What conclusion did Hiibel v. Nevada reach regarding suspects disclosing their names?

The conclusion reached in Hiibel v. Nevada is that requiring a suspect to disclose their name during a lawful stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case is significant because the U.S. Supreme Court determined that when an officer makes a lawful Terry stop—an investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion—the officer may ask for identification, which includes the disclosure of a person's name.

The ruling affirmed that while individuals have a right to remain silent and not answer questions, states have the authority to enact laws that require individuals to provide their names when stopped by law enforcement. This requirement serves an important purpose in promoting public safety and in facilitating police investigations.

The court recognized the balance between individual rights and the needs of law enforcement in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, providing one's name when requested during a lawful stop does not inherently infringe upon Fourth Amendment rights, as long as the stop is justified and reasonable under the circumstances.