Law enforcement officers routinely ask people for their names and other identifying information. Police may ask for the information as part of a specific criminal investigation. At other times, they may need the information to protect themselves, allowing them to determine whether the person they are speaking with has a violent criminal history. Several states have made it unlawful to refuse to provide certain identifying information to a law enforcement officer when the officer has properly requested it. These laws are commonly referred to as "stop-and-identify" laws.
Stop-and-identify laws require a person to tell a police officer their name and, sometimes, other identifying information upon being stopped and questioned. A police officer can only demand this information if the officer stops the person for suspected criminal behavior. Failure by the person to respond can be a violation of the law or lead to a longer detention.
Not all states have stop-and-identify statutes, but they might have a related or similar statute. For instance, failure to identify might trigger a violation of a loitering-and-prowling or obstruction-of-justice law. Providing false information or a fake ID to a police officer will always be a crime, even in states that don't have stop-and-identify laws.
Beyond providing the required identifying information, the person has a right to remain silent and can't be forced to answer any other question.
In states that have stop-and-identify laws, the prosecutor typically must prove two things to get a conviction:
Some states also require proof that the person intentionally refused or refused with the intent of delaying or preventing the officer from doing their job. A few states' laws clarify that the person doesn't need to show a physical ID—giving their name to the officer suffices.
Before a police officer can properly stop a person and ask for their name, the officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. This means the officer must be able to state facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime occurred or will soon.
For example, if an officer observes someone walking through a parking lot and pulling at door handles at night, these observations would give an officer reasonable suspicion that the person is trying to steal a car or break into one. Wearing a dark hoodie while walking through a parking lot full of cars, on the other hand, would not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
While the answer varies by state, all states with stop-and-identify statutes require that the person stopped provide at least a name. Some states also require the person stopped to provide an address, date of birth, an explanation for being in that location, or all of this information. Other states simply require that the person stopped not provide false information. In these states, the person stopped is not required to answer the law enforcement officer.
Failure to identify oneself to a police officer is usually a low-level misdemeanor or petty offense. A conviction could carry the possibility of jail time, but it's more likely that the person would receive a fine for this offense. A few states don't impose criminal penalties, but rather allow the officer to detain the person for a few hours to continue their investigation. For instance, Delaware's stop-and-identify law states that a police officer can detain a person for up to two hours to further investigate the person's identity if the person fails to give their name and address to the officer when asked. (Del. Code tit. 11, § 1902 (2025).)
Below are examples of a few states' stop-and-identify laws. All of these laws require proof that the officer's stop was lawful.
Stop-and-Identify Laws and Penalties for Selected States |
||||
|
State |
Identifying Information Required by Law |
When Refusal to Identify Is Unlawful |
Penalty for Failure to Identify |
Legal Citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arizona |
True full name |
Upon lawful detainment and after being advised by the police officer that failure to identify is unlawful |
Class 2 misdemeanor |
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2412 |
|
Indiana |
Name, address, and date of birth, or driver's license |
Knowing or intentional refusal when stopped for an infraction or a violation |
Class C misdemeanor |
Ind. Code § 34-28-5-3.5 |
|
Nevada |
Identification when asked |
To willfully delay or prevent officer duties |
Misdemeanor |
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 171.123, 199.280 |
|
New Mexico |
True name or identity |
To intentionally hinder or interrupt officer duties |
Petty misdemeanor |
N.M. Stat. § 30-22-3 |
|
Ohio |
Name, address, or date of birth |
Upon the officer's request |
Fourth-degree misdemeanor |
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.29 |
A number of defenses are commonly raised by those charged with failure or refusal to identify themselves to a police officer.
As previously discussed, a law enforcement officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. If the law enforcement officer stops the defendant without a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred, the prosecutor cannot use the defendant's refusal to answer as evidence of failure to identify oneself to a police officer.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that a person cannot be compelled to provide self-incriminating testimony. In many instances, providing identification to a police officer would not be self-incriminating. However, in other situations, disclosing one's name might alert the officer to outstanding warrants or criminal charges. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether providing one's name in response to police questioning on the street constitutes "testimony," thereby bringing the exchange within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. State courts have ruled inconsistently. So whether this defense would apply in a particular state depends on how that state's courts have ruled on the issue.
If you are facing a charge of failure to identify to a police officer, consider consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney who regularly practices in your area. A lawyer can evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case against you and help develop any defenses you might have.