Analysis of Hiibel Vs. Nevada Case - Term Paper Example

 Case Study: Hiibel vs. Nevada Introduction The states enacted some vagrancy laws which go by the name of stop and identify laws and simultaneously the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution were also passed, to ensure that the rights of privacy and protection from incrimination of innocent citizens are upheld. The rulings and dissents of the cases in Hiibel vs. Nevada, Brown vs. Texas, and Terry vs. Ohio seem to clarify the vagrancy laws that are in force in US after it has been enacted and enforced by the different states of US and at the same time when the limitation to such laws in the form of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment had been applied to it. Implication of the Rulings and Dissenting Opinion In Hiibel vs. Nevada the court held that the stop and identify laws of Nevada does not violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the constitution, which protects a person against detention or when a person faces threat of being apprehended (Hibbel v. Nevada…). Thus majority of the court supported the fact that stopping a person and asking for identity did not violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, when circumstances showed that there is a probable cause to believe that the accused may have committed a crime and the accused was not in danger of being apprehended by disclosing his identity. The dissent showed that some judges opined otherwise. In Terry vs. Ohio the court held that police officers can stop and search a person even when there is no probable cause and there is reasonable suspicion. In such case the search won’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Whereas, in Brown vs. Texas it was held that the Texas’s stop and identify law was unconstitutional as it violated the Fourth Amendment. Though, Brown vs. Texas seems to be going against the decision of the previous two cases but it is actually not so. The Texas law declared every person a criminal who does not identify himself. It does not exclude the person against whom there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and this makes it unconstitutional. On the other hand Hiibel vs. Nevada and Terry vs. Ohio had probable cause and reasonable cause respectively. Thus, the law derived through the dissent is, when there is probable cause and reasonable cause the application of stop and identify laws by the officer will be absolutely legal and when it not there it will be illegal. The dissent also makes it clear that on the same condition the stop and identify laws of the state will be valid or invalid. Conflict Between Hiibbel and Brown It may be surprising to see the court upheld a decision that declared that Nevada stop and identify law was not unconstitutional, when the court invalidated the Texas’s stop and identify law in Brown vs. Texas previously. Both laws appear to be superficially similar and this makes the decision to appear as conflicting. But it is a fact that though the two laws appear to be same in two cases, they are not same in reality. The Nevada law has a limited application which is to empower the police officers to stop and ask for identity, which is limited to getting the name of the person. Conversely, the Texas law has a much broader application which was to make any person, who does not give his identity when asked for, to be deemed to have committed a criminal offence. The Nevada law does not make an act criminal, if a person refuses to give his identity when there is no reasonable suspicion against the person. But the Texas law makes an act criminal even when a person refuses to give his identity, when there is no reasonable cause of suspicion against him. Thus, Texas law is a direct violation of the courts rule of reasonable cause and the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the Texas law does not protect innocent person from being stopped and questioned for identification in a case where there is no reasonable cause for such. Furthermore, the Nevada law ask for the name of the person only, whereas, the Texas law is not limited to the name but can also ask for any documents to verify the identity of the person. Diverse Policy Interests in Hiibbel and other Cases There were different competing policy interests involved in Hiibel vs. Nevada, which may be the policy to protect the interest of the state to enforce the laws and apprehend the offenders. The other policy interest may be the policy to protect the interest of the people upon whom the law is to be enforced. The policy should be such as it keeps a balance between the interests of the private people as well as the interest of the state. The policy established by the majority opinion of the court was to protect the interest of the state, as declaring the Nevada stop and identify law to be constitutional would lead to rigorous checking of citizens. While the dissenting groups policy was to favor the citizens. A case widely mentioned in Hiibel vs. Nevada, which though struck down the Texas stop and identify law was Brown vs. Texas. The policy in this case as adopted by the side giving the ruling was to make the police searches, which has been conducted without any reasonable cause to be declared as illegal and the laws which supported such searches to be declared as unconstitutional. This would protect the interest of the citizens when it comes to protecting right of privacy. Similarly, Kolender vs. Lawson had the same question involved but with the law of a different state, which was whether California Stop and indentify law was unconstitutional. The policy was to declare police searches and laws authorizing it, illegal and constitutionally void in case it was not sanctioned by probable cause. Analysis and Probable Opinion of the Case The issue of Hibbel vs. Nevada is whether police officers can arrest a person in case the person refuses to identify himself in the street, when the person is lawfully stopped for questioning (Hibel v. Sixth, 2004). The court need not determine whether there was reasonable suspicion to satisfy the fourth amendment requirements or whether the statute is unconstitutional, as the circumstances showed there was reasonable suspicion and the petitioner never alleged that the statute was unconstitutional. What was to be seen was whether the officer’s action violated Hiibels fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Hibbel had a right of not to be arrested unless there was probable cause for his arrest. Looking at the facts of the case probable cause cannot be found in this case as the police officer Dove completed little investigation before arresting Hiibel (Warner, 2006). Moreover, the police officers act of asking the name of Hibbel may be taken as violation of the Fifth Amendment. In the circumstances of Hibbel, disclosing his name would surely lead to criminal conviction or detention and it is a fact that a persons name can give access to wide range of information which can be used against him (Warner, 2006). Conclusion This leads to the conclusion that Hiibbel should have been stopped, asked for identification and at the most detained, under his circumstances, but he should not have been arrested. References Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al. Retrieved from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-5554 Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. (2004). Retrieved from: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/hiibel-v-sixth-judicial-district-court-state-nevada Warner, J. G. (2006). Dudley do wrong: an analysis of a “stop and identify” statute in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Akron Law Review, 39(245). Retrieved from: http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v39/docs/Warner391.pdf Read More