Random Police Stop

Completely false. A driver is required to have their license in their possession while driving. Having the number memorized is not enough.[/QUOTE]

Right but I was responding to the post about walking down the street. I tried to do a quote but it didn't work and I was too lazy to retype it

my understanding is if an officer requests identification you are required to provide it even if just walking down the street. however I'm not 100 sure. in a case like this if you have nothing to hide then cooperation is always the best thing Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

No, but not entirely off base either. The US Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada held that States can pass so-called stop and identify statutes. But the stop has to be based on some articulable suspicion of illegal activity. I don't recall the magic words used, but some sort of reasonable suspicion is required. I can't recall if ID has to be shown or verbal identification is enough. The holding is basically that if an officer makes a good Terry stop, he gets a few questions, one of which can be your name. Seems like they left open open the question of whether you could invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to give your name.

It's not my field of law, so SJ may have some amendment or correction to path us general description.

The US Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada held that States can pass so-called stop and identify statutes....It's not my field of law, so SJ may have some amendment or correction to path us general description. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That's true, but Texas no gotty. "Texas's law requires a person to provide their name, residence address, and date of birth if lawfully arrested and asked by police. (A detained person or witness of a crime is not required to provide any identifying information; however, it is a crime for a detained person or witness to give a false name.)" See:

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