Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County

Media Items
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Sri Srinivasan (argued the cause for Respondents, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)
Conrad Hafen (argued the cause for Respondents)
Robert E. Dolan (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
03-5554
Petitioner: 
Larry D. Hiibel
Respondent: 
Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al.
Opinion: 
542 U.S. 177 (2004)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County , 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_5554)
Facts of the Case: 

Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault. Nevada, and many other states, has a law that requires a person to tell an officer his name if asked. Hiibel challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The state intermediate court and Supreme Court rejected his argument in affirming the conviction.

Question: 

Did Hiibel's arrest and conviction for not telling a police officer his name violate his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion (the police officer was investigating the assault, and Hiibel was nearby) and involved only a minimally intrusive question (his name). It also did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Hiibel never argued that telling the officer his name would actually incriminate him of any crime. Justice Kennedy wrote, "While we recognize petitioner's strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature's judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him."

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court