October Term 2003 · Docket 03-5554
Does the Fourth Amendment allow police to force a detained person to state their name?
The dispute centers on whether a state law requiring detained individuals to identify themselves violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case contends that the government's safety argument relies on a false assumption.
the opposing side asserts that identification advances officer safety and effective law enforcement.
the opposing side claims that requiring a name is a minimal intrusion on personal privacy.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-35 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-4 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-4
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the tension between officer safety and individual privacy during lawful detentions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-35 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 22, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-4 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-4
What each side wants
the side that brought the case seeks a ruling that forcing identification violates the Fourth Amendment.
the opposing side seeks a ruling that requiring identification is a reasonable police practice.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-35 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-35
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that compelling a person to speak their name is an unreasonable intrusion.
the opposing side argues that requiring identification is a minimal intrusion that protects officers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-35 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-35
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to confirm the correct pronunciation of the client's name.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-4 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-4
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of police authority during routine street encounters. It determines whether citizens must verbally identify themselves to officers. The outcome shapes the balance between public safety and personal liberty.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-35 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-35
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-4 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-4
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-35 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-35 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-35
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.