The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**Aguila Blanca** · May 25, 2012, 06:15 PM

Re: BuzzCook's post (no. 84):

You have the right case, but your post is misleading. Mr. Hiibel wasn't approached at random -- the officer who asked him who he was had been dispatched to investigate a report of a man beating up a woman in a pickup truck. Hiibel fit the description -- as did his truck ... which should come as no surprise, since it was indeed Mr. Hiibel who was the subject of the report. So the officer wasn't "fishing," he had sufficient information to justify at least an investigatory stop, if not an arrest.

Secondly, which you fail to mention and perhaps did not pick up on, the state where this occurred has a state law that requires individuals to identify themselves to police officers upon request. Hiibel refused to tell the officer who he was, so he was arrested under the state law that was in effect at the time. Hiibel's Supreme Court appeal was an attempt to have the SCOTUS declare the state law requiring people to identify themselves as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS declined to do so.

The case was NOT about producing documentation of his identity. All he had to do was say, "My name is Larry Hiibel, am I free to leave?"

I don't know how many states have a law requiring that you give an officer your name if asked. I'm pretty certain it's not all states, but I don't have a guess as to the percentage.

May 25, 2012, 06:15 PM	#92
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	Re: BuzzCook's post (no. 84): You have the right case, but your post is misleading. Mr. Hiibel wasn't approached at random -- the officer who asked him who he was had been dispatched to investigate a report of a man beating up a woman in a pickup truck. Hiibel fit the description -- as did his truck ... which should come as no surprise, since it was indeed Mr. Hiibel who was the subject of the report. So the officer wasn't "fishing," he had sufficient information to justify at least an investigatory stop, if not an arrest. Secondly, which you fail to mention and perhaps did not pick up on, the state where this occurred has a state law that requires individuals to identify themselves to police officers upon request. Hiibel refused to tell the officer who he was, so he was arrested under the state law that was in effect at the time. Hiibel's Supreme Court appeal was an attempt to have the SCOTUS declare the state law requiring people to identify themselves as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS declined to do so. The case was NOT about producing documentation of his identity. All he had to do was say, "My name is Larry Hiibel, am I free to leave?" I don't know how many states have a law requiring that you give an officer your name if asked. I'm pretty certain it's not all states, but I don't have a guess as to the percentage.