<P> While Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state . Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 338, 353 - 54 (1995). Annotations for Wisconsin § 968.24, however, state "The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so", citing Hiibel as authority . Hiibel held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement . The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Henes v. Morrissey that "A crime is made up of two parts: proscribed conduct and a prescribed penalty . "The former without the latter is no crime...In this case no statute penalizes a refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer, and no penalty is set forth in the statute for refusing to identify oneself . This statute is part of Chapter 968 entitled "Commencement of Criminal Proceedings . By its very terms sec . 968.24 empowers a law enforcement officer to stop and question "in the vicinity where the person was stopped ." The statute does not authorize a law enforcement officer to make an arrest ." Additionally Henes v. Morrissey held that a detained person not providing their name isn't on its own a violation of 946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer as the act of not identifying ones self isn't a false statement with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty . </P> <P> Neither is Illinois, since the Illinois Second District Appellate Court Decision in People v. Fernandez, 2011 IL App (2d) 100473, which specifically states that section 107 - 14 is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, not the Criminal Code of 1961, and governs the conduct of police officers . The fact remains that there is no corresponding duty in the Criminal Code of 1961 for a suspect to identify himself or herself . </P> <P> By contrast, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 181 (2004), a Nevada statute (Nev . Rev. Stat. § 171.123 (2003)) specifically required that a person subjected to a Terry stop "shall identify himself ." The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional . </P> <P> As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement, and 24 states have done so . The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves, and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not . The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons: </P>

When do you have to show cops id