Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court Of Nevada, Humboldt County

1003 Words3 Pages
Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court Of
Nevada, Humboldt County
Citation: 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
Case Facts: The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, responded to a 911 call that reported an assault. The 911 caller reported witnessing a man assaulting a woman while driving a GMC truck on a local road. The sheriff’s department responded by sending Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove to investigate. The deputy arrived to the reported area and found the truck parked on the side of the road with a man standing next to it. The deputy approached the truck and explained to the man that he was investigating a 911 call. The deputy then asked the man for any identification and the man refused to provide the deputy any form of identification. The deputy asked the man a total of 11 times to provide his identification and refused each time. The deputy then warned the man that he was going to arrest him if he did not comply. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and later found out the man was named Larry D. Hiibel. He was charged with "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office" which is a Nevada statute that is referred to as a "stop and identify" statute. Hiibel was convicted of the crime in the Justice Court of Union Township and fined $250. Hiibel then appealed his conviction to the Sixth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Case Issue: Does arresting and convicting someone for not providing their identification to law enforcement officers violate their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves and their Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search?
Case Pr...

... middle of paper ...

...e of law enforcement databases. This information can then be used in a criminal prosecution against that person.
Case Impact on Discretion: The Supreme Court of the United States decision in this case made an impact on discretion in favor of law enforcement and arguably the public. I believe that law enforcement officers should have the discretion to ask a person suspected of committing a crime to identify them self. Without police discretion in asking suspects of to identify the amount of people being brought into custody on unrelated warrants would definitely decrease because officers would not be able to check if they have warrants without identifying them. Also, by identifying someone suspected of a crime, law enforcement officers can check the suspect’s history to see if they any previous charges related to the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

More about Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court Of Nevada, Humboldt County

Open Document