Stop and Identify statutes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Stop and Identify" statutes are a breed of laws in the United States that require persons, stopped under certain circumstances, to reveal their name under the penalty of law.
Deemed legal by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), states or localities are now free to pass laws allowing police officers to arrest persons for refusing to reveal their name under the conditions of a so-called Terry stop.
Contents |
[edit] Conditions under which the statutes apply
In the United States, police interactions generally conform to one of three statuses: consensual stops, seizure (Terry stop conditions), or arrest. It's important to note, though, that laws apply differently to drivers than to those not in automobiles; the information herein applies only to those not in cars (who maintain greater rights than car occupants).
[edit] Consensual interaction
Police are authorized, at any time, to request that a person stop and answer questions, without necessarily having any requisite reasonable belief of the person's guilt of any crime or usefulness in solving one. In these circumstances, the target may refuse to answer any questions and may leave at any time. "Stop and Identify" statutes do not apply in these cases.
[edit] Seizure
Also called a Terry Stop (after a Supreme Court case of that name), police are authorized, if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the target has committed or is about to commit a crime, to temporarily "detain" a target. Historically, the Court had ruled that targets are not obligated to provide any information whatsoever during these stops. Though the police may have been able to legally detain a suspect, they could not arrest a suspect merely for refusing to answer.
A number of states, however, passed laws explicitly requiring a person, stopped under the conditions of seizure, to identify himself or else be charged with a crime similar to "obstruction of police activity." The Constitutionality of these laws was in question until the Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel, in a very close 5-4 decision, that such state/local "Stop and Identify" laws were Constitutional.
This means that, if the state or locality in which a person is stopped has such a statute on the books and the person is stopped under "reasonable suspicion" of having committed or being about to commit a crime, he may be arrested merely for refusing to provide his name. Note that, as of 2005, it does not appear Constitutional to require that a target actually produce written identification of any kind or to provide any more information other than his name. Indeed, in Kolender v. Lawson (1983) [1], the Supreme Court ruled that a statute that required the even slightly stricter "credible and reliable identification" was unconstitutional (on vagueness grounds).
The Court in Hiibel ruled that the Fourth Amendment was not implicated so long as there was "reasonable suspicion" (the Terry Stop circumstances), and the Fifth Amendment was not implicated so long as a target merely revealing his name would not incriminate himself. The latter suggestion was hotly contested by the dissent in the case, as a police officer would rarely, if ever, know whether asking a suspect his name would incriminate him based merely on his providing his name.
[edit] Arrest
While seizure requires that the officer have "reasonable suspicion" that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, a police officer may not arrest an individual until he has "probable cause" that the person has actually committed a crime. "Stop and Identify" statutes do not apply once arrested. Indeed, once under arrest, as suggested by the Miranda rights, the target explicitly has the right to remain silent.
Some have argued that this creates an unusual situation in that a person has the right to not speak under the lightest and harshest statuses (consensual stop and arrest) while he doesn't necessarily have this right under the middle status (seizure).
[edit] States with "Stop and Identify" statutes
It is important to recognize that there is no federal law requiring that an individual identify himself when Terry-stopped by a police officer. Hiibel merely made clear that states and localities have the right to pass their own laws requiring people to identify themselves under those conditions.
As of 2004 (except where noted), the following states have stop-and-identify laws on the books:
| Alabama | Ala. Code §15-5-30 |
| Arizona | Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 (enacted 2005) |
| Arkansas | Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1) |
| Delaware | Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902(a), 1321(6) |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) |
| Georgia | Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) |
| Illinois | Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14 |
| Kansas | Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1) |
| Louisiana | La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A) |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2) |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401(2)(a) |
| Nebraska | Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829 |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123 (3) |
| New Hampshire | N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§594:2 |
| New Mexico | N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3 |
| New York | N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50(1) |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 |
| Ohio | Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 |
| Rhode Island | R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1 |
| Utah | Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15 |
| Vermont | Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983 |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Stat. §968.24 |
Unless an individual locality (city, town, county, township, etc.) has passed a "stop and identify" statute, persons stopped in states not listed above are seemingly still not obligated to identify themselves when detained by police.
[edit] How to satisfy the minimum required duties
This should not be considered legal advice, but the following may be seen as a reasonable rule-of-thumb for understanding what a person may or may not be obligated to do when confronted by a police officer.
[edit] Determine stop status
The first thing a person must do is recognize whether he is being consensually stopped, seized, or arrested. A polite and easy way to determine this is, when prompted by an officer asking, "May I ask you some questions?" to calmly reply, "I'm sorry, I'm in a hurry. Am I required to stop and answer your questions?" If the officer says "no," then the person is free to leave: it is a consensual stop. If he says "yes," the person should follow-up with the more precise question, "Then, am I being seized?" Again, if he replies "no," then the person is free to leave. If he replies "yes," then he has been stopped either in a seizure or arrest.
This is an important point, as any information a suspect provides under a consensual stop is openly allowed in court. However, any information a suspect provides under a seizure is only allowed if the seizure was legal (that is, if the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the person had committed or was about to commit a crime).
If the person is under arrest, that will likely be very obvious, and the suspect will be read his Miranda rights. If the person has been told that he is not free to leave but has not yet been read his Miranda rights, he has been seized (legally or illegally).
[edit] Determine "stop and identify" law status
Once a person has determined he has been seized pursuant to a Terry Stop, if he is in one of the states listed above, he is required to provide his name. If he is not in one of these states, there may still be a local law requiring it. Thus, it is important to, when prompted by an officer for his name when not in one of these states, that he inquire as to whether there is any state or local law that obligates him to provide his name under a Terry Stop.
If there is no law requiring release of a name, the person may comfortably and politely refuse to answer any questions until the police officer has either released or arrested him. It is important to realize, though, that merely refusing to speak is not grounds for arrest, though it could be used in conjunction with other information held by the officer to meet the burden of "probable cause" necessary for it.
If there is a law requiring release of a name, the person is still not obligated to provide any tangible identification card. In this case, to satisfy the minimum duty, the suspect may politely announce his name and may then refuse to answer any additional questions. At this time, it is still believed that laws requiring more than a simple announcement of a name are unconstitutional.
[edit] See also
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
- Miranda warning
- Miranda v. Arizona
- Terry stop
- Terry v. Ohio
- United States Constitution
