As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify herself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with “stop and identify” laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[22] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[23] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:
The wording of “stop and identify” laws varies considerably from state to state. Noncompliance with a “stop and identify” law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”. State courts have made varying interpretations of both “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws.
Variations in “stop and identify” laws:
Four states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information. Fifteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond: In Montana, police “may request” identifying information; In 13 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information; In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.
Identifying information varies, but typically includes:
Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions; In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado). Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”. Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name. In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling. Six states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself. As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
(above was a courtesy of Wikipedia)
So Florida and other states "invent" infractions so they can arrest you for something trivial like loitering. I bet if a person got arrested in Florida and got a lawyer they could fight the case since the police would have to prove the person was loitering. That charge is nothing more then strong arm tactics similar to how the mob operates. So this is from a Florida attorney (scan down pass the "Important Message" to the next section):
Are you required by law to carry an identification card? | Florida DUI Attorney & Legal Help
Then in Maryland this happened:
Are you required by law to carry around identification?
Linear Mode
