Hiibel was also arrested for the misdemeanor charge of domestic battery. This charge was dismissed at the State’s request, prior to trial. 2 See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164 (1972). 3 Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52-53 (1979). 4 Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 468 (1952) (Douglas, J., dissenting). 5 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) (citing Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)). 6 Id. 7 Id. (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960)). 8 Brown, 443 U.S. at 53 n.3 (“We need not decide whether an individual may be punished for refusing to identify himself in the context of a lawful investigatory stop which satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements.”); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 361-62 n.10 (1983) (<HOLDING>). 9 Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531,
recognizing a substantiveprocedural distinction not at issue here specifically holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule did not apply where an ordinance was held unconstitutional on vagueness grounds holding that a california statute requiring an individual who loitered or wandered the streets to produce credible and reliable identification to an officer upon request of a police officer was unconstitutional on vagueness grounds but refusing to consider whether the statute violated the fourth amendment holding that an alcoholic beverage control officer was a public officer within the meaning of the statute holding that an officer violates the fourth amendment if he unreasonably creates an encounter in which an individual would be unable to react in order to avoid presenting a deadly threat to the officer holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment