June 21 (Bloomberg) -- Police can arrest criminal suspects for refusing to identify themselves, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a decision that puts new limits on constitutional rights.

The justices, voting 5-4, upheld the 2000 misdemeanor conviction of Larry Hiibel, a Nevada man who refused to give his name to a sheriff's deputy investigating a reported assault.

``The officer's request was a commonsense inquiry,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. ``Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances.''

More than 20 jurisdictions around the country have laws that require people to cooperate with police even if they haven't been charged with a crime. Some states also require people to give their addresses, destinations and explanations for their actions upon request by police.

Lower courts had been split on the powers of police officers when they confront a criminal suspect. A Nevada court upheld a $250 fine imposed on Hiibel under a state law that lets officers demand identification from suspects and punishes violators with up to six months in jail.

Hiibel contended that silence shouldn't lead to imprisonment. He said that the Nevada law violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination and that his arrest amounted to an unreasonable seizure.

`Chain of Evidence'

Kennedy said there still may be a case where there is a ``substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense.''

He said the court wasn't deciding whether such a case would violate a person's right against self-incrimination under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Joining Kennedy's opinion were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Breyer, writing for himself, Souter and Ginsburg, asked whether police could ``also require an answer to `What's your license number?' or `Where do you live?'''

Hiibel ``acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute,'' Stevens wrote in a separate dissent.

Nevada Attorney General Brian E. Sandoval argued that in modern society people don't have a right to keep their names private. The state argued that individuals must provide identification to get a job, borrow money from a bank, attend school or board an airline.

Report of Beating

The issue before the court concerned situations in which police have legal authority to stop and question someone but lack adequate evidence to make an arrest on other grounds.

Hiibel was 50 and unemployed when he was arrested by Humboldt County Deputy Lee Dove in May 2000. The officer was responding to a report that the driver of a red and silver GMC pickup truck was striking a female passenger. Dove then found Hiibel sitting beside his daughter in a truck parked on the side of the road.

Dove suspected that Hiibel was drunk and asked the man for his identification 11 times. After Hiibel repeatedly refused, he was arrested for resisting an officer.

The case is Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court, 03-5554.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 21, 2004 11:30 EDT