Nebraska v. Haywood Jablome

[snopes]

Comment: Allegedly, in the early 1970's a man was driving in Nebraska and when
stopped by police refused to identify himself properly, asserting instead
that his name was "Haywood Jablome." When the state took him to court in
the matter, saying that when stopped by a cop he was obligated to
correctly identify himself, he fought it and the matter is supposed to
have ended up before the Supreme Court, which handed down a decision in
State of Nebraska vs. Haywood Jablome in favor of the state, confirming
that you must provide your actual identity to the police if stopped.

I don't doubt that you indeed must do so, but it seems unlikely that
someone would fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. I can't find any
evidence one way or the other. What's the truth here?

[Steve]

The joke comes from a Cracked.com article (unless they got it from somewhere else): http://www.cracked.com/article_18385...to-movies.html

[SatansHobbit]

When I worked at Foodland distribution canter, we managed to get Hugh Jorgan elected as our OSH representative in a landslide win against two real candidates.

[para1]

Oh, dear, SH, good thing I was only drinking water.

Nicely played, sir.

[zerocool]

I was at the Oakland airport about a month ago and they were paging a Hugh Jassle. I'm still not sure if it was a prank or real.

[Jay Temple]

It wasn't until I saw the joke names in the thread that I figured out how to pronounce the name in the OP. Usually I only have this problem with websites:

mutigers.com (M U Tigers) is "MUTT-ig-gers"
TextbooksRus.com is "Textbooks Russ"

This one took me awhile, partly because I got sidetracked on the cracked link. So many top ten lists.

The trial that covers the same issue that Nebraska v. Haywood Jablome is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Nevada and Nebraska sound Aiken anyway. Hiibel held that identifying yourself to an officer was not incriminating yourself because telling your name does not show ou are guilty. Also, it is not covered by the fourth amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) because it is not invasive.

Heres the link to the Supreme Court decision: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_5554