Skip to main content

View Diary: Then He Asked Me for I.D. (the sequel) (120 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's a bit of an overgeneralization. (0+ / 0-)

    If you're going to provoke a confrontation with a cop, be very sure of your rights in the jurisdiction in which the encounter is located.

    The main case on this, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), turned in part on the interpretation of a Nevada law by the Nevada Supreme Court: "The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that 'identify himself' to mean to merely state his name."

    Wikipedia has a summary of state "stop & identify" laws:

       The wording of “stop and identify” laws varies considerably from state to state.
        Noncompliance with a “stop and identify” law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”.
        State courts have made varying interpretations of both “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws.

    Variations in “stop and identify” laws

        Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
        Fourteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:

            In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;
            In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
            In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.

        Identifying information varies, but typically includes

            Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
            In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
            Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
            Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
            Texas’s law requires a person to provide their name, residence address and date of birth if lawfully arrested and asked by police. (A detained person or witness of a crime is not required to provide any identifying information, however it is a crime for a detained person or witness to give a false name.)

        In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
        Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
        Virginia makes it a nonjailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator.

    As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

    by NoMoJoe on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 12:10:37 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site