Demand for Identification

In 2004, the Court decided Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District, which held that that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. This was a 5-4 judgment with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion.

This map goes from Grady back to Brown v. Texas. This choice of network anchor was based on this quote from Hiibel: "The Court has recognized similar constitutional limitations on the scope and operation of stop and identify statutes. In Brown v. Texas,, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity."

This network thus features cases that develop the "seizure" concept in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Please note that the embedded map shows the three-degree network using a Spaeth projection. Click the map to view other options.