On May 21, 2000, a Nevada citizen named Larry Hiibel was arrested. Hiibel had been approached by a officer at his parked truck after a phone call was made that he might have possibly assaulted his female passenger. The police officer proceeded to ask Hiibel for his name, in which he refused to answer. After asking Hiibel 11 different times for his name, he was then arrested, charged with resisting an officer and taken into police custody. Hiibel fought back against the state of Nevada and argued that his civil liberties had been unrightfully threatened, and demanded a trial. I believed the court made the correct decision in ruling that Nevada did not violate his civil rights.
Hiibel’s argument stated that the officer had intruded on his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, which in his mind, gave him the lawful right to not answer the officer’s question. The court argued that the Fourth Amendment would only protect in a unreasonable search and seizure. The officer’s own safety comes into play, as well as the public’s. Asking for his name was only a reasonable precaution done by the officer under common law, which made it a requirement for Hiibel to identify himself. He did not have the right to refuse to identify himself under the Fourth Amendment. Hiibel’s other argument was that the Fifth Amendment protected his civil right to not testify against himself. Stating his name wasn’t considered a testimonial. Providing his name was just used as a form of providing the officer with a identity which would aid in furthering his investigation in Hiibel’s suspicious behavior and being provided with any previous criminal record that would allow him to handle the situation in a better manner. Hiibel was lawfully detained and once again did not have the right to not answer the officer when asked for a name. With all the facts and evidence provided in the court case of Hiibel V. Nevada, I believe the court made the correct decision. Hiibel’s excuse was not valid in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document