The Effects of Hiibel on NY State Criminal Law

In order to make some kind of decisions on the given topic let 's have a look at the Amendments 4 and 5 in order to know , what kinds of human rights were touched upon . So

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated , and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause , supported by oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be

seized

The Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital , or otherwise infamous crime , unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury , except in cases arising in the land or naval forces , or in the militia , when in actual service in time of war or public danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself , nor be deprived of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation

Now , let 's have a look at the case with Hiibel

HYPERLINK "http /a257 .g .akamaitech .net /7 /257 /2422 /21june /www .supremecourt us .gov /opinions /03pdf /03-5554 .pdf " \t "_blank " HIIBEL v SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEVADA , HUMBOLDT COUNTY (2004 , US ) 2004 US Lexis 4385 holding that an officer has a right to ask a stopped motorist his name without violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment . From the Syllabus "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 "Held : Petitioner 's conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment 's prohibition on self-incrimination . Pp 3-13 (a ) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of tra-ditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops . They vary from State to State , but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity . In Papachristou v . Jacksonville , 405 U . S . 156 , 167-171 this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms . The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v . Texas , 443 U . S . 47 , 52 , where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds , and in Kolender v . Lawson , 461 U . S . 352 where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California 's modified stop and identify statute that required...