Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada an entity of type: Thing
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al.
xsd:integer
741881
xsd:integer
1012343831
rdf:langString
Rehearing denied, .
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Souter, Ginsburg
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas
rdf:langString
U.S. Const. amends. IV, V; Nev. Rev. Stat. ยง 171.123
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
177
xsd:integer
542
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-22
xsd:integer
2004
rdf:langString
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-21
xsd:integer
2004
rdf:langString
Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al.
rdf:langString
Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment.
rdf:langString
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
rdf:langString
Kennedy
rdf:langString
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name. The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights since he did not articulate a reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was an articulated reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating. The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
18623