|
"Stop and identify" statutes are statute laws in the United States that authorize police〔Although ''police'' and ''police officer'' are used throughout this article, most "stop and identify" laws use the term ''peace officer'' (or sometimes ''law enforcement officer''). In general, peace officers are state civil officers charged with preserving the public peace and granted the authority to do so. Peace officers normally include police officers, sheriffs and sheriffs' deputies, marshals, constables, and often many other persons; those included vary among the states. 〕 to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed a crime. If the person is not reasonably suspected of committing a crime, they are not required to provide identification, even in states with stop and identify statutes. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. ''Terry v. Ohio'', established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada'', , which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ''Hiibel'' Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there ''was'' a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.〔 In upholding Hiibel's conviction, the Court noted, :In this case petitioner’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him.... As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. But the Court did leave open the possibility of different circumstances: :Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here. 〕 The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.〔 Writing for the Court in ''Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada'', Justice Kennedy stated, :Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in ''Kolender'' had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer "credible and reliable" identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. Justice Kennedy continued, :As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a drivers license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means—a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make—the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Writing for the Nevada Supreme Court in ''Hiibel v. Dist. Ct.'', Chief Justice Young said, :The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists. 〕 == Police–citizen encounters == In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual ("contact" or "conversation"), detention (often called a ''Terry'' stop, after ''Terry v. Ohio'', ), or arrest. "Stop and identify" laws pertain to detentions. Different obligations apply to drivers of motor vehicles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver’s license to police upon request. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「stop and identify statutes」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|