In some states, when an officer conducts an investigative stop, the person stopped is legally required to identify himself or herself. For example, Utah Code § 77-7-15 provides that an officer may “may demand the individual’s name, address, date of birth, and an explanation of the individual’s actions.” Stop and identify statutes were generally deemed constitutional in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004), but North Carolina has never adopted one. Did a recent decision by the Court of Appeals turn North Carolina into a “stop and identify” state anyhow? Hiibel. The starting point is Hiibel, where a deputy sheriff responded to a report of a man assaulting a woman in “in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road.” The officer found the truck and saw a man and a woman standing outside it. The officer approached the man, explained that he was responding to an assault call, and asked the man for identification. The deputy acted in reliance on a Nevada statute providing that an officer conducting a Terry stop “may detain the person . . . 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.” The man repeatedly refused to identify himself and the deputy arrested him and charged him with resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer under Nevada law. The man – Larry Hiibel – [...]
Faculty Coordinators
