The Hiibel Case: Not a big deal or a disturbing precedent?

Great Debates
1

First off, IANAL.

When I first heard about this decision on NPR I was very disturbed by it. After reading the details of the case (i.e. “Terry stops” and reasonable suspicion) I am less disturbed but I still have problems with it.

Here is a somewhat fanciful picture: Imagine a world similar to the one presented in the movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise. In this movie people are readily identified by automated eye-scans at large distances making possible targeted marketing by corporations and the tracking of criminals (and law abiding citizens) by the police or other government agencies. I’m sure you can already see where I am going with this…

The real time identification eye-scan technology in Minority Report will not be available for a long time at best (assuming it is a positive technology) and is a pipe dream at worst*. That said, there are groups out there successfully working on identification using pattern recognition of facial features (I will find cites if requested – there was some controversy around this technology at the Super Bowl several years ago).

Now let’s take this ruling to its logical (?) conclusion. Several years from now most police departments will have their cities wired with video surveillance cameras similar to those in widespread use in the UK (some US cities already do – again I will try to provide cites on this if requested). Coupled with the widespread surveillance is software which could have the ability to automatically identity civilians being recorded and could also potentially keep a database of civilian movement (anybody here a Gibson fan?). Could this ruling possibly be extended to make it illegal to wear a fake beard or a veil or even sunglasses in public as this is, in effect, the same as refusing to give your name to the authorities?

Please keep comments on my paranoia to a minimum. I know I’m going pretty far out there with these scenarios, but this was the train of though I had regarding this decision when I first heard about it.

  • Probably not a pipe dream. The necessity of having a large aperture imaging system to be able to resolve the relevant features of the eye at a distance of 10 feet could possibly be overcome with an array of apertures and a coherent light source. Keeping a database of every persons eye features and being able to access it quickly at a multitude of locations is another kettle of fish.
2

Link to the case, for those who are interested.

3

Thanks Dewey.

4

You’ve at least read it, which is more than I can say for some commenters on other boards who see this as the end of civil liberties as we know it, and the beginning of “papers, please?”.

Not to say that it’s absolutely impossible that this is the start of a slippery slope, but I’ve seen a lot of overreaction.

5

At least the ruling was narrow in its scope. The only thing I must provide to a police officer who stops me is my name, and the Supreme Court declined to address what to do in the rare cases where providing your own name all by itself could be incriminating.

After I say my name I am free to decline to answer any other question put forth by the officer.

6

What happens if you give a false name, though? I havn’t seen any words on that.

7

In Illinois the decision is essentially moot anyway, an officer can, upon his or her discretion, (and with proper probable cause) stop you, and ask for your name, while in the legitimate course of an investigation.

You may indeed (prior to the decision of course) decline to give it, or perhaps give an alias. This meant that you can be held for a maximum of 48 hours for investigation of obstruction of justice. You were then fingerprinted and correctly identified.

While in the investigation of one potential crime, an officer discovers another, he or she is compelled to investigate that crime. For instance, if I walk up to you, because you match the description of a robbery suspect. Before I am able to ask you your information, the baggie of weed that you jocked when you saw me coming falls out of your pantleg. I can see from another set of descriptors that you’re not my guy, however now that I found the weed, you’re busted.

Seems this ruling justifies the steps we here in Il. were taking all along, it’s far from a slippery slope. Cops today have, believe it or not, way LESS authority than they did even 15 years ago, way LESS autonomy not more. Technology will provide solutions never before available, what we do with the information, however, will very likely not change.

E-Sabbath, that’s obstruction of justice, however you’ve got to have the PC to be there in the first place. If I approach someone, and ask them their name for no reason at all, and they lie to me, technically, they’re off the hook, since I don’t have a reason to ask. Thing is, usually, they don’t know that, and are essentially tricked into giving their names. People are vastly unaware of their rights here, and the cops use that to excess advantage, believe me.

8

The decision is not moot in Illinois. Had the Court ruled another way, someone stopped with proper probable cause could still refuse to identify himself, under the theory that providing his name incriminated him, and Illinois’ law would have been struck down.

Nevada had a law similar to Illinois’, and this law was at issue in this case.

  • Rick
9

anecdotal data:had a friend who did two weeks in county for this.

it pisses the cops off beyond measure.

10

Also highly inadvisable because, from what I understand, you are billed for the expenses incurred while you are in jail.

11

In just about every jurisdiction I know of you can/will be charged with obstruction even if you haven’t committed any other crime.

The Hiibel case doesn’t mean that cops can walk up to just any person on the street and demand their name. This only applys when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed (Terry stop).

12

Actually, it’s more that about half the time, I’ll offer my nickname rather than my name.

Let’s say… it’s “Bubba”. Officer asks for my name, do I have to answer William Jefferson Clinton, or are Bill, Bill Clinton, or Bubba sufficient answers? What if I say “Jeff” Or Jeff Clinton?

13

Yeah but. The Court didn’t rule another way, I think opining about what they ‘could have done’ is as moot as what they actually did, especially regarding Illinois.

IMO, the slippery slope arguement is flimsy at best. Cops, like the criminals they chase, can find ways around pretty much everything except precise procedure that leaves no room for variance, there’s all sorts of ways to get around the current rules and regs.