Actually, in many states one is required to identify themselves to police by name when asked.
This was decided by the Supreme Court in Hiibel vs. 6th Court of Nevada in 2004.
The supreme court held that giving a name does not violate the 4th or the 5th amendments.
You can find a reasonable summary of which states have so-called "stop and identify" statues here:
http://en.wikipedia....entify_statutes
It sounds like NavyBlue will use his statements and line of questioning to assert that he is not being treated as a "terry stop" and thus would have no obligation to give his name during a "stop and identify".
"Stop and identify" and "stop and frisk" are becoming quite common in many places, and it very hard to fight these types of stops in court because all the officer needs is "reasonable suspicion", which legally, is pretty easy for them to obtain.
Personally, while I definitely be annoyed and frustrated if police officers had entered my sleeper as the OP experienced, I would just answer their questions so that they could be on their way as quickly as possible.
I am not a fan of what I consider to be heavy handed police tactics on the train.
You are RIGHT for the WRONG reasons. Here from caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supremecourt.
HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
Larry D. HIIBEL, Petitioner, v. The SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of The State of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, and the Honorable Richard A. Wagner, District Judge, Respondents, The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.
No. 38876.
-- December 20, 2002
Before the Court En Banc.
Steven G. McGuire, State Public Defender, and James P. Logan, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Petitioner.Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; David G. Allison, District Attorney, and Conrad Hafen, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Humboldt County, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
The pertinent issue before us is whether NRS 171.123(3), which requires a person stopped under reasonable suspicion by a police officer to identify himself or herself, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We conclude NRS 171.123(3) does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public. Therefore, Hiibel's petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
In pertinent part, NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
․
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.
In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck. There, Dove spoke to the concerned citizen and was directed to a parked truck. When Dove approached the truck, he noticed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting the truck had been parked in a sudden and aggressive manner. Dove saw Larry D. Hiibel standing outside the truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech, and odor. Hiibel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck. When Dove asked Hiibel to identify himself, Hiibel refused. Instead, Hiibel placed his hands behind his back and challenged the officer to take him to jail.
I and my "group" are intimately familiar with NRS 171.123(3) being Nevada residents. It has been tried on members of the group and the police officers lose the issue. This issue above was due to there being a "reasonable suspicion" by eyewitness account of truck, man and woman.
Here is what MY attorney says about RAS.
"Because reasonable suspicion gives officers legal authority to detain you, the
absence of reasonable suspicion does not require officers to tell you that you're free to leave. They will often use your uncertainty as an opportunity to ask probing questions even if the conversation is legally "voluntary". In such situations, it's up to you to determine if you're being detained or are free to go. Before answering an officer's questions, you may courteously ask "Officer, am I free to go?" If you're free to go, then go. If the officer's answer is unclear or he asks additional questions, you may persist by repeating "Officer, am I free to go?"
Keep in mind that refusing to answer an officers questions does
not create reasonable suspicion. But acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can create reasonable suspicion. Also, you have the 4th Amendment right to refuse search requests, and your refusal does
not create reasonable suspicion.
If you are
not free to go, you are being detained. The officer might have some reason to suspect you of a crime, and you may be arrested. In such a situation, your magic words are "I'm going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer." These magic words are like a legal condom. Because anything you say can and will be used against you in court, they're your best protection if you're under arrest".
And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.
RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
Please explain to me to me how I sitting in my sleeper room meet any of the conditions above. The answer is none and as such I do not have to identify myself to the "fishing LEO"
If a police officer approaches me he gets the canned response.
It prepares me and others in my group if we are unfortunately required to use our LEGALLy owned open carried/concealed weapon to defend our or a family members life.
All answers can and
WILL be used against you. 95% of my encounters with LEOs have been professional and courteous. 5% have been me asking if I am free to go and then departing.
And this is not about weapons, it's about the law.
And please, never quote WIKI anything. You might as well just quote MSNBC. Sorry had to get the political jab in.
And yes, when stopped in a vehicle the LEO gets my respect, my drivers license, insurance papers, retired military ID card and (4) state concealed weapon permits. As both the former LEO relatives have told me the the 10-20 second walk up to a stopped car is the most stressful thing they do short of a gunfight. I also keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel until I get PERMISSION from the LEO to reach towards my glove box for my papers. At night I turn the inside dome light on. I want to make the stop as stress free for the LEO as possible. Now does that sound like someone who wants to make a police officers life miserable. I am not implying you implied that. I just want to let you and others I provide ID when it is REQUIRED.
NAVYBLUE
