Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Citation and Court
542 U.S. 177 (2004) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Nevada’s stop-and-identify statute required a person detained by an officer with reasonable suspicion to identify himself. Larry Hiibel refused eleven times to give his name to a deputy who had stopped him based on a report of a fight, and was arrested for violating the statute. Hiibel argued that being compelled to disclose his name violated both the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure) and the Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination).
Issue
Does a state stop-and-identify statute that requires a detainee to disclose his name violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendment?
Holding
No; requiring a person to disclose his name during a Terry stop does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendment when the stop itself is lawful and the request is reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
Rule / Doctrine
A state may require a person subject to a lawful Terry stop to identify himself by name. The request is a reasonable inquiry incident to the stop. The Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply where, as in the typical case, providing one’s name is not testimonially incriminating.
Significance
Hiibel upholds stop-and-identify statutes and confirms that police may compel disclosure of a suspect’s name during a Terry stop without violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. It delineates the permissible scope of a Terry stop to include demands for identity, while leaving open cases where identifying oneself would be directly incriminating.