Analysis of Hiibel Vs. Nevada Case Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Analysis of Hiibel Vs. Nevada Case - Term Paper Example In Hiibel vs. Nevada, the court held that the stop and identify laws of Nevada does not violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the constitution, which protects a person against detention or when a person faces the threat of being apprehended (Hibbel v. Nevada†¦). Thus the majority of the court supported the fact that stopping a person and asking for identity did not violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment when circumstances showed that there is a probable cause to believe that the accused may have committed a crime and the accused was not in danger of being apprehended by disclosing his identity. The dissent showed that some judges opined otherwise. In Terry vs. Ohio, the court held that police officers can stop and search a person even when there is no probable cause and there is reasonable suspicion. In such case, the search won’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Whereas, in Brown vs. Texas it was held that Texas’s stop and identify law was unconstitutional as it violated the Fourth Amendment. Though, Brown vs. Texas seems to be going against the decision of the previous two cases but it is actually not so. The Texas law declared every person a criminal who does not identify himself. It does not exclude the person against whom there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and this makes it unconstitutional. On the other hand, Hiibel vs. Nevada and Terry vs. Ohio had probable cause and reasonable cause respectively. Thus, the law derived through the dissent is, when there is probable cause and reasonable cause the application of stop and identify laws by the officer will be absolutely legal and when it not the re it will be illegal. The dissent also makes it clear that on the same condition the stop and identify laws of the state will be valid or invalid.