Skip navigation

Cops can demand ID, high court rules

  Clinton to appear on 'Meet the Press'

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joins David Gregory from Asia for an in-depth interview on the foreign policy challenges facing the Obama administration including Afghanistan, Iraq and the U.S. image abroad.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
AFP-Getty Images
NBC Video: Politics
Palin: VP nod ‘didn’t come as a huge shock’
  Nov. 14: Amid a growing backdrop of buzz and speculation, NBC’s Mike Viquiera takes an early look at the former GOP vice presidential candidate’s soon-to-be released memoir.

Slideshow
  The Week in Political Cartoons
Msnbc.com’s political cartoonists take a look back at the past week.

more photos

updated 10:47 a.m. ET June 21, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won’t cooperate by revealing their identity.

The decision was a defeat for privacy rights advocates who argued that the government could use this power to force people who have done nothing wrong to submit to fingerprinting or divulge more personal information.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.

The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher’s misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn’t have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.

Larry “Dudley” Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote last year.

What's in a name?
Justices agreed in a unique ruling that addresses just what’s in a name.

The ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities.

Justices had been asked to rule that forcing someone to give police their name violated a person’s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that it violated neither.

“Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests,” Kennedy wrote.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sponsored links

Resource guide