"If you are stopped for questioning:1: ... You can't be arrested for merely refusing to identify yourself on the street."
Oddly enough, that just changed.
( http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/22/0130243.shtml?tid=103&tid=123&tid=158&tid=99 )
Somehow I just can't consider Slashdot itself a semi-reputable news source. Here's a smattering from more well known press instead:
There's many more out there. Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc. Sadly they all require registration and I just don't feel like it.
Sadly they all require registration and I just don't feel like it.
Then visit http://www.bugmenot.com/ .
Oddly enough, it didn't.SCOTUS upheld existing State (specifically Nevada) laws allowing officers to arrest you for refusing to identify yourself if they stopped you with reasonable suspicion of commiting a crime. Now, the potential for police to abuse that is obvious, but in the Hiibert case, it's worth noting two things:1) There was reasonable suspicion - or rather, if a third party member of the public calling in a report of assault/domestic abuse isn't reasonable suspicion, then what, precisely, is?2) Nothing has "changed" - Nevada has long had a law allowing police officers to insist that people stopped with reasonable suspicion identify themselves - that law still exists, and SCOTUS have merely confirmed that it is does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
So no, you can't be arrested for merely refusing to identify yourself, unless the police officer has reasonable suspicion that you're committing a crime and you happen to live in one of the 20 states that have stop & identify laws. And since that was the case last year, and the year before, and the year before that, nothing's changed.
good things to know. thanks for posting the link.