|HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. (03-5554) 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed.
[ Kennedy ]
[ Stevens ]
[ Breyer ]
LARRY D. HIIBEL, PETITIONER v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
[June 21, 2004]
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
Notwithstanding the vagrancy statutes to which the majority refers, see ante, at 45, this Courts Fourth Amendment precedents make clear that police may conduct a Terry stop only within circumscribed limits. And one of those limits invalidates laws that compel responses to police questioning.
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the
Court considered whether police, in the absence of probable
cause, can stop, question, or frisk an individual at all. The
Court recognized that the Fourth Amendment
About 10 years later, the Court, in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), held that police lacked any reasonable suspicion to detain the particular petitioner and require him to identify himself. Id., at 53. The Court noted that the trial judge had asked the following: Im sure [officers conducting a Terry stop] should ask everything they possibly could find out. What Im asking is whats the States interest in putting a man in jail because he doesnt want to answer . . . . Id., at 54 (Appendix to opinion of the Court) (emphasis in original). The Court referred to Justice Whites Terry concurrence. 443 U.S., at 53, n. 3. And it said that it need not decide the matter. Ibid.
Then, five years later, the Court
wrote that an officer may ask the [Terry] detainee
a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to
try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the
officers suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged
to respond. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439
(1984) (emphasis added). See also Kolender v.
U.S. 352, 365 (1983) (Brennan, J., concurring) (Terry
suspect must be free to . . . decline to answer the
questions put to him); Illinois v. Wardlow,
528 U.S. 119, 125
(2000) (stating that allow-
ing officers to stop and question a fleeing person is quite consistent with the individuals right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning).
This lengthy historyof concurring opinions, of references, and of clear explicit statementsmeans that the Courts statement in Berkemer, while technically dicta, is the kind of strong dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law. And that law has remained undisturbed for more than 20 years.
There is no good reason now to reject this generation-old statement of the law. There are sound reasons rooted in Fifth Amendment considerations for adhering to this Fourth Amendment legal condition circumscribing police authority to stop an individual against his will. See ante, at 16 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Administrative considerations also militate against change. Can a State, in addition to requiring a stopped individual to answer Whats your name? also require an answer to Whats your license number? or Where do you live? Can a police officer, who must know how to make a Terry stop, keep track of the constitutional answers? After all, answers to any of these questions may, or may not, incriminate, depending upon the circumstances.
Indeed, as the majority points out, a name itselfeven if it is not Killer Bill or Rough em up Harrywill sometimes provide the police with a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. Ante, at 1213. The majority reserves judgment about whether compulsion is permissible in such instances. Ante, at 13. How then is a police officer in the midst of a Terry stop to distinguish between the majoritys ordinary case and this special case where the majority reserves judgment?
The majority presents no evidence
that the rule enunciated by Justice White and then by the
Berkemer Court, which for nearly a generation has set
forth a settled Terry-
stop condition, has significantly interfered with law enforcement. Nor has the majority presented any other convincing justification for change. I would not begin to erode a clear rule with special exceptions.
I consequently dissent.