Media reaction to the Hiibel case makes it sound like the Supreme Court just legalized the telescreen. In reality, the Hiibel decision is not a big deal. Why? Laws have been on the books in almost every state requiring a person to identify himself to the police if asked. The Supreme Court has merely upheld the legality of these laws through Terry v. Ohio. The Terry case ruled that police could detain people under "reasonable suspicion" and ask them what they were doing in such a suspicious place at a suspicious time. The Supreme Court has said that state laws requiring people to identify themselves to the police are constitutional -- no more, no less. The story from Wired News makes no mention that the arresting officer in Hiibel's case did have "reasonable suspicion" and that he was not standing around, minding his own business. CNN's story is pretty much the same.

This is not a case of "in these trying times in which we live . . ." No! It has nothing to do with terrorism. This case would have been decided this way whether or not we were in the middle of a War on Terrorism. Remember: the Hiibel scenario was law for thirty years before anyone complained about it. It's a relatively small case whose ramifications will no doubt continue to be unimportant.