Is there a distinction being drawn between identifying yourself, and producing documentation establishing your identity?
For instance, I sometimes go for a walk around my neighborhood when everyone is asleep to have a cigar and look at the stars. I don’t usually carry my wallet, just my house keys and matches.
If a policeman stopped me and asked me my name, and I told him I was Shodan, and he asked to see my driver’s license, I would respond “Don’t have any with me”. If he asked to accompany me to my house so I could produce it, I would probably refuse. Is that what the statute in this case addresses?
I am trying to balance my desire as a homeowner to have the police keep an eye on my neighborhood, and my desire as a nocturnal walker to not be hassled by the Man. So I am not sure of my reactions to the cited case.
The statute merely requires that a person who’s been detained on reasonable suspicion identify themselves. It doesn’t mandate that any particular identification be carried.
In your hypothetical, you could meet the requirements of the statute by giving your name. You’d be absolutely within your rights to refuse to produce a driver’s license, even if you had it on you.
As I understand it, the requirement to produce a valid driver’s licence is only in force when driving a car, and the purpose is to show that you are qualified to exercise the privilege of driving, not for identification. Although they use it to run a check and be sure you don’t have any outstanding warrants. So, in a way, you are supplying information (your driver’s license number) that can be used against you.
Correct. I’m sure that some enterprising driver somewhere has created case law in which he objected to handing over a driver’s license on Fifth Amendment grounds; I’m equally sure that the argument never went anywhere. Possessing a driver’s license and showing it on demand is a requirement of driving, a privilege that the state is permitted to regulate. Mere walking around in public space is not subject to regulation and requires no sanction from the state.
DSYoungEsq’s arguments above went to the idea that any utterance is protected by the Fifth Amendment. I didn’t agree. But both he and I would agree, I’m sure, that the state may always ask a driver for his license after a valid traffic stop.
I haven’t been around in a while, but I just saw this. I don’t have a scintillating legal arguement to add, but I do have a couple of comments from a unique viewpoint:
Dudley Hiibel is an onery cuss. He’s my uncle… my mother’s younger brother. When I talked to him about this, he just said that he didn’t think he and his daughter yelling at each other was the government’s business. I assure you that he wasn’t analyzing the Bill of Rights at the time of the incident. His daughter Mimi, the driver, is pretty stubborn, too, as you no doubt saw. We all have it in our blood. Pity my husband.
Lee Dove is a dickhead. Fairly well known for it around the area, and he does like to throw his weight around. I doubt he was giving the situation any in-depth analysis either.
Had it not been for the legal implications that interested the ACLU and others who encouraged the suit, I’m sure both Uncle Dud and Lee Dove would have forgotten about this by now.
I have been detained for “lack of papers”. No crime had occurred in the area. It was daylight. I was walking to work on a public sidewalk. I was stopped because I “looked unusual”-- had been walking that route for more than five years, five days a week–hardly unusual by that time.
I was released after about an hour, but I had to “prove” that I officially existed, first. Since I had no money, I didn’t pursue the matter legally.
I do agree, and I am sure that Bricker would agree that the driver can simply refuse to offer the license, for which at a minimum the result would be that the officer could refuse to let the driver drive the car away from the stop. There might also be consequences such as a fine for having failed to produce a license; from a practical standpoint you can’t expect to license an activity if a person isn’t required to offer up that license while doing the activity.
Nitpick: the Supremes are hearing oral argument. Testimony, which is evidence, was heard at the trial in Nevada four years ago. On appeal, the court does not hear new evidence. The reviewing court hears argument on how the law ought to apply to the facts that the trial established.
