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 statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. 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.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • 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 statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. 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. (en)
  • 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. (en)
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2020-01-14 04:18:59Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-31 02:55:41Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-01 01:38:38Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-26 09:11:18Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-11 07:11:43Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-03-15 21:38:23Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 741881 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 18232 (xsd:integer)
  • 18551 (xsd:integer)
  • 18623 (xsd:integer)
  • 18624 (xsd:integer)
  • 18657 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2020-01-14 04:18:54Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-31 02:55:37Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-01 01:38:33Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-26 09:11:13Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-11 07:11:35Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-03-15 21:38:18Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 38 (xsd:integer)
  • 39 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 935695472 (xsd:integer)
  • 986316985 (xsd:integer)
  • 986467816 (xsd:integer)
  • 1002849401 (xsd:integer)
  • 1006135544 (xsd:integer)
  • 1012343831 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • 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 statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. 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. (en)
  • 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. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al. (en)
  • (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of