<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> <Ul> <Li> The wording of "stop and identify" laws varies considerably from state to state . </Li> <Li> Noncompliance with a "stop and identify" law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer". </Li> <Li> State courts have made varying interpretations of both "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws . </Li> </Ul>

Are you required to show id in maryland