On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:42 PM, coderman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/1/14, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... >> Not necessarily... he doesn't indicate being detained (per RS) and >> subsequently asked, so he has no obligation (in US) to respond in >> confirmation. > > you don't have to be detained per Reasonable Suspicion for RS to > apply. so if there was RS refusing to identify could get you arrested > by itself. [0][1] i imagine you'd only discover you were detained if > you tried to leave the premises?
Detainer is only permissible via specific and articulable facts and rational inference therefrom leading to RS [Terry]. Only when detained are you required to name yourself if asked/ordered [Hiibel]. If you're 'being detained', you may leave when you're 'free to go'. Otherwise you may keep on walking [past your 'casual' encounter]. Detainer is different from arrest (per PC). > state specific Federal minimum is in Hiibel. States may be more intrusive, at risk of unconstitutionality. There may still be an untested claim to the Fifth at 542:177:190,191. http://www.papersplease.org/ http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause > 0. "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada" > - http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html If you read this stuff you'd change that 404 to http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=03 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/542bv.pdf
