Talk:Stop and identify statutes

Sources for section 'How to satisfy the minimum required duties'

This section has been marked as needing sources by User:198.239.71.118. It is merely a legal-analysis extrapolation based on the information provided previously in the article and should require no additional sources. Jkatzen 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but where are the sources for that? [Note:Different person] 68.39.174.238 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List

Don't forget Texas. 205.240.146.58 21:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So ... what about Texas should not be forgotten? JeffConrad 22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It too has this kind of thing, only its called "Failure to ID", a criminal offense. 205.240.146.58 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Texas Statutes, Penal Code, §38.02(a) (2003) applies only to a person who has been “lawfully arrested”, so it isn’t really a “stop-and-identify” law in the sense of the others. The law once applied to anyone who refused to identify himself “... to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.”; I assume it was revised in response to Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979). The current version probably would be a good example for the Arrest section, however. JeffConrad 05:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On the "How to satisfy the minimum required duties"

As helpful as this section is for someone not familiar with the law, I do not believe that it belongs in an encyclopedia. If someone feels the same way, please remove this section (or rephrase it). As mentioned above, Wikipedia should not be in the business of advising people on the law. It should only state facts which can be cited. Now, if you could find a reliable source for this information, and you rephrased it so that it wasn't directly advice on how to give the cops the least information possible, then I would be OK with it.Njerseyguy 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are totally right. Even though it pretends not to be so, this section is legal advice, and therefore amounts to an illegal practice of law. Even if it weren't it doesn't add anything that a sensible person cannot figure out from the first part of the article. I deleted it. --151.203.239.219 07:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I would characterize it as a more detailed explanation of what the law involves and how it operates. I feel like the first questions any reader will have when seeing the initial information is, "How does this work in practice, what rights are triggered, and what does it entail?" Jkatzen 08:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of leaving this section intact, at least one piece of information is factually incorrect: "If the person is under arrest, that will likely be very obvious, and the suspect will be read his Miranda rights." Police are NOT legally required to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect after an arrest. They are ONLY required to read the warnings to an arrested individual before the the arrestee is questioned. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), at 467: "At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed..." (emphasis added). Miranda and subsequent decisions do NOT require all arrestees to be informed of their Miranda rights (only arrestees who will be interrogated), nor do the cases require the reading of the Miranda rights immediately after arrest (only before the beginning of interrogation).

Edits of 18–22 May 2007

I've tried to clean things up a bit. A few specific comments:

• I added numerous direct citations of sources; accordingly, I removed the unsourced tag. If anything, the Notes now seem excessive.
• I tried to rewrite the Obligations section so that it gives less appearance of legal advice. The links to the ACLU publications provide advice from legal professionals. I added the last paragraph in the section because asking a cop about the state's "stop-and-identify" law during a stop seems a bit unrealistic; if someone thinks this is too blatant, remove it.
• I tried to convey that the implications of Hiibel are not quite as simple as the listing of states with "stop-and-identify" statutes in the opinion might suggest.
• I eliminated the section Determine stop status because it seemed redundant in light of the section describing types of police interactions with the public.
• I left the subsection Arrest, but I question whether it's really relevant. In light of Hiibel's holding that stating one's name is not incriminating, I could see no point in the paragraph that began "Some have argued ...", so I removed it.
• Is there a reason the article title is "Stop and Identify statutes" rather than "Stop and identify statutes" or "Stop-and-identify statutes" (it is a compound adjective)? It seems to me that the page should be moved to one of the latter two.

JeffConrad 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I've removed a number of words that didn't really provide much additional information. I still think there are far more than necessary. If you insist on putting the words back, I'm not going to quibble, but I think Strunk's advice that "every word tell" is as valid as ever. The leaner and meaner the prose, the more readable the article. A few specifics:

• "Consensual" was mentioned just a few sentences earlier; is it really necessary to repeat? "Consensual" even seems a bit of a stretch in many cases, especially when initiated by the police.
• A contact is not a stop.
• That "stop-and-identify" laws apply only to detentions is mentioned at the beginning of the interactions section; is it really necessary to repeat it so shortly thereafter?
• I'm not sure what "without any suspicion that the person is involved in a crime." really adds. Doesn't "At any time", without any qualifications, essentially cover it?
• The distinction between "statute" and "law" is important. Statutes are enacted by the federal and state governments; local jurisdictions usually enact ordinances. It's also conceivable that a "stop-and-identify" requirement could be a part of administrative law.

If people feel that some additional descriptions of complying with obligations would help, I'm not going to quibble, but this doesn't really seem the place for legal advice. Despite disclaimers (which require following several levels of links), someone is bound to misunderstand and get herself in trouble. If something is necessary, the procedure would seem quite simple:

1. Be aware of the laws before you need to know them. Would you really seek legal advice from a peace officer who is detaining you?
2. Determine whether you are free to go (you're either detained or you are not)
3. Be very sensitive to the officer's demeanor and body language, and decide which battles to choose.

It seems to me that the ACLU, et. al. pamphlet covers this quite well, and were I to consider a challenge to a person with a gun, I'd probably put greater stock in the ACLU than a Wikipedia author. It's possible to add a few other sources, such as Katya Komisaruk's Beat the Heat or Ira Glasser's DVD, but again, I wonder if this is the place.

I'm also not convinced that things are as settled as many seem to believe. Hiibel didn't specifically hold that a peace officer cannot require identification, even in a place without a "stop-and-identify" law. The mention that California's "stop-and-identify" law was voided in Kolender v. Lawson has figured prominently in many analyses. However, at least two post-Kolender cases in California, People v. Long (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 77 and People v. Loudermilk (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 996, held that an involuntary search for identification was permitted under Terry. The circumstances of these cases were somewhat different in that they involved motions to suppress evidence, but the reading of Terry still seems a bit incredible. More recent cases, such as People v. Medina (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 171 and People v. Garcia (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 782, have distanced themselves from this view, but it still suggests that it isn't over until its over. Garcia did not cite Hiibel because again, the issue was a motion to suppress evidence rather than "obstructing" an officer (Penal Code 148). JeffConrad 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude. This is very awkward: 'A person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”'. Please either cite a source (that recommends this) or list the many of ways "A person can usually" determine things. Seems confrontational to me. Is it really likely that you may be detained and not know it? My first thought was, "How about just walk away and see how far you get?" 166.183.96.215 (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Several of us feel that anything bordering on legal advice is marginal for a WP article, and in my opinion, this section qualifies. If you really want legal advice, see an attorney.

To some peace officers, anything but complete submissiveness may be confrontational. But the First Amendment protects a considerable amount of abuse directed at a peace officer—see Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) and Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th, 1990)—and asking if one is free to go falls far short of those limits. The problem with simply walking away is that one risks being accused of trying to escape, getting handcuffed, and even being arrested for “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”, the offense of which Hiibel was convicted. Both slowly walking away and asking if you are free to go are mentioned in the the ACLU publication Know Your Rights (linked in the article), with the latter suggested as less confrontational. This approach is also suggested in Katya Komisurak’s Beat the Heat, and I think it’s mentioned in Ira Glasser’s DVD, but I’d need to review it. I can add a citation to any of the above if others such as Jkatzen think it’s needed. JeffConrad (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I’ve added a couple of citations to support the statement—see if they address the concern. JeffConrad (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I've tried to clean up the section on interactions with police while addressing Jkatzen's objections to the 18 May edit--see what you think. There also were a few minor technical errors: 1) the Fifth Amendment applies at all times--only the warning is triggered by arrest, and 2) "stop-and-identify" laws well may apply to arrest as well as detention.

In my previous comment, I didn't make it sufficiently clear that the post-Kolender California cases did not involve "stop-and-identify" laws. They did, however, indicate potential consequences of refusing to provide identification when requested. For example, by having the police search his wallet (they found baggies of meth), Long got himself in far more serious trouble than if he had presented the ID himself (although I'll concede that he might have been arrested anyway for other reasons). In any event, possibly another reason for an encyclopedia article to avoid giving legal advice. JeffConrad 09:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I've corrected the section on Detention (the gist of the last sentence was inadvertently deleted in a previous edit). I've tried to clarify the section on Arrest, but I'm still not satisfied with it. The application of "stop-and-identify" laws to arrest is at this point speculative, and would seem somewhat of a moot point. Previous versions strongly implied that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination would somehow allow an arrested person to refuse to give his name. Hiibel makes it clear that that is not the case. It probably is not determined whether a "stop-and-identify" law without a specific provision for post-arrest identification could require an arrested person to give his name. Some states have other laws that require it, and such laws presumably would not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment.

With all do respect, I think the sentence added to the first paragraph under Interactions with police detract from the article rather than enhancing clarity or readability.

• The term "consensual" would seem to imply that such an encounter imposes no obligations; even if this isn't self evident, the third sentence states it explicitly. Is it really necessary to also say it in the introductory paragraph? That paragraph simply identifies the categories of interaction rather than describes them--the descriptions are in the individual sections.
• A law is most assuredly not an exercise of police authority. Enforcement of a law may be, but this is true for enforcement of any law that has not been voided; this differs from a judicially-established power such as a "Terry stop". That the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of "stop-and-identify" laws is mentioned in the second sentence of the article and in the section on Detention; is it really necessary to mention it a third time?
• I've removed the suggestion that "stop-and-identify" laws might apply after arrest; a law requiring post-arrest identification probably would not be termed a "stop-and-identify" law. In light of this change, I wonder if there's any point in mentioning in the introduction under Interactions. Withholding a name after arrest would seem a silly strategy in most cases; a person is unlikely to be released under any conditions without signing a promise to appear, and if the person gets booked and has identification, it will be taken at the time of booking and the person's identity revealed anyway. I suspect that in most cases, a person who refused to giver her name to a judge would be held in contempt of court, as is specifically mentioned in Vermont's "stop-and-identify" law. JeffConrad 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Um ... stated otherwise, the second sentence in the first paragraph under interactions seems a mighty long way of saying "Stop-and identify laws apply to detentions", if such a statement is needed at all. Of course, a similar observation could be made of my previous comment ... JeffConrad 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to “stop-and-identify” statutes

With the current configuration of the New York Legislature web site, there is no obvious way to provide a direct link to CPL 140.50. Is a link to the New York law lookup better than nothing? JeffConrad 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The same holds for New Mexico. JeffConrad 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the link to the New Mexico lookup page. DavidForthoffer (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the NM link to be direct 67.177.27.19 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The NM link is not working and seems to use session variables now. It is over here someplace. Thanatos (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Detention

I've trimmed a few superfluous words, but still ask, does the extra sentence at the beginning of the second paragraph really add anything? Given the split in authority among the appellate circuits prior to Hiibel, is it even correct to say, “it had historically been held ...”? JeffConrad 07:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Look back at what I added compared to what it was before. The extra words were trying (perhaps less succesfully than I'd hoped) to show that, at this point, the only questions one must answer are those involving identity. (In other words, historically, the general presumption was that a detainee was free to not answer questions, though there was a circuit split on whether there was a narrow exception for questions of identity. Now, with Hiibel, there is a clarified exception for questions of identity where a state law is on the books, though the rest of the silence rule is presumably still valid.) If you don't like how I worded it, try to find a way to incorporate it. In particular, the "has" is correct, because, except in the specific case of responding to identity inquiries, a suspect is still not obliged to answer. Jkatzen 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I now better understand your intent. What was confusing (and still would be if present perfect were restored) was the tense shift between the first and second sentences. Inclusion of “historically” added to the confusion. Perhaps the answer is some careful rework for better flow from the first sentence to the second. After rereading both sentences several times, I don't have an obvious solution; I'll give it a look tomorrow.

I still wonder if "has been" is correct; I have assumed that White's concurring opinion (and its citation in Berkemer v. McCarty) was taken as a blanket right to avoid answering any questions, and that no longer is true (at least in Nevada and quite possibly in other states with “stop-and-identify” laws). I also question “held” when citing dicta, even the “strong dicta” to which Breyer referred in his dissent.

I think we should be very careful in conclusions we draw from Hiibel; a careful read suggests that it's much narrower than many seem to claim. Despite strong hints, neither the Nevada Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally stated that a detainee must give only his name. Recall that, although Hiibel was repeatedly asked for identification, which he supposedly need not provide, he never actually was asked simply to “identify himself”. Note also that the Court upheld the conviction largely because Hiibel refused to provide ID simply because he felt he didn't need to; they left open the possibility of withholding one's name if there were a genuine concern that it could be incriminating. More comprehensive “stop-and-identify” laws, such as Colorado's, which requires a detainee to provide ID if available, remain untested. JeffConrad 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the added sentence seems to be to emphasize that, at least in some circumstances, long-standing precedent has been partially overturned. However, I honestly can't see that the additional sentence does anything other than incorporate the note into the text; isn't the purpose of a note to avoid cluttering the text? JeffConrad 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made another attempt to clarify the second paragraph. I simply cannot find a reasonable way to integrate Justice White's concurring opinion in Terry (or its citation in Berkemer v. McCarty) into the text; again, though, I think the note covers it. In this context, emphasis is appropriate only to indicate a necessary stress on words that might not otherwise be obvious. I don't think that's a problem here, so I removed the emphasis. JeffConrad 00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim ownership of the article, and I hardly suggest that the way I had it could not have been improved. I do, however, think that changes should actually serve to improve the article. The “clarification” adds nothing that is not covered more comprehensively and more clearly in the note. I also have a problem with circumlocution such as “engage a suspect in conversation relating to his suspicions” as a substitute for “question a suspect”; see Garner's A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage or or a similar work, or User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for some excellent guidance on creating a “well written” article. I also think the gratuitous use of emphasis detracts from rather than enhances an article; the emphasis added to the second sentence implies that the average reader is an idiot who will miss the meaning without the emphasis. Good writing uses italics very sparingly—see, for example, the “Chicago Manual of Style”, 15th ed, 7.49. JeffConrad 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the clarification I added hardly circumlocution; if anything, it more properly characterizes the interaction as a conversation not an interrogation. What is covered in a note is largely overlooked by the average user. I think it's important in the crafting of the main body of the article to highlight some of the points otherwise buried in the note. And as for italics, I hardly think one or two instances of it here is overkill, and while I don't think the average user is an idiot (as I suppose you think any intended audience of an italicized phrase is wont to be), I think the average user is not a legal scholar. As a result, I think it's worthwhile to walk non-legal-scholars through the issues. Additionally, I've generally sat back while you've made modifications to this article whose basis I originally drafted. A few times I've disagreed with you and pointed it out, and every time, almost without exception, you've fought me on it. Ultimately, until now, I've let every one slide after minor protest, because I just don't care enough about an internet article to fight someone on it who's so sure his viewpoint is right that he'll editwar me. Jkatzen 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested only that one phrase was circumlocution—I just can't see using nine words when three will do (even if the wording was essentially lifted from Chief Justice Warren's majority opinion in Terry). I probably could even buy the longer phrase for a “contact”, but once a person is detained, there's little pretense of casual conversation—the detainee is being questioned. The right to not answer comes not from historical holdings but from the Fifth Amendment, which applies at all times and not just after a Miranda warning. This is arguably the issue most relevant to the non–legal scholar, because an amazing number of people end up telling a peace officer everything he needs to know before it's even necessary to give a Miranda warning. The only issue that Hiibel resolved was that, at least in Hiibel's situation, giving his name wasn't incriminating, and consequently was not protected by the Fifth Amendment.

I'd never suggest that my way is the only way, but I'll stick by my comments on wordiness and italics, and I think you would find that most style guides support my position. The emphasis added to the second sentence adds nothing to the readability; the stresses naturally fall where they should.

Your point on the average reader ignoring notes may be well taken; the function of a note is more to document than to inform. I'll also concede that the single-sentence paragraph that I had was an abrupt jump into whether a detainee was required to identify himself. My objection was not with the additional information but rather that the second sentence did not follow from the first (it still really doesn't). But I'm not going to argue about it, because a wiki article just isn't worth the grief. JeffConrad 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What I think was intended was to the effect of

A peace officer may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer. However, many states have laws that specifically require the detainee to identify himself upon request by the officer, and in some cases provide additional information. Prior to Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to give his name.(note) The validity of requirements to provide additional information remains unresolved as of October 2007.

See what you think. JeffConrad 06:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me . . . good balance. Jkatzen 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But is it “fair and balanced”? ... After rereading the entire section, I see that replacing the second paragraph with what I suggested would create considerable redundancy. I'm looking for a better way to merge the information; I think the citation of Berkemer v. McCarty should remain, showing that long-standing precedent was discarded. JeffConrad 02:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the material. Hopefully, I got everything; see what you think. The change to female gender for the peace officer was to help distinguish the detainer from the detainee rather than to address any sexist issue.

I also added a citation of Florida v. Royer to the Consensual section to support the claim that a person can walk away. JeffConrad 08:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gender-specific language

Where possible, this article uses gender-neutral language, as recommended by WP:MOS. Where this is not possible or would be awkward, there is alternation be between masculine and feminine. Although hardly a perfect solution, I and many other see it as a least of evils. I personally am from the old school in which the masculine sufficed in most cases, but this approach annoys many readers, so I avoid it. The current balance is reasonable and there is no need to keep converting feminine references to masculine; I ask editor 76.171.177.144 to stop doing it. JeffConrad 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I went through the article and changed "him/his/himself" and "her/she/herself" to gender neutral terms. I left anything that was in quotes. In nearly all cases it did not make the article seem awkwardly written. It's not perfect, but it seems much more gender neutral than before. 75.68.179.174 (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What's awkward is in the eye of the beholder ... I hate to belittle someone's efforts, but pedantic insistence on gender neutrality doesn't improve the article. There is no perfect answer for lack of epicene pronouns in English; avoiding gender-specific language as much as possible, and alternating gender otherwise is arguably the most common approach in American English. Use of plural forms (e.g., them, their) is not without precedent in English writing, and even has Bryan Garner as somewhat of an advocate; however, this still is not generally considered acceptable in American English. Constructions such as “him or herself” are not even grammatically correct; “themself” and “theirself” are extreme neologisms that do not appear in either Webster's Ninth Collegiate Disctionary or Webster's Third New International Dictionary. I don't think an encyclopedia article is a place for language advocacy. JeffConrad (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above user: The fact remains that there is no reason this article cannot use gender neutral terms in line with the Wikipedia policy WP:MOS. The stated exemptions to the usage of gender neutral language in that policy of 'not possible' or 'awkwardness' does not apply to this article anymore than it does to any other article. The suggestions that attempts to introduce gender- neutral language are a "pedantic insistence on gender neutrality" and that "gender neutrality doesn't improve the article", are irrelevent when gender neutral terms are both a policy of Wikipedia and which are used throughout articles as a universal standard. Futhermore, this is not a forum to debate wikipedia policy ("I don't think an encyclopedia article is a place for language advocacy"), and the role of the user is not to apply their personal understanding of correct grammar (“him or herself” are not even grammatically correct"), but to ensure that whatever they contribute to the article conforms to the established Wikipedia policy on gender neutral writing. You may not like it or believe it is necesary, but you do not have the authroity to impose it upon other readers and editors, or break away from the Wikipedia policy WP:MOS which states gender neutral language must be used unless there is a specific reason for excemption. No such excemption exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.127.137 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous commenter might wish to review the edit history and more carefully read WP:GENDER. The purpose of gender-neutral language is clearly stated at the beginning of that article:

“Gender-neutral language avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes.”

Because this article avoids pronouns where possible, uses plural forms where practical, and otherwise alternates masculine and feminine gender references, it seems difficult to credibly claim that this article violates that policy. I don't suggest that this is the only possible approach, but it's one that commonly employed and generally accepted in American English.

My “language advocacy” comment was hardly directed at avoiding gender-specific stereotypes, but rather at use of language that is not generally accepted in American English, such as use of the singular they and with words such as themself and theirself (which do not even appear in Webster's Third International Dictionary or Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.). This is entirely consistent with WP:GENDER:

“Wikipedia editors are advised to seek other solutions before using the singular they.”

I would maintain that the editor who inserted such language was the one who ignored WP policy.

There may, in some instances, be better ways of achieving gender neutrality than have been used here, and perhaps we should discuss them. But arbitrary changes that involve language that may be controversial aren't the way to do this. JeffConrad (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better, and certainly more succinct, way of putting this, from Bryan Garner (Garner’s Modern American Usage, 2nd ed., p. 717):

“... you’ll probably want a style, on one hand, that no reasonable person could call sexist, and on the other hand, that never suggests you’re contorting your language to be nonsexist.”

I think the article as written reasonably achieves this, but certainly have no problem with better ideas. Suffice it to say that the gender neutrality should not call attention to itself and distract from the article’s main topic. JeffConrad (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted recent edits by 74.196.164.169, which appear to violate WP:MOS and WP:GENDER. There's actually plenty of precedent for alternating masculine and feminine gender; see, for example, Garner cited above. I don't suggest that he's the only word on the subject, but he's certainly a credible source: executive editor of Black's Law Dictionary, and author of the usage section in the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., as well as numerous books on legal and general writing. His position is quite clear: “every writer ought to have available a repertoire of methods to avoid the generic masculine pronoun.”

Singular they finds a fair amount of support, including from Garner and Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, though Garner recognizes that it “sets many literate Americans' teeth on edge”, and, much like WP:GENDER, recommends other approaches to avoid distracting the reader from the substantive issues. The problem is much greater with the reflexive, which necessarily arises frequently in a discussion of “stop and identify” laws. In the Middle Ages, themself was actually the common form, and it has some support even now. But it's nonetheless far from the mainstream, and Garner describes it as a “part-plural, part-singular abomination” (Modern Legal Usage, 2nd ed.). Again, it distracts the reader from the greater issue.

There are many ways of avoiding the generic masculine pronoun, as Garner and most other sources describe, and as this article employs. I don't suggest that what's done here is the only approach, but I think it would be hard to make the case that it either violates WP policy or uses methods that are out of the mainstream. Accordingly, I think the seemingly endless edits of gender are purely stylistic and out of bounds. Perhaps the problem could be addressed by changing nearly all instances of the singular to plural, though I think it would call attention to itself and make the article less readable. In any event, I think the case should be made here first rather than just making drive-by edits.

I find it simply amazing that people devote such effort to this rather than substantive issues, like a person's obligations in a state other than Nevada. JeffConrad (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While there may be plenty of precedent for alternating masculine and feminine gender, it appears that the practice is annoying to multiple editors (including myself). Of all the possible options, I think alternating is the least desirable.

And others might find it amazing that you devote so much effort to this issue as well. --Hamitr (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Everyone seems to have a different preference: some prefer the traditional generic masculine, while others seem to prefer off-the-wall usage such as “themself” and “him or herself”. The former seems at odds with WP policy, and the latter strikes many people (including Garner and me) as an abomination. And many people, especially speakers of American English, bristle at the sight of the singular they. I see only two real possibilities:

1. Make everything plural (except for specific references to Hiibel or other individuals).
2. Eliminate pronouns (or at least most of them). This may be more easily said than done.

What amazes me is the disagreement with what's arguably the most common practice for avoiding gender bias. I don't suggest that it's anything more than the least of evils, but as you know, you write with the language you have. It's not the language you might want or wish to have at a later time. It's simply impossible to have an article written as everyone might write it, with regard to gender neutrality or anything else. There are many Wikipedia articles whose style differs from mine, but unless there's something blatantly wrong, I don't think it's my prerogative to go and change them. I don't claim that my style here is “right”, but would maintain that it isn't wrong, either, and I fail to see how it's out of step with either WP policy or mainstream practice. I don't think the same can be said for most of the edits to which I've objected. JeffConrad (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibilities to consider

I've reverted the edits by 67.165.70.81; a quick glance should show that no further explanation is required. If this sort of nonsense needs to be reverted several times a day, then so be it. But it would make far more sense to consider several options and try to find one that's more or less acceptable to the substantive contributors here. I suggest several possibilities, not all viable, illustrated using a condensed version of the section Detention.

1. Masculine: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave. Police may detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to identify himself to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name.

   Arguably the most natural, and as the references demonstrate, still common in legal writing. But offensive to many and presumably violative of WP:MOS.

2. Feminine: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe she is not free to leave. Police may detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to identify herself to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating her name.

   Similarly natural in form, but uncommon, and presumably as violative of WP:MOS as generic masculine.

3. Neuter: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe it is not free to leave. Police may detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to identify itself to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating its name.

   Absurd perhaps, but commonly used for infants and young children. There is ambiguity in the final sentence because its could refer to detainee, identification, or requirement.

4. Both genders: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he or she is not free to leave. Police may detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to identify himself or herself to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his or her name.

   One instance of both genders is manageable, but it gets extremely tedious, almost to the point of unreadability, after much repetition. For an actual example, see the 1 November 2009 version under Arrest.

5. Singular they: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave. Police may detain a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to identify themselves to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating their name.

   Jarring to many who consider the number disagreement grammatically incorrect. WP:GENDER recognizes this by suggesting that singular they only as a last resort. Though commonly used with anybody and nobody, themselves with other singular antecedents seems to find less support, and less usage, than does similar use of they. The last two sentences here may be initially confusing to many, prompting the question, “Who are the other people?” It’s clear enough after a re-read, but seems an unnecessary obstacle to place in the reader’s path.

6. Singular they, variant: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave. Police may detain a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to identify themself to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating their name.

   Themself (which MS Word corrects to themselves) is, to my ear as well as Garner’s, an abomination. There may be less confusion from the penultimate sentence than in the previous example because there’s less of an implied sense of plural.

7. Plural: People are detained when circumstances are such that reasonable people would believe they are not free to leave. A police officer may detain people if the officer has reasonable suspicion that those people are involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require people so detained to identify themselves to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that detainees were not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating their names.

   Manageable, perhaps, but at least to my ear, quite awkward. Care must be taken to preclude confusion of police and detainees.

8. Nouns repeated: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe that the person is not free to leave. Police may detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to identify that person to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating the detainee’s name.

   No possibility of gender bias, but to my ear, a nearly unreadable abomination. Were I the reader, my impression would be that the writer should not quit his or her day job.

9. No pronouns: A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Police may detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a person so detained to provide identity to a police officer. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating a name.

   Similar to the previous example. The common technique of replacing the pronoun with an article fails in the last sentence, because the requirement is for the detainee to state his or her name rather than just a name such as “Puddin Tane” (see People v. Quiroga, under Obligations in California on this page, for the details).

This article may be a more difficult case than many others, because I see no obvious way to avoid at least some instances of possessive and reflexive pronouns. There may be some way of recasting the wording to eliminate them, but I wasn't able to find one. I see no need to consider approaches, such as that taken by 67.165.70.81, that ignore rules of grammar and have absolutely no precedent.

Obviously, none of the above is perfect. As I suggest, I think the first approach is by far the most natural, as is the second; however, either would seem to violate WP:MOS and would be certain to draw frequent objection, as we have seen. At least to me, the other approaches range from awkward to abominable. The greatest advantage I see in alternating masculine and feminine is that the writing style is fairly natural, with the slight additional overhead of ensuring a reasonable balance of the two. Use of a natural style would seem to make it easier for both the reader, who doesn't need to decipher unfamiliar constructions, and for the writer, who can concentrate on content rather than jump through hoops to devise awkward and unnatural phrasing.

A hallmark of good editing is to tread as lightly as possible. Different authors have different styles, and one is not necessarily better than another. I think Wikipedia encourages somewhat bolder editing, but at some point, unless correcting an obvious error or making an arguable improvement, stare decisis must govern. This would seem common courtesy as well as common sense, lest we have the version of the hour. Though I'm not aware of a formal general policy on this, it's widely held informally, and there is much precedent for it with regard to individual areas such as reference styles, American vs. British English, typography of some mathematical material, etc.

This article was created using the generic masculine where pronouns could not be avoided. As some sections were expanded, I added masculine/feminine alternation to avoid accusations of gender bias and to comply with WP:MOS as I understand it. I personally have no problem with the generic masculine, but it's been deprecated for at least 25 years, so I've learned to avoid it. And I don't think the MOS allows it. But I'm willing to give it a shot if that's what others want.

To be honest, I'm getting weary of making what seem a simple matter into a dissertation, especially because it's been driven by anonymous edits, some of which have been ludicrous. But I wanted to do something more constructive than a brusque revert. Thoughts? JeffConrad (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A glance at a couple of sources suggests that the singular reflexive themselves may be more common than themself. Though far less common than other forms of singular they, it does have some proponents, e.g., Merriam-Webster. I personally find it just as jarring (though in a different way), but have nonetheless added it to the list for the sake of completeness. JeffConrad (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I like themselves. 66.72.215.225 (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

At the risk of reopening a can of worms, it is clear that my recent edit to the article that tried to clean up the gender issue within the article was by no means the first such edit that was reverted by the editor JeffConrad. While this editor's diligence at maintaining the integrity of the article is admirable, that several different editors have attempted to fix the same issue in the space of three years is an indication that something may in fact be wrong with the wording of the article.

Within the article, the alternation of gender-specific pronouns is a distraction. To the casual reader, it reads like a sloppy article where multiple editors have written different sections and no effort has been made to have a single consistent style throughout the whole article. This is in fact not true, as can be attested by JeffConrad's diligent efforts to maintain the article over several years. However, the alternation of pronouns is a stylistic distraction that is likely to impede the article's acceptance as a featured article.

There is nothing in WP:GENDER or WP:MOS that suggests that the alternation of pronouns is a recommended style in Wikipedia. WP:GENDER recommends the following:

• Pluralising (as I did in two places in my edit)
• Using he or she (the majority of my revisions)
• Otherwise rewording

It does not recommend the alternation of pronouns in different sections. Such a style would be a breach of the internal consistency guidelines of the MOS which states: [S]tyle and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article ... Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. The alternation of pronouns is not a consistent style. That they may be chosen so they are as balanced in number as possible does not really improve the article and adds an unnecessary burden to the maintenance of the article should it be necessary to add new material to it.

I find it odd that JeffConrad reverted my edit with the remark: This edit actually makes things much more biased. Biased? Really? In what possible way can a simple changing of he in some places and she in another for he or she to comply with the WP:GENDER section of the WP:MOS be in breach of WP:NPOV? The only possible reason I can think of is that the wording he or she always lists the masculine pronoun first. This is the recommended style per the MOS. If the Wikipedia style has a problem, please discuss this issue with senior contributors on the appropriate talk pages for WP:GENDER, WP:MOS or WP:NPOV.

As long as the article does not comply with the MOS, it is inevitable that editors will continue to copyedit the article to make it comply. Whether the style that is currently employed within the article is a recommended style that is found in a particular manual of style that is found elsewhere is irrelevant. The only relevant manual of style on Wikipedia is WP:MOS, which is drawn from several sources and is the consensus of the Wikipedia community. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 03:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Does any non-hypothetical person have a problem with the article using "he" and "his" in all cases? I have always understood "he" to be the gender-neutral pronoun in English. It can be used consistently, readably, and grammatically throughout the article without bothering anybody but a few imaginary readers who might think we editors only care about whether males get stopped by the police. - Calmypal (T) 21:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I can’t say whether I’m hypothetical. Use of the generic masculine was not questioned when I was in school (perhaps we both date ourselves . . .), but that approach is now generally deprecated, even by style guides that also abhor the singular they. I agree that using generic masculine is sometimes more readable than some of other machinations employed, but it also annoys many readers. Though WP:MOS is essentially silent on how to keep language gender neutral, I read it as disallowing generic masculine. One still encounters the generic masculine frequently in judicial opinions, especially by older male jurists, but then judges have always done much as they pleased. I don’t think we have that option here. JeffConrad (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the massive controversy here over gender balance before changing pronouns, so feel free to revert if needed. That said, using "her" alone is rather non-standard, and all uses of "his" had already been removed, so I changed any remaining gender-specific pronouns I found to the singular "they". 208.102.55.198 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edits, and cite MOS:STABILITY if that’s necessary. Although singular they is common in conversation, and increasingly in print, it’s still deprecated in the vast majority of major style guides; it clearly finds no consensus in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia takes no position either way. Its use here is clearly non-consensus (even though I’m apparently the main objector).

I completely agree that use of the feminine alone is every bit as sexist as is the generic masculine, and is arguably worse because there never has been established practice of its use. But the previous version didn’t use generic feminine; aside from quotations, the male–female distribution of pronouns was 13 to 14 (use of the en dash in this sentence is even more controversial than singular they . . .); after the previous edit, the ratio was 13 to 3.

It’s not completely clear what you meant by “her alone”; if you meant this as an alternative to “his and her” (and similar) in every instance, then, yes, it’s ostensibly a bit nonstandard. But using both genders in every instance with as many instances as we have in this article is abhorred by every style guide that I’ve read, and rightfully so. The alternation used in this article is essentially the same thing, except the alternation occurs in different contexts rather than in every instance. JeffConrad (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

“Peace officer” vs. “law enforcement officer”

I question the change from “peace officer” to “law enforcement officer”, especially when the law on which the seminal jurisprudence is based specifically uses the term “peace officer”. The Nevada Statutes make occasional reference to “law enforcement officer”, but the official term is “peace officer”, and that is where one must look (NRS 289) to learn which persons have the powers of peace officers. It's quite a list, and it includes some persons who may not be obvious; California law is very similar. Practice does vary; of the 20 linked “stop-and-identify” laws, 13 use “peace officer” and 7 use “law enforcement officer”.

It's possible that “law enforcement officer” will be less confusing to many than “peace officer”, but if the latter term is unfamiliar, it would behoove most people to learn it, especially in a state where that is the official term. I suggest that we use the term used in the law that Hiibel upheld and which is also used in a significant majority of the “stop-and-identify” laws listed in this article. JeffConrad (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be an obvious solution: a footnote in the lead section explaining that “peace officer” and “law enforcement officer” may include more than just police and sheriff's deputies. I'd still recommend using the term “peace officer” because it occurs in so many places in the article, and must unavoidably be used in the many direct quotations. If there's no objection, I'll add such a note. It may take a few tries to make it understandable to all, but it seems necessary. There always will be readers who won't bother with a link or a footnote, but there's not much that can be done for them. To me, a footnote, especially in the first paragraph, is a fairly obvious flag. JeffConrad (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from practical reasons, I don't really have a problem with "peace officer" per-se, as it's accurate. But twice already people have gone through the trouble of changing it to "police officer" because they were confused. If two people have gone to actually edit the page, there are probably 10x as many people who were confused and didn't bother to edit it. For that reason, I'd be inclined to use the language people would find less confusing. If you're going to use the footnote concept, I'd rather the actual text say "law enforcement officer" with a footnote explaining that many statutes define it was a "peace officer" or something of that nature. At least we won't (a) lose people, or (b) run into people editing the page to "correct" what they see as confusing. Jkatzen (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that the term is unfamiliar to some people, and the 10× estimate is probably low. I'm not particularly swayed by people who rush to edits without apparently bothering to examine the links provided (the Law enforcement officer article could use some improvement, but I think anyone who bothered to read it would have understood the meaning of “peace officer”). We've had some other edits, such as the ones focused only on gender, that arguably worked to no useful end.

It's quite possible, that as we've discussed before, most people will ignore footnotes, so adding one may not be any more effective than just providing a link. The greater issue, I think, is the numerous instances of “peace officer” in the article—I count something like 20. In some cases, they could be replaced by “law enforcement officer”, but this would not seem an option in the direct citations. In addition to the rather ponderous nature of the latter term (four syllables rather than one), isn't the alternation between the two terms potentially just as confusing? At some point, somewhere, the reader will need to come to terms with “peace officer”. Recall that the first edit to substitute “police” was in the middle of the article; you added a link at that point, and I added one in the lead section just to be safe. Obviously, it wasn't as safe as I had assumed ... The most recent edit involved a linked instance, so including additional links probably isn't the answer. You can give the reader a link, but you can't make him follow it ...

We're also assuming that “law enforcement officer” will prove less confusing. I'd guess that you're right, but it's also possible that someone will think it's just a ponderous synonym for “police officer”. The courts seem to strongly prefer the latter, so I guess it would be unfair to fault Wikipedia readers for having the same preference.

Again, though, the real issue is how to handle the numerous occurrences of “peace officer”, some of which cannot be eliminated. Unless someone realizes that “peace officer” and “law enforcement officer” are essentially synonymous and include many people other than police, confusion is probably inevitable. In any event, I'm not sure a footnote would do any good, so I'm going to hold off. JeffConrad (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Another approach is to throw in the towel and use “police officer”, with a footnote after the first use indicating that what is actually meant is “peace officer” or “law enforcement officer”. It's not strictly correct, but I suppose the distinction could be considered a technicality. If “police” is good enough for the Gang of Nine, it's arguably good enough for Wikipedia. JeffConrad (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been my preference from the very beginning, and I think early versions of the article used the word "police". I just never pushed the issue very hard, because I felt you cared far more about the term "peace officer" than I did. Jkatzen (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer using the correct term, but perhaps it's to the point of being pedantic. If it's my doing, then I'll make the change to “police” where possible and add a footnote. JeffConrad (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See what you think; the footnote may be more expansive than necessary for this article. JeffConrad (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting issue. The article currently uses "police officer". I'm wondering, is "police officer" entirely accurate? It suggests that these statutes only apply to members of the police force. If these laws can also confer powers on people who are not in a police force, "law enforcement officer" may be better as a broader term because it would suggest that the powers conferred by these laws may be enforced by an officer who is not in a police force.

Whatever wording is used, the explanatory text should be given greater prominence within the article. Burying the text in a footnote is not the best solution because the citation style is more usually used for references and a buried footnote is likely to be overlooked. The use of the varying terminology in the laws is an interesting fact in its own right and should not be buried in a footnote. For that reason IMO it merits a short paragraph of its own near the top of the article. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 03:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Police officer indeed is not entirely accurate, as the footnote indicates. As mentioned above, I had used peace officer throughout the article, for much the same reason as you note. An obvious example: the sheriff's deputy who stopped Hiibel was a peace officer but not a police officer. But because of several changes to police officer, the article's original author, Jkatzen, felt that peace officer was confusing too many people, and I surmised that if the courts could use police, so could we. Again, I discussed all of this above.

I'm not in favor of moving the footnote to the body of the article, because that terminology is not the topic of this article. I would much prefer going back to the proper term that was previously used, but for good or for ill, the current wording seems to represent consensus, so I'd be reluctant to go back without buy-in from at least the article's original author.

If we change back to the proper term, I would use peace officer rather than law enforcement officer because

• It's more commonly used by states with “stop and identify” laws; even the Law enforcement officer article strongly suggests that peace officer is the more common term.
• As previously discussed, it's the term used in the Nevada statute that inspired this article.
• It's four syllables rather than seven. For a single mention, it's no big deal, but for the number of occurrences in this article, the longer term gets pretty tedious.

I agree that varying terminology is a topic in its own right; sometimes even a single state can't seem to make up its mind. For example, Arizona uses both peace officer and law enforcement officer in different parts of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and I can see how this could confuse people who aren't lawyers. But if it merits discussion, it should be addressed in a separate article. For now, the article Law enforcement officer is the closest thing we have. JeffConrad (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I’ve changed several instances of police officer to police in attempt to make it more obvious that “police” is a generic reference to law-enforcement personnel rather than limited to those who are members of police departments, and partially address B.D.Mills’s concerns; I’ve left intact one instance in which the term properly refers to a police officer, and of course have not changed direct quotes. Again, I’d prefer to use “peace officer”, but would prefer not to go there unless there’s general buy in. JeffConrad (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit of 14 January 2009

I had meant to say in the comment that California's “stop-and-identify” law, Penal Code §647(e), voided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), was finally repealed in 2007 (Stats. 2007, Ch. 302, SB 425, Margett); the repeal was initiated at the request of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. In recommending repeal, the California Assembly's Committee on Public Safety found that the law “has served no purpose other than to cause confusion since 1983.” JeffConrad (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Obligations in California

I removed reference to People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961. I had relied somewhat on its mention in the California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook, but upon a careful re-read, I think that generalizing beyond the circumstances of that case the claim that “the court held that refusing to identify oneself was not a violation of Penal Code §148 unless the person had been arrested for a felony” is stronger than can be justified. Extending the circumstances to a detention would seem to rely on the holding in In re Gregory S (1980), 112 Cal.App.3d 764, discussed at 969, fn 2. That holding apparently relied on the citation of Justice White's concurring opinion in dicta in Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 420 (1984), at 439. Post Hiibel, it seems doubtful that that part of Gregory S. is still good law.

I am unaware of a holding that refusal to identify oneself constitutes a violation of §148, but I am also unaware of a definitive holding that it does not. People v. Long (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 77, relied on by the Alameda County DA's Office, apparently held that a detainee was obligated to present written identification upon request by a peace officer, but plaintiff Long complied with the request, so the issue of violation of §148 was not before the court. People v. Garcia (2006), 145 Cal.App.4th 782, held that a pat search for identification was unconstitutional, but again did not address violation of §148.

I think what remains in the note about a person's obligations in California is reasonably balanced, but perhaps someone else has additional thoughts on what this article can safely say about this. JeffConrad (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

I personally think FlexYourRights.com is a useful site, but are we getting carried away to the point that the article isn't NPOV? This link might also be seen as a commercial promo. JeffConrad (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the link is okay; their website says they are a a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization. 5Q5 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fifth Amendment holding in Hiibel

See my comments in the Talk for the Hiibel article. JeffConrad (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The quotation I put in that comment was included in this article (Note 21, as of 25 June 2010). I've moved the note to the lead section to make it more prominent; if we still assume that most people don't read the notes, perhaps we should at least briefly qualify the holding in the text. JeffConrad (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Brown v. Texas 1979

It seems that there should be some sort of mention of Brown v. Texas in this article, but I'm not exactly sure where. Any help? 99.73.189.231 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually is briefly mentioned (in Note 12 as of 14 July 2010); it's also mentioned in the article on Hiibel. I don't know whether it merits additional discussion here. Because the Court were able to resolve Brown on the grounds that the stop was violative of the Fourth Amendment, they did not consider the validity of the identification requirement. Since Brown was decided, Texas Penal Code § 38.02 has been amended twice, in 1991 and again in 1993, and the section now applies to a person “lawfully arrested” rather “lawfully stopped”. The change may have been in response to Brown, but I'm just guessing. If indeed that was the reason for changing the language, it might be worth adding to this article, but obviously, we'd need to be sure. The previous wording required a person stopped to give an address as well as a name; the Court has yet to consider the validity of the former, but post Hiibel, there presumably would be no problem with requiring a person “lawfully stopped” to provide a name. For whatever reason, the Texas legislature have thus far declined to revisit that statute. JeffConrad (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the list of states with “stop and identify” statutes accurate?

A piece in the the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in April 2010 quoted attorney Katya Kamisaruk (who's cited in this article) saying the list of states with “stop and identify” statutes “isn't accurate” because it ignores decisional law on the listed statutes. Though I disagree that the list is “inaccurate”, I do agree that without examining jurisprudence, it's difficult to know the effect of any law. I also agree that reviewing jurisprudence for every statute in the list would be quite a task, one evidently so daunting that Justice Kennedy's clerks did not attempt it. I might also agree that the list alone is somewhere between incomplete and misleading.

The section with the list does include some caveats, but they're mainly one sided: suggesting that the absence of a “stop and identify” law doesn't necessarily mean that a person cannot be arrested (legally or otherwise) for failure to identify herself. Certainly, a law is presumed valid until an appellate court has held otherwise, but without examining jurisprudence, we can't be sure that state courts hasn't given one or more of the listed statutes narrowing constructions that limit or perhaps even bar enforcement of identification requirements. And some states have a bad habit of leaving long-voided laws on the books; for example, the California's modified “stop and identify” law that was voided by Kolender v. Lawson in 1983 wasn't formally repealed until 2008.

The task of reviewing all state jurisprudence is certainly something I'm not going to undertake, and without maintenance, I'm not even sure it would be a good idea. But should we mention that the list alone isn't necessarily meaningful without knowledge of how a given state's courts have interpreted the statute? JeffConrad (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Illinois law as implied is definitely not accurate

The law regarding Illinois is certainly not what the article implies. The article implies that if a state is on that list, it has a stop and identify statute, which means you must identify yourself in some manner if the police ask you. However, this is the Illinois law in question, and this is the court's interpretation of it. All the Illinois law says is that the police can ask you for ID. It says nothing that you are required to provide it. So including Illinois on a list of states with "Stop and Identify" laws, which generally means if you are stopped you must identify yourself, sends the wrong message.

The Law
(725 ILCS 5/107‑14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑14) Sec. 107‑14. Temporary questioning without arrest. A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102‑‑15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.

Court case [People v. Love, 318 Ill.App.3d 534 (2000)]
The State next argues that the officer's order was a justifiable means of compelling defendant to state her name pursuant to section 107-14, which provides that an officer making a Terry stop may "demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions." 725 ILCS 5/107-14 (West 1992). However, while section 107-14 states that an officer may "demand" the defendant's name, it does not provide that the officer may compel a response. Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated in the context of a Terry stop: "[T]he officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond." (Emphasis added.) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 438, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317, 334, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3150 (1984). Voratio (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the previous post into a single subsection so that it's more obvious that my comments (and any subsequent) apply to the entire topic. I've also added the missing citation to the case quoted.

Certainly, we err if we imply that the list of states with “stop and identify” laws is a bright line for the obligation to identify oneself when detained under circumstances of Terry; perhaps we need to make it more clear that that is not the case. But I think we need to be very careful in providing anything other than a caveat. In particular, absent a definitive holding either confirming or denying the obligation to identify, we should avoid any statement to either effect.

Again, take California as an example. Its “stop and identify” law (of sorts) was voided by the US Supreme Court in 1983, and finally repealed by the legislature in 2008 (when they presumably could have replaced it with a law similar to Arizona's law drafted specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel but go no further). There is much jurisprudence, including Hiibel, suggesting that refusal to identify is not an offense. But there are a few cases, e.g., People v. Long (1987) and People v. Loudermilk (1987), that some cite as holding that there is an obligation to provide written identification even absent a law specifically requiring it. Subsequent cases, e.g., People v. Garcia (2006) have distanced themselves from Long and Loudermilk, but I am unaware of any specific, definitive holding that such a refusal is not a violation of California's “obstructing an officer” statute, Penal Code § 148(a)(1), so I don't think we can conclusively state that there is no obligation to identify oneself in California.

For Illinois, I'm not certain that Love is dispositive, for at least two reasons:

1. Love was pre-Hiibel. It is difficult to ascertain how much the Court relied on the citation from Berkemer v. McCarty in its decision. To the extent that it did, the Illinois Court's holding is probably weakened; in Hiibel, the US Supreme Court noted that a dictum in the opinion in Berkemer v. McCarty quoted Justice White's concurring opinion in Terry, and held that it was not controlling.
2. Love was reversed on other grounds by the Illinois Supreme Court (the Supreme Court held that there was probable cause to arrest, and consequently, the search of Love's mouth was incident to arrest). The reversal may have no effect on the interpretation of 725 ILCS 5/107-14, but I think it would be prudent to examine post-Hiibel cases, preferably in the Illinois Supreme Court before we assert that a person stopped in Illinois need not identify herself. Several appellate cases, People V. Austin (2006), People V. Moore, (2007), and People V. Morrison (2007) cite Hiibel and give the impression that they don't consider requests for identification a big deal; however, none deals specifically with a refusal of a detainee to identify herself, and none mentions Love. In a quick search, I also was unable to find a post-Hiibel case that interpreted the authority to demand identification.

My search of Illinois jurisprudence was hardly exhaustive, so perhaps there is some additional information that would support the conclusion that the right to demand identification is not the same as imposing an obligation to respond. But I think we should be very cautious about any such statement we add.

Again, if the article gives the impression that the existence of a “stop and identify” law establishes a bright line, we need to add something making clear that it does not. Perhaps we could include some mention of the cases mentioned in this discussion, but if so, I think we must be careful to avoid drifting into original research. JeffConrad (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cursory analysis of listed “stop and identify” laws

There probably are many different ways that “stop and identify” laws can be classified, but a quick look reveals several things.

Four states' laws (Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.

Fifteen states grant a peace officer authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:

• In Montana, a peace officer “may request” identifying information;
• In 13 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), a peace officer “may demand” identifying information;
• In Colorado, a peace officer “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”, apparently requires only that the person state his name.

Six states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.

In Ffive states (Alaska 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.

In states whose “stop and identify laws” do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying an officer”. Wording and interpretation by state courts of both “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws varies; in some cases, such as New York, a physical act (such as forcible resistance or sometimes simply “going limp”) is required, and in others, such as Nevada and Utah, no physical act is required.

State courts (which determine guilt or innocence) and federal appellate courts (which hear actions for civil rights violations) are not bound by each others' precedents, and interpretations by state and federal courts are not always consistent. The Nevada Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had found the Nevada “stop and identify” law violative of the Fourth Amendment, but in Hiibel v. Dist. Court declined to follow their the Ninth Circuit's precedent. in Hiibel v. Dist. Court. At least one Illinois appellate court, in Love noted above, concluded that for the Illinois “stop and identify” statute, an officer's authority to demand that a suspect identify himself did not impose an obligation to comply. Post-Hiibel decisions by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (e.g., Cady v. Sheahan [2006] and Hardrick v. Bolingbrook [2007]) clearly do not share this view.

And as noted in Hiibel, different federal circuits do not always agree. For example, in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000) the court apparently held that an officer's authority to demand identification in Utah's stop and identify law imposed a duty to respond, and that Oliver's “refusal to perform any act required by lawful order” violated Utah's obstructing law because Oliver's duty to identify himself made Officer Woods's order to do so lawful.

Conclusion
The slightly expanded list of “stop and identify” laws that were given in Hiibel makes for a handy reference, but it seems obvious that for the majority of states for which we list such laws, the effect of a “stop and identify” law cannot be determined without knowing some other law, typically one for “obstructing an officer”, and interpretation by state and sometimes federal courts of both laws, preferably in a case similar to Hiibel in which a person specifically challenged a conviction for obstructing. Though I've only looked at a handful of jurisdictions, such cases seem few and far between. Consequently, though it would appear that the current listing of states may be accurate, absent additional information, it's probably misleading.

Providing the necessary information would be a tall order, and doing so might prove almost impossible; in some states, the legal questions may even be unsettled. I'm not sure it makes sense to remove the list, but I think we need to make it more clear that the list is not a reliable indicator of whether a suspect must identify himself. If it's thought more enlightening than confusing, we could perhaps include some of the examples above to illustrate the complexity.

I have a bit of a problem with the subsection Obligations under “stop and identify” laws, because that title seems to imply that if a state has a “stop and identify” law, there is an obligation, and absent such a law, there is not an obligation. Moreover, absent definitive decisions such as Hiibel, any statement of obligations is little more than a guess, which I don't think we should (or even can) do. To me, the material in that subsection seems largely a continuation of the material that immediately precedes it. One simple option would be to eliminate the subsection title. JeffConrad (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Detailed explanation of various state laws

I reverted the note for Florida’s “stop and identify” law because, although arguably useful, it made a mess of the list. There’s also no more reason to explain Florida’s law than that of any other state, and adding similar notes to the list would make it something other than a list. If we think more explanation is needed, I think it should go in the text rather than the list. The question then would be how far to go; I’m not sure it makes sense to discuss every state law in detail (WP is not a repository for primary sources, and we have the links to the actual texts), so perhaps a summary like I have discussed above would be appropriate. JeffConrad (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit of 12 December 2010

I’ve revised the sections States with “stop and identify” laws and Obligations under “stop and identify” laws in attempt to address concerns that we currently oversimplify the issue, and the recent edit explaining Florida’s “stop and identify” law. Toward that end, I’ve incorporated much of the material above. I’ve tried to maintain a balance of positions, and avoid stating any conclusions that aren’t unambiguously supported by decisional law (in other words, very few). I realize that there now is an ocean of quoted material, but without it, I don’t think the statements that rely on it can reasonably be included.

I changed the section title to lessen the impression that the article provides a dispositive list of states and the attendant obligations.

I put the table of states with “stop and identify” laws at the right and let the text flow around it to better give the impression that it’s a starting point rather than a dispositive guide to obligations; if this makes the text column to the left too narrow on some displays, we can move the table (if we do, I’d put it at the end of the section in another subsection to lessen the urge for a reader to simply look at the list and assume that determines her obligations).

See if this works. JeffConrad (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

International Laws (specifically for me, Canada)

I'd like to see this page to be expanded to hold information from other countries. Specifically, I'm interested in Canada (because that's where I live). 24.78.50.156 (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Texas statutes

Texas Penal code 38.02 clearly is not a “stop and identify” statute; the requirement to identify oneself applies only to a person who has been arrested, as was discussed above under List and Brown v. Texas 1979.

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

[emphasis added]

The requirement to carry and present a license applies only to the driver of a vehicle, so it’s not a “stop and identify” statute, and not properly part of this article. As nearly as I know, every other state has the same requirement, so there’s nothing special about Texas.

The article carefully balances masculine and feminine gender; making changes to one section upsets that balance. This again has been discussed many times. JeffConrad (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I added mention of Texas Penal Code § 38.02(b) that criminalizes giving a false name. It probably could be mentioned under either Detention or Arrest; I put it under the former because, though some people do give false names after being arrested, it’s rather silly because the deceit will quickly be detected, and a person is unlikely to be released from jail without providing reliable identification, so there is usually nothing to gain. Conceivably, a detainee might fear withholding her name even absent a “stop and identify” law, and think that giving a false name would protect her anonymity while still placating police. At least in Texas, the latter is not a good idea.

See if this is the best place to mention it. JeffConrad (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Florida statutes

I think the article gives an extremely misleading view of Florida's law. FL law does not allow police to arrest simply for failure to identify one's self. Your presence must "warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity," and the statute allows you other means to dispell the idea that you are a danger beyond identification. 207.244.179.96 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

All “stop and identify” laws require reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime for a peace officer to even detain a suspect, and I think we make this pretty clear. I also think we make it clear that in Florida, as well as four other states, that failure to identify is only one factor that can lead to arrest. What would you suggest as an improvement? In the interim, I’ve interchanged the last two bullet items to place the “only one factor” before the mention of criminal penalties, in attempt to give the former more emphasis. JeffConrad (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Gender neutrality revisited

I have once again reverted an edit by 99.241.189.67. I labeled it as vandalism because

1. The stated reason for the edit (“restore gender neutral language”) makes no sense in light of tilting the bias toward masculine gender.
2. The user’s edit history suggests more disruption and ad hominem attacks than constructive contributions. Now there’s no way of knowing if edits from an IP address are made by the same person, but there does seem to be a repeated pattern over a considerable period of time.

As I had previously mentioned, if the current approach of alternating between masculine and feminine gender, with a nearly even overall balance violates WP:MOS, we clearly need to change it and I need to stand corrected. Conversely, if there is no conflict with the MOS, MOS:STABILITY requires that we not change the style. But if change is needed, I think the basis should be something better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It’s far from clear that the current language violates the MOS; in particular, I fail to see why “his or her” and similar are acceptable, yet the current approach (which essentially spreads the alternation out to avoid unreadability) is unacceptable. I’m also far from sure that use of singular they, on which Wikipedia is neutral, and which is deprecated by many quality style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style, Garner’s Modern American Usage, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and the Oxford Style Manual, is the answer.

I don’t suggest that the current approach is the only one, but I think we’d be better off trying to arrive at something that’s generally acceptable than engaging in periodic mini–edit wars. And again, I think the most recent edits by 99.241.189.67 are possibly not even directed to addressing the issue. I’ve repeatedly asked that editor to indicate why these changes are appropriate, but so far, that editor has declined. JeffConrad (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested by user 99.241.189.67 that

1. Use of generic masculine is within the spirit of WP:MOS, and
2. Use of feminine gender in any specific instance consequently implies that the situation applies to a woman, and is therefore sexist and insulting.

I think the first is untenable and the second is just plain nuts. I also find the second assertion astonishing in light of this editor’s response to me and her recent edit history. Given the editor’s response, I no longer regard the edits as vandalism, but still regard them as pointlessly disruptive and violative of MOS:STABILITY. But I suppose I should give others the chance to weigh in before taking this elsewhere. JeffConrad (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A brief discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style got no definitive statements, except that the issue was one to be resolved here rather than there. The responses did suggest that

1. There is no general consensus on handling of gender neutrality or what constitutes “gender neutral”.
2. A number of editors prefer generic masculine.
3. Nonetheless, the language of WP:MOS and WP:GENDER is difficult to read as allowing generic masculine. This is consistent with the vast preponderance of widely used style guides.
4. There is nothing wrong with alternating masculine and feminine gender, although not everyone thinks it’s a good idea.

The question whether masculine gender is always generic and an instance of feminine gender is insulting drew no comment, so presumably this is not seen as self evident. Consequently, I think it’s clear that generic masculine is unacceptable. I also think the contention that an instance of feminine gender is inherently sexist and insulting is utterly without merit; it isn’t used in conjunction with any specific offenses, so there certainly is no furtherance of stereotypes. I’ve never seen the issue raised before, and I can find no support for it whatsoever in half a dozen style guides I consulted. Unless editor 99.241.189.67 can make a persuasive case supported by logic and reliable sources, the recent edits clearly violate the MOS, and I’m going to revert them and treat any further such edits as disruptive to the extent of approaching vandalism. I’d much prefer an amicable resolution, but we’ve already wasted far too much time on something that is just plain silly. JeffConrad (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

While, I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to edit-war, I tend to prefer the generic masculine as well. Except when referring to actual women or to the occasional English noun that's traditionally feminine (such as ships), the use of a feminine pronoun for a generic person almost always interrupts my reading. Because of the relative rarity in usage of such a "generic feminine" pronoun (except as "his/her," "s/he," etc., it does sometimes make me initially wonder if women are being specifically targeted by its use (whether pejorative or not). It's odd to me that this battle is taking place on a random legal article. Jkatzen (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I’ve mentioned, I’d personally be fine with generic masculine in this instance; it’s certainly simpler, and it’s still quite common in judicial opinions. But that approach is almost universally deprecated in major style guides. Using it here would likely annoy many readers, leading to edit warring; given my reading of WP:MOS, it would be difficult to defend as complying with WP policy. Interestingly, though, several editors who are regular contributors to the MOS suggested using generic masculine anyway.

The APA style guide states a concern that alternation may suggest that either masculine or feminine gender can be generic, which APA consider unacceptable. I hadn’t seen the use here as implying generics, but rather as specific instances involving both men and women, much as the examples in the videos from FlexYourRights.org. Apparently many readers perceive it as the former rather than the latter.

I was quite surprised that this article has drawn such a battle; I thought I had employed a common and uncontroversial technique. It would appear that some readers take umbrage with any instance of a gendered pronoun, whether or not the usage suggests gender stereotypes; with all due respect to the various editors, I think many of the edits have been knee-jerk reactions, addressing only a single subsection. Had specific offenses been mentioned, perhaps I could see specific targeting; but here we just mention, in very general terms, various forms of police–citizen interactions, so I just don’t see it.

As mentioned, this article also requires numerous instances of the possessive and reflexive: in certain jurisdictions, a detainee must identify himself or herself to police, in some cases simply by stating his or her name. Just stating a name isn’t sufficient, as Armando Quiroga discovered.

So what do we do about it? I presented several alternatives in January 2010, but there have been no comments. Several things seem obvious:

• WP:MOS and WP:GENDER would seem to preclude generic masculine. But perhaps someone can make the case otherwise.
• Many readers, apparently including you, aren’t comfortable with alternation; although the consensus on Talk for the MOS seemed to be that this approach complied with the MOS, there wasn’t much enthusiasm for it.
• I’m not OK with singular they. Although I suspect that it will eventually again find widespread acceptance, many readers will currently see it as indicative of the authors’ illiteracy. And it’s deprecated by the majority of current style guides.

There would seem three possibilities:

1. Stick with the current alternation, citing WP:STABILITY as controlling. Though I think such an assertion is correct, that approach isn’t favored by some readers, and there will probably be additional edit wars. Nonetheless, it remains my preference.
2. Use generic masculine, citing considerable precedent in current legal writing. And any stereotypes perpetuated are probably accurate; I don’t know the ratio for detentions, but according to the UCR, males account for about 75% of arrestees, and I think the ratio approaches 90% for inmates. I think this approach also would lead to edit warring, and I’m not sure we could reasonably counter an assertion that this was violative of the MOS.
3. Pluralize everything, using language to the effect of

   Police may detain people if they have reasonable suspicion that the people are involved in a crime; people are detained when circumstances are such that reasonable individuals would not feel free to leave. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require the detainees to identify themselves to police. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that detainees are not required to present written identification, but can satisfy the requirement merely by stating their names.

   I think people is the most natural way to say this; to me, persons seems a bit contrived, and individuals seems to smack of police jargon (as Garner suggests).

   This approach would seem immune to any reasonable attack on technical grounds, though to me it would crucify good writing on the cross of gender genuflection. But if it finds general consensus, I think it’s far preferable to edit wars, which do readers a great disservice.

JeffConrad (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

It seems clear that, just as with the Wikipedians who make significant contributions to the MOS, there is not, nor will there ever be, consensus on how to handle gender neutrality here. I think, however, that the MOS nonetheless provides a means of resolution. As with most other aspects of writing style, there are many ways of addressing gender neutrality, all admittedly imperfect, and it is simply impossible to incorporate them all. The MOS guidance in such a situation is clear: the article should follow the style used in the first non-stub version. In this instance, that is the alternation of masculine and feminine gender when other workarounds prove awkward.

Several editors have suggested that gender alternation is violative of the MOS. If that is indeed the case, the current approach need not be (and cannot be) followed. The question, then, is whether gender alternation can be regarded as gender neutral. Although I think most of it has previously been covered, I’m not sure even I could find it amidst the clutter, so I shall review the issue de novo.

1. Policy is given in WP:MOS, which simply says, “Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision”, and directs the reader to the linked guideline. The stated exceptions would seem to prove the rule that generic masculine (or generic feminine) are disallowed.
2. The Gender-neutral language guideline clearly states the objective: “Gender-neutral language avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes”; I fail to see how gender alternation as used in this article comes anywhere close to reinforcing stereotypes. That guideline does include “A masculine or feminine pronoun to refer to a generic or hypothetical person” as an example of “non-neutral language that can often be easily avoided”. Perhaps the operative words are often and easily, but in any event, the language (as well as the guideline) is advisory rather than proscriptive. The guideline includes several examples of ways to avoid gender bias, including “Using he or she (‘Each politician is responsible for his or her constituency’)”, but also notes that “this can be ungainly if repeated within a short space”.
3. The article Gender-neutral pronoun includes gender alternation as a “modern solution” for addressing gender neutrality. This article is neither policy nor guidance, and is not even directed to Wikipedia editors, but it nonetheless suggests alternation is one commonly used technique.
4. Gender alternation is given as a technique in many widely used style guides, including Garner’s Modern American Usage, the Oxford Style Manual, and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association; endorsement in the last guide is tepid at best, but the operative question here is whether alternation is an acceptable technique rather than whether it is the best technique.

It would seem to me that gender alternation is clearly a well-established, acceptable technique for achieving gender neutrality. Whether it is the best technique is a subjective question to which there is probably no “right” answer, and on which we are unlikely to reach unanimous agreement here. But unless I’ve missed something significant, MOS:STABILITY governs, and changing the current style is clearly out of bounds.

As previously noted, use of the current style was hardly a capricious decision.

1. The article’s original author used generic masculine, probably a technical violation of the MOS, but with only an instance or two, hardly a significant issue.
2. As the article was expanded and the instances increased, the general masculine bias became more prominent, and I used several techniques to address it, including pluralization, use of nouns rather than pronouns, and where either of these seemed contrived and awkward, constructions like “his or her”.
3. With regard to the last, the reason for the caveat in Gender-neutral language quickly became evident, particularly demonstrated in the final paragraph under Arrest. Although the actual wording in the 1 November 2009 version previously cited was slightly different, a complete transformation of the current wording would read to the effect of

   Whether an arrestee must identify himself or herself to police may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question him or her, they are required to inform the arrestee of his or her Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.[15][16] It is not clear whether a “stop and identify” law can compel the arrestee to give his or her name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrestee to give his or her name and other biographical information,[17] and some state courts[18][19] have held that refusal of an arrestee to give his or her name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrestee who refused to give his or her name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.

   Ya gotta be kidding . . .

4. Some other commonly used techniques cannot be used here without unacceptably altering meaning. For example, it usually is necessary to say “state his name” (or “state her name”) rather than simply “state a name”.
5. Remaining alternatives might be to pluralize everything or repeat nouns (as was done in Arizona’s “stop and identify” statute); I think the wording in the examples I previously gave could be slightly improved, but the constructions would still be contrived and would hurt rather than improve the article.

I hardly expect everyone to agree with my reasoning on the final points above, but I repeat that, to avoid paralysis, it was necessary to choose among various techniques, and a choice was made. Unless that choice violates the MOS, stare decisis governs.

As I’ve indicated, if I’ve somehow erred in my analysis, and someone can make the case with something more than a different personal preference, I’m more than willing to stand corrected. JeffConrad (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to get past the pointless edit warring

The seemingly incessant edit warring does a disservice to the article’s readers, and I’m also growing weary of it. Though alternation seemed an uncontroversial to me , it found at best tepid support at WT:MOS and it obviously has found little favor with some here. I repeat my thoughts above and suggest we take one of three approaches:

1. Find a rationale for using generic masculine that we can reconcile with WP:GENDER ad defend if necessary. Perhaps that the vast majority of arrests (and presumably also detentions) involve men would be one element. If we can find a supportable rationale, we can also cite MOS:STABILITY if others have a problem with it. My greatest concern is that this approach would also invite ongoing edit warring.
2. Use the plural whenever we cannot avoid a pronoun, e.g.,

   Police may detain persons if they have reasonable suspicion that those persons are involved in a crime; persons are detained when circumstances are such that reasonable persons would not feel free to leave. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require the detainees to identify themselves to police. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that detainees are not required to present written identification, but can satisfy the requirement merely by stating their names.

   To me, persons seems a bit contrived and jargony; as suggested above, people or individuals are possible alternatives, though individuals also seems to smack of police jargon. In some cases, suspects could serve to describe persons police wish to detain, though this may be arguably less neutral than persons or the other alternatives.

3. Eliminate pronouns when we use the singular, e.g.,

   Police may detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime; a person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Many states have “stop and identify” laws that require a detainee to identify that the detainee to police. The Court’s opinion in Hiibel implied that a detainee is not required to present written identification, but can satisfy the requirement merely by stating the detainee’s name.

   Again, suspect might serve in some cases to lessen the unnatural repetition of person, though as suggested above, it may imply a slight bias.

Decisions like this are usually made by those who have been involved in developing this article, so I’d be especially interested in Jkatzen’s thoughts. In any event, we could put the time spent on this to far better use, like debating the use of en dashes . . . JeffConrad (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to Coloroado’s “stop and identify” law

The link to Colorado Session Laws of 2001, Ch. 261, added on 11June 2011, is shaky because it leads to an Act that was approved over ten years ago rather than the current code. The link to CRS 16-3-103(1) has long been a problem, breaking almost monthly, despite several creative efforts to find a stable link. Unless someone has a better idea, I suggest that we return to the general link to the Colorado Revised Statutes, which, though less convenient, seemed to be stable. JeffConrad (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico SAI statute is ambiguous?

NMSA §30-22-3, as linked in the article, is somewhat ambiguous as to the actual process of providing identity. In Full:

30-22-3. Concealing identity.

Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.

Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

The law states that, in short, if you are detained by an officer in the course of his duties (executing the law of NM), and you attempt to obstruct, intimidate, hinder, or interrupt him/her by concealing your identity, then you are guilty of a petty misdemeanor. To me, this makes it sound like you may say, "I do not need to provide you with my identification, but my name is X," and still be in the right (as long as you don't lie about your name).

Just a thought. ThatOneRoadie (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A ruling was made on this in KEYLON v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE in the United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit, No. 07-2071, on August 05, 2008. "Believing that she was being “untruthful and evasive,” Officer Barnard asked for Ms. Keylon's identification.   Aples' Br. at 8. Ms. Keylon did not produce identification, and instead approached her van.   Officer Barnard put his hand up, preventing Ms. Keylon from getting in.   He asked her where her identification was, and she told him that it was in her purse, which was in the house.   She started walking up the driveway towards her home, at which point Officer Barnard said, “Ma'am, I need to see your ID.” Ms. Keylon responded, “Well, I'll get my ID when I'm ready.”   Tr., at 225.   Officer Barnard then placed her under arrest for concealing her identity, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-22-3.   All of this occurred on the sidewalk and lawn in front of Ms. Keylon's home." The court ruled against her. I think you have a different understanding of the word "conceal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.116 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

MI stop and identify statutes.

Your article lists Michigan as one of 24 states with stop and identify statutes, but there is no information about Michigan or its applicable laws in the article. Your list of states does not even have Michigan on it. 2601:4:1180:8B9:5C75:A034:F8DC:864B (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Virginia conservator (18.2-464)

The IP/anon editor is partially right. Law enforcement can also be conservators of the peace. It's not just judges. It's a whole slew of persons, both state and federal, operating within the justice system. But, the editor is correct that it's not a S&I statute. It's about refusing to bring a suspected person to the LEO when ordered to deliver up said offender, not about refusing to show one's ID or state one's information. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Crazy how it's nearly seven years later, and it only just dawned on me now that, even though an LEO falls within the definition of a conservator of the peace in Va., the statute cited—when you really think about it—seems more to actually criminalize LEOs not bringing someone in custody before a magistrate or judge on a writ of habeas corpus when so commanded... Not sure how or why this statute ever got included in the article. ----Foofighter20x (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

“citation needed” tag for statement about Wisconsin “stop and identify” law

The statement “hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state” makes a pretty sweeping conclusion without citing any authority. Perhaps it draws on the Illinois cases People v. Love (2000) and People v. Fernandez (2011), but those cases have no binding authority in another state. Given that the distinction between a demand for identification and the obligation to provide it was addressed in dictum in Fernandez and that Love was reversed—albeit on other grounds—the cases may not carry much persuasive authority, either.

Reliance on other jurisdictions would seem unnecessary; the issue was addressed in Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis.2d 338 (1995), which held that failure to identify oneself was not a violation of Wisconsin’s “obstructing” statute, §946.41.; the case is linked after the text of the statute.

It is not clear that this means that Wisconsin is not a “must ID” state, however, because it’s not clear what that term means. Although failure to identify oneself is apparently not a basis for arrest, State v. Flynn (cited in the article) nonetheless sanctions a search for identification. And Flynn strongly implies that the Court do not see a distinction between a demand and a requirement to comply, though it does not attempt to show that this was the legislature’s intent. Like the California court in People v. Garcia, I honestly don’t see how Flynn can be reconciled with Terry v. Ohio—but ’tis as ’tis; the decision was apparently unanimous, and it appears to remain good law.

Once again: the interpretation of state laws is the prerogative of state courts. The duty of Wikipedia is to observe and report rather than analyze or comment.

JeffConrad (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

See Utah v. Strieff (2016)

I think that Utah v. Strieff (2016) doesn't say what an editor thinks it says: "Prior to the recent Supreme Court decision (see Utah v. Strieff (2016)), if a person was not reasonably suspected of committing a crime, they were not required to provide identification, even in states with stop and identify statutes."

The supreme court held in Utah v. Strieff that "that Strieff was a shortterm visitor, Officer Fackrell should have asked Strieff whether he would speak with him, instead of demanding that Strieff do so" and that the officer's stop of Strieff was unlawful.

It was only because Strieff happened to have an outstanding warrant that, post facto, the court could say that evidence gained pursuant to the unlawful stop was admissible.

Utah has a stop-and-identify statute which requires probable cause to demand ID from a suspect: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title77/Chapter7/77-7-S15.html

If anything, Utah v. Strieff affirms at the supreme court level that the officer didn't have probable cause to stop Strieff, and, potentially more generally, that officers must abide by stop and identify statutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowster (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

National Applicability

Drive-by comment from an unregistered reader. I think this article should be titled "Stop and identify statutes in the USA". Other countries have a wide range of stop and identify laws, which are entirely unmentioned. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.32.239 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Link to Georgia's "Obligation to Identify" is not accessible

The statute reference is correct and applicable, however, the link itself is not accessible, "404 - File or directory not found." By drilling down through georgia.gov, the root and link of the Nexis DB have changed. The link I can obtain is incredibly long, so will put in the last reasonable link, at least leading the reader to the proper place to get into the DB. The topic is of current interest, so brand new Wiki contributor at the helm attempting to captain. God save us all.

FirstGoWikiHelp (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

US federal law

Shouldn't there be a section or a See Also that notes what federal law requires? I distantly recall a case where 2 terror suspects were taken in by the FBI and the FBI couldn't convict them of any prior crime but since each had refused to identify himself, they were convicted of a felony and got 5 years for it. Trouble is, I can't find anything on the internet regarding having to identify oneself to a federal agent, or to this particular case. --Petzl (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

North Carolina Court case

Does the court case for North Carolina really fall in line with the spirit of this entry? The case linked describes how a passenger in a motor vehicle refused to ID himself AFTER the officer told him he would be giving him a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. Generally, Stop and ID laws pertain to reasonable suspicion and investigating, not IDing once an officer is arresting or writing a ticket. It follows that a person must be identified if they are arrested or given a ticket, else the state lacks enforcement ability of its laws. Stop and ID laws pertain to a persons obligations during an investigation, before someone is accused of a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:F502:33BC:69CA:A1CC:DA92:154 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Florida identify statute

Fla. Stat. §901.15 does not require a detainee to identify. It only gives law enforcement the power to detain for the purpose of identification. 2601:985:4201:1F60:8D87:8C92:259:44DB (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Article lacks source for detainment claim

This statement here in the article is unsourced: "While the police officer must have reasonable suspicion to detain a person, the officer has no obligation to inform the person what that suspicion was." There is no reference for this claim. There are a number of other places on the web where it says that a detainee has a right to know the reason for their detainment. So which is it? Can someone please source the statement in the article that says a police officer can lawfully detain you and not tell you any justifiable reason for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:980:DDE0:C4BB:D04E:1911:8186 (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Maryland incorrectly listed as having a stop and id law

There is a list of states that the article states have stop and id laws, each state listed has a hyperlink to a statute. Maryland is listed, but the hyperlink points to statutes about handling handgun possession during a terry stop, id is never mentioned. Furthermore in a proceeding map shown earlier in the article maryland is clearly indicated as NOT having a stop and id statute. 71.121.234.94 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Wisconsin is not a stop and identify state

Wisconsin is NOT a stop and identify state. As an attorney practicing civil rights and criminal justice in the state for over a decade, this is one of the most common misconceptions, and it is lazy maps like this that are partially to blame.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

This statute misleads people into believing they have a duty to respond to such a demand. They do not. There is no portion of this section that imposes a duty upon a citizen to respond to an officer's demand for identification. There is no criminal or civil penalty listed for failing to do so. And the language that restricts any detention to temporary and localized detention specifically prohibits arrest, which would be available if it were a violation of the law to refuse to provide identification.

Looking closely, this statute merely states what the federal courts already have allowed: it allows the officer to demand identification and briefly detain someone who does not provide it in an attempt to identify them.

I really do not feel a need to discuss this point very far, as this is a commonly discussed matter amongst legal professionals and experts in this state. There is broad consensus on everything I have stated. Unless someone has something to offer to convincingly contradict this, then someone needs to remove Wisconsin from the list of states with stop and identify laws. Jsingleton82 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Obligation to identify map

The sidebar indicates that Washington, Maryland, and North Carolina have some form of "stop and indentify" laws, but these states are not shaded red in the adjacent map. NoTalentHack (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)