The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens cannot refuse to identify themselves when asked their name by police.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court ruled that a Nevada law requiring people to identify themselves to police did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, or the Fifth Amendment’s rules against forcing people to make self-incriminating statements.

However, in a dissent to the majority decision, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “In my judgment, the broad constitutional right to remain silent, which derives from the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee . . . is not as circumscribed as the Court suggests, and does not admit even of the narrow exception defined by the Nevada statute.”

Stevens continued that the “petitioner, in my view, acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute.”

However, the majority said “disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.”

“The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating.”

The case started when Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, a Nevada rancher, refused to identify himself to a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer was investigating a reported assault.

After he refused to identify himself – a right he said he had under the Constitution – Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for violating the state’s “stop and identify” law.

The law says: “Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.”