conrad Hafen, Senior Deputy Attorney General Nevada, respondents. Brian Sandoval, General, David Allison. 4 Sri Srinivasan amicus curiae urging affirmance. Solicitor Olson, Assistant Wray, Dreeben, Joel M. Gershowitz.* 5 JUSTICE KENNEDY Court. 6 petitioner allowed (1968). He challenges Amendments Constitution, applicable through Fourteenth 7 * sheriff's department Humboldt County, received afternoon telephone call reporting caller seeing man assault woman red silver GMC truck Grass Valley Road. Sheriff Lee Dove dispatched investigate. When arrived scene, found parked side road. A standing truck, young sitting inside it. observed skid marks gravel behind vehicle, leading believe had come sudden 8 approached explained report fight. appeared intoxicated. "any [him]," we understand some form written identification. why wanted responded conducting investigation unidentified became agitated insisted done nothing wrong. find out who doing there. After continued refusals comply identification, began taunt placing hands back telling jail. routine kept up several minutes: 11 times each time. warning refuse comply, placed arrest. 9 We know Road Larry Dudley Hiibel. charged "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing] obstruct[ing] public discharging attempting discharge duty office" Rev. Stat. (NRS) § 199.280 (2003). reasoned obstructed carrying duties 171.123, defines context Section 171.123 provides relevant part: 10 "1. Any peace detain whom encounters indicate committed, committing about commit crime. . 12 "3. pursuant section ascertain surrounding presence abroad. shall answer inquiry officer." 13 tried Justice Union Township. agreed "obstructed delayed duty" 199.280. App. 5. fined $250. Sixth Judicial District review rejected challenge divided opinion. 1201 (2002). petitioned rehearing, seeking explicit resolution challenge. petition denied granted certiorari. 540 965 II 14 NRS 171.123(3) enactment sometimes referred statute. Ala. Code 15-5-30 (West 2003); Ark. Ann. 5-71-213(a)(1) (2004); Colo. 16-3-103(1) (2003); Del. Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 1902(a), 1321(6) Fla. 856.021(2) Ga. 16-11-36(b) Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, 5/107-14 Kan. 22-2402(1) La. Crim. Proc. Art. 215.1(A) 2004); Mo. 84.710(2) Mont. 46-5-401(2)(a) Neb. 29-829 N. H. 594:2 644:6 (Lexis 30-22-3 N.Y. Law 140.50(1) D. Cent. 29-29-21 R. I. Gen. Laws 12-7-1 Utah 77-7-15 Vt. 24, 1983 (Supp. Wis. 968.24 also Note, Stop Identify Statutes: New Form Inadequate Solution Old Problem, Rutgers L. J. 585 (1981); Stop-and-Identify Statutes Lawson: Exploring Issues, 69 Iowa 1057 (1984). 15 few model their Uniform Arrest Act, code suspected crime "demand name, address, business abroad whither going." Warner, 28 Va. 315, 344 (1942). Other text proposed American Institute part Institute's Model Penal Code. ALI, 250.6, Comment 4, pp. 392-393 (1980). provision, originally designated 250.12, loitering "under justify engaged engage commits refuses credible account lawfulness purposes." 250.12 (Tent. Draft 13) (1961). suspect's misdemeanor offense civil violation; others, factor considered laws. decline penalty. 16 roots early English vagrants face unless they gave "a good Account themselves," Geo. 2, 5, (1744), power itself reflected common-law private persons "arrest night-walker, till himself...." W. Hawkins, Pleas Crown, 13, 6, 130. (6th ed. 1787). recent decades, infirmity 156 (1972), held void vagueness. Its terms proper notice potential offenders permitted officers exercise unfettered discretion enforcement law. 167-171. 17 operation statutes. 52 (1979), grounds. ruled specific, objective facts establishing activity. 51-52. Absent factual basis detaining defendant, held, "arbitrary abusive practices" too great impermissible. Id., 52. Four Terms later, 352 (1983). California "`credible reliable'" provided standard determining do it, resulting "`virtually unrestrained charge violation.'" Ibid. (quoting Lewis Orleans, 415 130, 135 (1974) (Powell, concurring result)). 18 present our prior Here contrast, Nev., 875, 3d, 1206 (opinion Young, C.J.) ("The provide details background, merely exists"). As Provided states communicates means — choice, assume, make 876-877, 1206-1207. III 19 cannot stand disagree. 20 Asking essential investigations. ordinary "[I]nterrogation relating one's not, constitute seizure." 216 (1968), 216; Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 881 (1975). To seizure constitutionally reasonable, limited. action "`justified inception, ... interference first place.'" Sharpe, 675, 682 (1985) 20). For example, continue excessive period time, Place, 462 696, 709 (1983), resemble arrest, Dunaway York, 442 200, 212 (1979). 21 Our decisions clear concerning accepted many 229 ("[T]he ability briefly [a suspect], questions, check absence probable promotes interest solving crimes bringing justice"); 816 ("[I]f articulable supporting committed stopped order briefly, while information"); Adams Williams, 407 143, 146 (1972) ("A individual, determine maintain status quo momentarily obtaining information, most light known time"). 22 Obtaining serves important Knowledge inform another record violence mental disorder. knowing help allow concentrate efforts elsewhere. Identity prove particularly such this, domestic Officers called disputes dealing assess situation, own safety, possible victim. 23 answer. S., draws attention statements opinions that, according favor. White stated questioned "not obliged answers compelled, furnishes arrest." cited dicta Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 439 (1984), decision holding traffic custodial requiring protections Miranda Arizona, 384 436 (1966). explaining stops subject Miranda, suggested reasons "nonthreatening character," among them fact "is respond" questions. Berkemer, 439, 440. According petitioner, these establish right 24 read controlling. passages recognize impose obligations citizen instead government. result, different issue, however. source obligation law, statutory go beyond answering ("Any officer"). White's concurrence compel 25 reasonableness determined "by balancing interests." 654 satisfies standard. demands itself: change duration, 709, location, Dunaway, 212. valid seizures. 26 requirement, effect suspicious. creates permit. Brief 28-33. concerns; central Papachristou, limiting limitation Hayes, compelling submit fingerprinting believing will negate connection crime." guarantees IV 27 further contends "[n]o himself." qualify privilege, communication testimonial, compelled. Hubbell, 530 27, 34-38 (2000). Respondents urge us hold nontestimonial, outside Clause's scope. resolve basis. "[T]o accused's explicitly implicitly, relate assertion information." Doe 487 201, 210 (1988). 35. Stating Production documents meet definition well. acts production yield "the existence, authenticity, custody items [the seek]." 41. Even actions however, petitioner's fail 29 incriminating. 598 (1896) (noting directly show infamy, disgrace bound answer"). claim 30 "`reasonable ground apprehend [T]he apprehended appreciable, reference things, imaginary unsubstantial character, having extraordinary barely contingency, improbable suffer influence conduct.'" 599-600 Queen Boyes, B. & 311, 330, 121 Eng. Rep. 730, 738 (Q. 1861) (Cockburn, J.)). 31 445 compulsory "protects used." Suspects immunity may, therefore, answer; removed, them. 453. 32 "would prosecute" 486 (1951). best tell, today, explain how case. 33 narrow important. One's is, definition, unique; yet sense, universal characteristic. scheme things 555 (1990) (suggesting "fact[s] readily establish" render regarding existence authenticity [of them] insufficiently incriminating"); cf. Byers, 402 424, 432 (1971) Burger, J.). every case, tried. Pennsylvania Muniz, 496 582, 601-602 (principal Brennan, witnesses plan invoke names stand. Still, arise offense. and, 34 Affirmed. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Civil Liberties Steven Shapiro, Lawrence Lustberg, Mark A. Berman; Cato Timothy Lynch Christine Klein; National Center Homelessness Poverty et al. Carter G. Phillips, Edward McNicholas, Rebecca K. Troth; John Gilmore Harrison. amici affirmance Criminal Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson; Association Police Organizations Bertocchi Philip Allen Lacovara. Electronic Frontier Weisberg; Privacy Information Marc Rotenberg Sobel; Activism William Simpich. 35 dissenting. 36 issue imposes speak upon specific class individuals. includes crime"1 are, words, targets investigation. therefore directed "at large," rather highly selective group inherently activities." Albertson Subversive Activities Control Bd., 382 70, 79 (1965). 37 member targeted "may answer" except command "identify himself."2 Refusal oneself punishable crime.3 Presumably detainee Legislature realized target statement. my judgment, remain silent, derives guarantee himself,"4 circumscribed suggests, admit even exception defined 38 "[T]here doubt available proceedings protect settings freedom curtailed significant way themselves." 436, 467 "settled principle" citizens voluntarily unsolved crimes," "they answer." Davis Mississippi, 394 721, 727, (1969). squarely toward focus government's prosecutorial powers. trial, indicted defendant unqualified testify punished invoking right. Kentucky, 450 288, 299-300 (1981). unindicted grand jury enjoys same protection served subpoena. Chavez Martinez, 538 760, 767-768 So interrogation station. 467. 39 There reason mere than cause, lesser protection. Indeed, said apply equal force stops, "must `reasonably justification stop's] initiation.'" (1984) (some internal quotation omitted). "Typically, moderate number try information confirming dispelling suspicions. But respond." (White, concurring) ("Of course, although alert observation"). Given respond officers' surprise assumed, we, 40 correctly observes enjoy testimonial. declines question, ante, 189, I think testimonial communication. Recognizing "difficult question," 214-215 (1988), generally "[i]t `extortion accused,' attempt `to contents mind,' implicates Self-Incrimination Clause," 211 (citations "[t]he vast majority verbal thus extent least, fall within privilege," 213-214, certain physical privilege.5 instances, afforded admitted content aspect communication.6 41 Considered precedents, statement clearly made posed officer. recently explained, albeit Confrontation Clause, "[w]hatever else term [`testimonial'] covers, applies minimum interrogations." Crawford Washington, 541 36, 68 (2004). Surely questioning qualifies interrogation, follows responses nature. 42 Rather concludes "incriminating." Ante, 189. "incriminating" much broader sense suggests. "long settled Amendment's] encompasses discovery though themselves introduced into evidence." By meant "could used," communications, claimant federal crime," Thus, "[c]ompelled `lead evidence' privileged inculpatory." Doe, 208, 6). 43 understanding category communications protected. assume "name [a] him." 190 (internal it? And crime"?7 correct, cooperate impede accept predicate Court's holding, useless invasion privacy. contrary, useful tool, very demonstrates value demands. 44 person's obviously bears informational worth, "even [name] 38. key array person, access range databases. turn, tremendously prosecution. quite wrong suggest "only circumstances." 45 told "he identification." 181. investigation, view, acted opted mute. Accordingly, respectfully dissent. 46 GINSBURG join, 47 Notwithstanding refers, 183-184, precedents limits. one limits invalidates questioning. 48 police, frisk all. "`right possession control person.'" Pacific Co. Botsford, 141 250, 251 (1891)). At circumstances, safety limited "seizure," will. consequently set forth conditions circumscribing include "reasonable suspicion" 20-22. White, conditions. wrote: "Of observation." 49 About years lacked particular 53. trial judge following: "`I'm sure [officers stop] everything possibly out. What I'm asking what's putting jail doesn't want ...'" 54 (Appendix Court) (emphasis original). concurrence. "need decide" matter. 50 Then, five wrote "officer [Terry] added). 365 (1983) (Brennan, (Terry put him"); Illinois Wardlow, 528 119, 125 (2000) (stating fleeing stay silent questioning"). 51 lengthy history opinions, references, technically dicta, kind community typically takes remained undisturbed years. reject generation-old sound rooted considerations adhering condition authority 192-196 (STEVENS, dissenting). Administrative militate change. Can addition "What's your name?" number?" "Where you live?" officer, keep track answers? all, incriminate, depending 53 points out, "Killer Bill" "Rough 'em Harry" offense." reserves compulsion permissible instances. How midst distinguish between majority's special judgment? presents rule enunciated nearly generation Terry-stop condition, significantly interfered enforcement. Nor convincing begin erode exceptions. 55 171.123(1) (2003) 199.280, makes resis[t], dela[y] obstruc[t] office." provision dangerous weapon Due Process Clause. SeeMalloy Hogan, 378 (1964). made, blood sample,Schmerber California, 757, 765 (1966), voice exemplar, Dionisio, 410 (1973), handwriting sample, Gilbert 388 263, 266-267 (1967). SeePennsylvania 598-599 (respondent's "birthday question" protected "content truthful supported inference faculties impaired"); 211, (1988) significance"); Fisher 425 391, 410-411 (1976) ("[H]owever accountant's workpapers be, act producing thing taxpayer involve self-incrimination"); Gilbert, written, like body identifying characteristic protection"); Wade, 218, 223 (1967) ("[I]t deserves emphasis admissibility anything Wade lineup privilege"). suggests allows others. Seeante, 186. immediately concern sufficiently alleviated perform patdown search weapons. 25-26

Category: 0