<P> As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court . </P> <P> 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 a peace officer". For example, the Nevada "stop and identify" law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibels refusal to identify himself constituted a violation of Nevada "obstructing" law . A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000). </P> <P> "Stop and identify" laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts . For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code § 647 (e) had wording similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal. App. 3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity . Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). </P> <P> Some courts have recognized a distinction authorizing police to demand identifying information and specifically imposing an obligation of a suspect to respond . Other courts have apparently interpreted demand to impose an obligation on the detainee to comply . </P>

When do you have to give your name to police