HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA
Hey StuckinChico,
Hiibel v. Nevada is a good case. Defendent Hiibel lost his appeal because the police
did have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime was afoot. SCOTUS made it clear in Hiibel, that in order for a "Stop and ID" statute to be Constitutional,
police must first have a legitimate reason for a "Terry Hot Stop" (Terry v. Ohio).
Kolender v. Lawson is a very good case because it pretty much requires the cops to have PC or RAS to detain and then require ID from a person who is "loitering or walking". In Kali, PC 148 only requires an ID if the cop has PC for arrest, not RAS for detention.
From Hiibel v. Nevada:
"Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person
detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
(underline and blue font added by me)"
From Kolender v. Lawson:
"Lawson then brought a civil action in the District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that 647(e) is unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction to restrain enforcement of the statute, and compensatory and punitive damages against the various officers who detained him. The District Court found that 647(e) was overbroad because
"a person who is stopped on less than probable cause cannot be punished for failing to identify himself." App. to Juris. Statement A-78. The District Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, but held that Lawson could not recover damages because the officers involved acted in the good-faith belief that each detention or arrest was lawful.
(Blue font and underline added by me)"
markm
