In North Carolina, State v. White, North Carolina`s “resistance officers” law has been interpreted as applying to suspects who do not identify with police officers.  Conversely, West Virginia courts have ruled that their prison resistance law does not include people who refuse to identify themselves.  Neither did Illinois, as did the Illinois Second District Court of Appeals in People v. Fernandez, 2011 100473 IL App (2d), which explicitly states that Article 107-14 is found in the 1963 Code of Criminal Procedure, not the 1961 Penal Code, and governs the conduct of police officers. Nevertheless, the 1961 Penal Code does not provide for a corresponding obligation for a suspect to identify himself.  Many states have now enacted laws commonly referred to as “stop and identify” laws. In Ohio, the law states that a person who has committed, is committing, or will commit a crime, or even someone who has just witnessed certain crimes, must provide identification upon request. This identification includes your name, date of birth and address. You can provide this information by handing over your ID, but when you take it out of your pocket or purse, other things may fall where the officer can see them. Police may interview a person who has been arrested at a Terry stop, but usually the inmate is not required to answer.  However, many states have “Stop and Identify” laws that specifically require a person detained in Terry`s conditions to identify themselves to the police and, in some cases, provide additional information. The police can approach a person at any time and ask questions.
The goal may simply be a friendly conversation; However, police may also suspect involvement in a crime, but may not be aware of “specific and articulable facts” that would warrant arrest or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from questioning. The person referred does not have to identify himself or answer any other questions and can leave at any time.  As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Other states (including Texas and Oregon) only have such laws for motorists.   What should you do if you identify yourself to the police? This is the third part of a series of articles about the legal obligation you have when interacting with the police. The second contribution dealt with the question of when one can legitimately refuse to answer police questions. This third post examines a hypothetical situation where a police officer asks for identification. In states whose stop and identification laws do not impose direct sanctions, a lawful arrest must be made for violating another law, such as “resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer.” For example, Nevada`s “Stop and Identify” law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Union Township, Nevada Judicial Court ruled that Hiibel`s refusal to identify herself violated Nevada`s “obstruction law.”  A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah`s “stop and identification” and “obstruction” laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10 cir.
2000). To request training on knowledge of your rights for your group or to request physical copies of the Ohio NLG KYR card, contact firstname.lastname@example.org. In the United States, interactions between police and others fall into three general categories: consensual (“contact” or “conversation”), detention (often referred to as Terry Stop, according to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) or arrest. Stop and Identify laws apply to detention. Some legal organizations, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California, recommend either remaining silent or identifying oneself as to whether or not a jurisdiction has a “Stop and Identify” law: States that are not on the list are not required to show identification to law enforcement officials. Some of the states listed have “Stop and ID” laws that may require a person to identify themselves during pretrial detention. Whether an arrested person is required to identify himself or herself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest takes place. If a person is arrested and the police wish to question them, the police are obliged to inform them of their right to remain silent by issuing a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to the biographical data necessary to complete the reservation.
  It is unclear whether a “Stop and Identify” law could force the mention of the name after arrest, although some states have laws that explicitly require an arrested person to provide his or her name and other biographical information, and some state courts have ruled that refusing to give his or her name constitutes a handicap on the part of a public official. In practice, an arrested person who refuses to give his or her name would be unlikely to be released immediately. In Utah v. Strieff (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an officer`s arrest of Edward Strieff and his request for identification of Strieff were unlawful under Utah state law, but that the evidence gathered as a result of the arrest was admissible because it was found that Strieff was the subject of a pre-existing arrest warrant. As a result, the existing arrest warrant “mitigated” unlawful arrest and identification. Some courts have recognized a distinction that empowers police to request identifying information and explicitly requires a suspect to respond.  Other courts appear to have interpreted the duty to impose a duty on the inmate to comply.   In this case, the officer was unable to identify any crime that she believed the respondent had committed or was committing.
As the officer had no probable reason to arrest him, the arrest itself was unconstitutional and was dismissed. In other countries, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, police generally do not have the authority to require identification unless they have the legal authority to do so. For example, these countries have laws that require drivers to present their driver`s license (or name, address, etc.) when stopped by police. The police may also require individuals to identify themselves if they have reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence.   Although Wisconsin laws allow law enforcement officers to “demand” identification, there is no legal requirement to provide them with identification, nor is there a penalty for refusal, so Wisconsin is not a necessary identification state.  However, the Wisconsin notes §968.24 state: “Terry`s principles permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name during a Terry check and the imposition of criminal penalties for failure to do so,” citing Hiibel as an authority. Hiibel said laws requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations do not violate the Fourth Amendment if the law first requires a reasonable and artificial suspicion of criminal involvement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Henes v. Morrissey: “A felony consists of two parts: prohibited conduct and a prescribed sentence. The first without the second is not a crime.
In this case, there is no law for refusing to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer, and the law does not provide for a penalty for refusal to identify oneself. This Act is part of Chapter 968 entitled “Initiation of Criminal Proceedings”. Section 968.24 authorizes a law enforcement officer to stop and question “near the place where the person was arrested.” The law does not authorize a law enforcement officer to make an arrest. (These quotes are taken from the dissenting opinion, but are consistent with the majority opinion.) In addition, Henes v. Morrissey found that a detained person who did not give his or her name did not in itself constitute a violation of section 946.41 Resisting or obstructing the officer as an act of non-identification does not constitute a false statement with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duties. Stop and Identify laws are laws in several U.S. countries. States empowering police to legally order criminal suspects to provide their names.
If there is no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is imminent, a person is not obliged to identify himself even in those States.  The police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed, is committing or will commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this power. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police can conduct a limited search of weapons (known as a “search”) if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the detained person may be armed and dangerous. However, some stop and identification laws, which are not clear on how people should identify themselves, violate the proper process of suspects to the point of vagueness. For example, in Kolender v. Lawson (1983), the court struck down a California law requiring “credible and reliable” identification because it was too vague.
 The court also found that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to disclose his or her name if he or she reasonably believed that providing the name could be incriminating.  The wording and interpretation of “obstruction” laws by state courts also vary; For example, New York`s “obstruction law” apparently requires physical rather than verbal obstruction;   Similarly, a violation of Colorado`s “obstruction law” appears to require the use or threat of use of physical force.