Fighting for Right Not to Show ID 

Charles Hobson, an attorney for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which filed a friend of the court brief (PDF) in support of the Nevada law, dismissed the argument that the police officer's request for Hiibel's identification constituted an unreasonable search.

"Knowing someone's identity is a very important part of police investigation," Hobson said. "It can allow them to quickly find people who are criminals. For example, if Hiibel had a warrant out for kidnapping that would have been very important to this case."

Story Tools

See also

• The Patriot Act Is Your Friend
• Privacy Is in the House
• Great Taste, Less Privacy
• Keep an eye on Privacy Matters

Today's Top 5 Stories

• Extra! Extra! Read All About You
• Jamming Tags Block RFID Scanners
• Living Life in Virtual Reality
• Greenpeace Founder Green No More
• Buy Offline, Get Spammed Online

Tech Jobs Partner

never settle.

Hobson also pointed out that even under the Nevada law, a police officer cannot arbitrarily stop someone on the street and ask for identification.

The Solicitor General's Office and the National Association of Police Organizations also filed briefs supporting the identification requirement, arguing that it was a necessary and not overly intrusive tool in fighting crime and terrorism.

Though the hearing is still weeks away, the case is already being widely debated in the blogosphere, thanks to the publicity efforts of privacy advocate Bill Scannell.

A diverse group of organizations, including the libertarian Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and the Electronic Frontier Foundation also are backing Hiibel's challenge with friend of the court briefs.

Homeless advocates say an identification requirement unfairly impacts homeless people, who are stopped often by police for suspicious behavior, but many times carry no official identification.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center's brief ties the identification requirement to large-scale law enforcement databases, such as the FBI's criminal database. The problem, according to EPIC staff attorney Marcia Hofmann, is not just that a police officer can use a driver's license to pull up reams of data on a person from massive databases. It's also that the encounter itself will be added to the system, Hofmann said.

"Every little time something like this happens, the police question you and want to know who you are, it's an incident that gets put into a database," Hofmann said. "And there will be a record of it thereafter, regardless of whether you did anything wrong."

A related case, involving privacy advocate John Gilmore's legal challenge to an airline requirement that forces passengers to show identification before boarding a plane, is still pending in a federal district court.

The Supreme Court justices will hear oral arguments on the case March 22, and their decision likely will follow three or four months after.

Have a comment on this article? Send it

More stories written by Ryan Singel