Stop and Identify law in Indiana,

[comp1demon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

Was reading the stop and Identify laws for my state and I want a clarification on something.

Here are the bullet points...

Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio)
Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.

As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[22] “stop and identify” laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[23] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[24] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:



SO here are my questions.. From what I read it must "requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement"

So I assume that if I am stopped it must be for a reason and if the reason is given I must comply?
If there is no reason then I am not required to comply?

Standing in front of my home on the edge of my grass and the sidewalk at 2am talking on my cellphone a cop pulls up and says "Hey, whats going on?"
"I am on the phone, baby is sleeping inside"
After that gets out of his car approaches me...
The Cop says show me your ID or tell me who you are? Is this probable cause? or can I ask at that point "am I being detained?"

Can they just pull up to you for no reason and ask you, tell me who you are? I assume that "requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement"
If I am just walking home on the sidewalk or standing in the park watching my kids play or just sitting in a fast food place eating, even in Indiana I can refuse to identify myself when out of no where I am approched by a PO and asked to identify myself?

I want clarification of when the stop and identify laws of my state are valid and in what circumstances they are valid...?

Also my state "explicitly imposes a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself" Is this only valid if I am detained or arrested? or on a consensual approach am I required to comply?
What is the penalty anyone know? is it a fine? Arrest? misdemeanor, felony? Combination of?

"In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth" What if I have no destination and I have already complied with identifying myself verbally? Can I say "don't know where I am going.. I guess whereever life takes me..."?

Some advice in clarifying these grey areas would be nice please. Thanks in advance.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Most members do not engage in "what ifs".

 

[comp1demon]

Most members do not engage in "what ifs".

I did give a what if's but also a real life situation.

I want to know if stop and identify has to have SOME BASIS and does not just give the police the power to pull up or walk up to anyone and force them to identify themselves.

 

[tranquility]

The key to fourth amendment is the totality of the circumstances. One good test is to ask if you are free to leave.

 

[justalayman]

Indiana law is more specific than that:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

it requires more than reasonable suspicion. There must be probable cause a crime has been committed.



there are links to the other states laws here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

here is a write up concerning an Indiana case that will help clarify the issue for you:

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/court-refusal-to-identify-law-applies-to-passengers/PARAMS/article/24168

 

[tranquility]

Indiana law is more specific than that:




it requires more than reasonable suspicion. There must be probable cause a crime has been committed.



there are links to the other states laws here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

here is a write up concerning an Indiana case that will help clarify the issue for you:

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/court-refusal-to-identify-law-applies-to-passengers/PARAMS/article/24168

The case seems to say all that is required is a reasonable suspicion.

 

[justalayman]

The case seems to say all that is required is a reasonable suspicion.

Detention
* * *Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
* * * * (1) inform the person of the allegation;
* * * * (2) obtain the person's:
* * * * * * (A) name, address, and date of birth; or
* * * * * * (B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
* * * * (3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

the requirement to identify one's self is a continuation of the above statute. I read the statement:

officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation

as a very poorly worded law (possibly intentionally vague. I mean, who actually writes a law with: if the officer in good faith believes... is that PC or RS? seriously, it's as if there wasn't already enough confusion in the system.) but ultimately it is referring to probable cause and not reasonable suspicion. The officer cannot cite for reasonable suspicion so based on (3) in that section, I would read it that PC must be present for this series of statutes to applicable to a situation.

I do see where they spoke of reasonable suspicion in the opinion I cited though. I disagree with their choice of terminology.



Over all, I think that is just a crap load of poorly written law and will likely be the subject of appeals in the future as well.