About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

70 Mo. L. Rev. 879 (2005)
Stop...in the Name of Identification: The Supreme Court Approves Stop and ID

handle is hein.journals/molr70 and id is 889 raw text is: Stop ... in the Name of Identification: The Supreme Court Approves Stop and ID Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County' I. INTRODUCTION In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, the United States Supreme Court directly confronted the Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns inherent in Stop and ID statutes, answering questions that it had declined to address in previous challenges to these laws.2 Stop and ID statutes provide police officers the power to demand that a suspect provide his or her name, address, and an explanation of conduct, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.3 The Court viewed Hiibel's constitutional challenges to the application of Nevada's Stop and ID statute in light of its previous considerations of simi- lar laws.4 The Court had previously focused on vagueness issues and dis- cussed Terry concerns including reasonable suspicion,5 but left open some questions about the effect of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, individual privacy, and self-incrimination on Stop and ID laws.6 The Court essentially balanced the government's claim of necessity for law enforcement against the individual's right to privacy in favor of the former.7 Most importantly, but most easily overlooked, the Court focused on the initial reasonableness of the stop and the reasonableness of the relationship between the identification request and the initial encounter.8 The Court's reasoning triggered the most criticism from the dissent on self-incrimination grounds.9 The dissent also questioned the statute's justifi- cation in light of previous precedent.'0 Beyond the policy debate surrounding the necessity of Stop and ID laws, which propoents justify as promoting officer safety and respect, the Court did not determine just how far compelled 1. 542 U.S. 177 (2004). 2. Id. 3. See, e.g., 725 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/107-14 (1991); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 22- 2402.1 (1995); Mo. REv. STAT. § 84.710.2 (2000); N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW § 140.50.1 (McKinney 2004). 4. Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 183-84. 5. See infra notes 59-62 and accompanying text. 6. Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 183-84. 7. Id. at 187-88. 8. Id. at 188-89. 9. Id. at 192-96 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 10. Id. at 197-99 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most