Talk:Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Opening heading

Why doesn't the Wikipedia use standard legal citation forms?

We try to, but if you're referring to using full words in case names rather than Bluebook abbreviations, I personally think at least it's better to avoid using abbreviations that aren't commonly used outside the legal profession because no one but lawyers will know what they refer to. Is there another issue you had? Postdlf 02:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The disclaimer. Thanks for the heads up; I didn't know there was already such a document created. Because the external links section includes a link to third-party legal advice, I felt it prudent to warn readers that Wikipedia doesn't warrant the accuracy of the information. It certainly is easier to just point to a standardized, pre-approved message. ---Axios023 04:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer is still a self-reference, and those should generally be avoided. The disclaimer should cover it. --Transfinite (Talk) 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose the thing that will satisfy both of us is to remove the links to partisan information.---Axios023 06:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "privilege". In the law, a "privilege" is a legal right to refuse to do something the law would otherwise require you to do, or the legal right to do something the law forbids you to do. In the context of this case, in which a right under the Fifth Amendment is involved, it is appropriate to speak of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.---Axios023 02:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of “stop-and-identify” laws

If the Indiana law requires a citation, so do the Arizona and Ohio laws. I've added these citations, as well as citations for the laws mentioned in Hiibel. Although it saves the reader the need to go to the Stop and identify statutes article, it does have the drawback of creating two lists of links to be maintained. I've preserved this article's list style, but a good argument could be made for using the same style for both this and the Stop and identify statutes article so that one of the two articles could be updated and the results simply copied to the other. JeffConrad (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to eliminate the list from this page, as it's unnecessarily duplicative of the Stop and Identify statutes article. Jkatzen (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree; that actually was my first thought. I don't think it really matters which “stop-and-identify” laws were mentioned in the opinion; a state either has such a law or it does not. But I'm OK with whichever way people want it. If the list is eliminated, should it be replaced with a sentence specifically directing the reader to the Stop and identify statutes article or should it be assumed the reader will figure this out own on her own? JeffConrad (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the list and added a note with a reference to the Stop and identify statutes article; see if this works. JeffConrad (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Hiibel

It might be accurate to say something like:

“Mimi Hiibel tried to hurriedly leave the truck and was thrown to the ground by Trooper Merschel. Deputy Dove came to assist Merschel; Mimi screamed and struggled as one of the offficers held her down and the other handcuffed her.”

The actions of Mimi and Trooper Merschel may illustrate that Mimi is a bit hotheaded and Merschel given to excessive use of force, but they really have nothing to do with the case. Inclusion of the information simply distracts from the main issue. JeffConrad (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Amendment holding

I think 72.181.155.223 makes a valid point that the Court did not completely resolve all Fifth Amendment questions. But the Court indeed held that Hiibel's conviction did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights, and I think to omit this is misleading and ostensibly conflicts with the head notes and the text of the opinion. Justice Kennedy stated

“Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow.” (577 U.S., at 191)

Accordingly, we probably should qualify what we say about the holding. Perhaps we should just say something to the effect that the Court upheld Hiibel's conviction because he gave no reason why giving his name would incriminate him, but (at least in theory) left open the possibility that the Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in circumstances in which providing identity could be incriminating, and support it with the quotation above. I'm willing to give this a shot, but I'd like to hear what others think first. Practically, I question the assertion of a privilege that can only apply when not asserting it would likely be incriminating; it would seem to me that the assertion would then be incriminating per se. JeffConrad (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the lead section to qualify the Fifth Amendment holding; see if it works. In one sense, the Court reserved judgment on the Fifth Amendment issue, but the opinion strongly implies that a name would seldom be incriminating. JeffConrad (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Death

Larry Hiibel died in June last year, at least year of birth and death should be mentioned (1944-2016): https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=165155360 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.16.52.176 (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to the case? The article isn't about him as an individual. Also, Find a Grave is not considered a reliable source because its content is user-generated. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant to the case per se, and the article is not about the person behind that case, correct. But the case can probably considered to be a landmark decision, year of birth and death of this man can be mentioned in 'Background of the case'. Out of politeness and maybe respect for people is why you do it, you might have heard of this. A FaG link is often found at wp as a source, in biographical articles to be honest it fits best to use them. As long as salon.com, gizmodo.com, and diverse other such sites, featuring opinion pieces, are considered plausible sources at wp reliability of a FaG link as source is not in question to me. You may also find an obituary pretty easily and prove those who create FaG entries wrong. I hope you understand your words can be sounding rude, even if you perhaps didn't want this to happen. I think I gave the hint, up to you what to do with the information provided.

United States v. Landeros

I haven't had time to read the 9th Circuit's opinion yet, but based on the Identity Project's update it seems relevant as a follow-up. Legoktm (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“portions of the statute were voided by the court

due to such statutes being vague”

@Fluffy89502: Which portions? soibangla (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already reverted as the Court actually expressly said the opposite. See my note on their talk page. postdlf (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]