4 ms·

IANAL, but it’s not this simple. Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies. In fact every time the police “pull you over” on the road is a Te

IANAL, but it’s not this simple. Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies. In fact every time the police “pull you over” on the road is a Terry stop. In such a stop, mere “reasonable suspicion” is required for police to require you to identify yourself. You’re not required to present ID but you must tell them your name (you could lie, but that’s another crime). You can be arrested for refusing to identify yourself. In order to determine if your are experiencing a Terry stop, ask the officer “Am I free to go?”, if the answer is no, ask “Why am I being detained?” and the officer should state his cause. If it’s not valid you won’t be able to fight it until after the encounter, possibly after you’ve already been arrested. Egregious example: The infamous NYC “stop and frisk” policy[2] was essentially a massive Terry-stop program. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...

dragonwriter 4y ago
> IANAL, but it’s not this simple. IANAL, either, but I passed Con Law in law school, and it is. > Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies. Yes, that’s what we are talking about. > In such a stop, mere “reasonable suspicion” is required for police to require you to identify yourself. Wrong. In such a stop, it is not federally unconstitutional for such a demand to be made, but it still requires that there is actual state law authorizing it. In 26 states there is, and in the rest there is not. > You’re not required to present ID Yes, that’s what I said, that even in the 26 states with stop-and-identify laws, permitted by the Supreme Court, you are still not, as the upthread commenter, required to present ID. You’ve literally repeated what I said (except for confusing the federal limits of state authority with what police can do without supporting state law), after saying “It’s not that simple”.
- cobbzilla 4y ago
  > I passed Con Law in law school, and it is. Maybe after I take that course I’ll agree with you. I don’t think that’s a great option for most.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dragonwriter 4y ago

> IANAL, but it’s not this simple. IANAL, either, but I passed Con Law in law school, and it is. > Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies. Yes, that’s what we are talking about. > In such a stop, mere “reasonable suspicion” is required for police to require you to identify yourself. Wrong. In such a stop, it is not federally unconstitutional for such a demand to be made, but it still requires that there is actual state law authorizing it. In 26 states there is, and in the rest there is not. > You’re not required to present ID Yes, that’s what I said, that even in the 26 states with stop-and-identify laws, permitted by the Supreme Court, you are still not, as the upthread commenter, required to present ID. You’ve literally repeated what I said (except for confusing the federal limits of state authority with what police can do without supporting state law), after saying “It’s not that simple”.

cobbzilla 4y ago
> I passed Con Law in law school, and it is. Maybe after I take that course I’ll agree with you. I don’t think that’s a great option for most.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]