Most of it is good information, but I just noticed a part of it today which I think is a fairly serious error. Under the header "Remember These Points" it says this:
At best this is very misleading, because there are places and situations other than traffic stops where you can definitely be arrested for not identifying yourself, although the details vary pretty widely by state.1. You don’t have to answer a police officer’s questions, but you must show your license, registration and insurance when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can’t legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to an officer.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.
Maybe it was written before that 2004 decision, but what the sheet should probably say now, at the very least, is that you cannot be legally arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer if it isn't a valid Terry stop. If it is a valid Terry stop, all bets are off: at best you're in a legal gray area, and at worst you may be in clear violation of a "stop and identify" law in your state. The gray area is because even in states without "stop and identify" laws, some courts have determined that in these situations refusal to provide ID falls under obstruction of a police officer, so it's not like the absence of an obvious "stop and identify" statute means that you're free to refuse as you please.Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the decision held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone even though the officer lacks probable cause to arrest the person, so long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The Court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts," and not merely upon an officer's hunch.
This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk", "stop, question, and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop."
One should note a few other things as well. The first is that, even if you are found innocent of any crime suspected prior to the stop, this does not meant that a court won't decide that it was still a valid Terry stop, so you can still be charged even if your only crime was refusing to identify.
Also, officers do NOT have to justify the validity of the stop to you outside of a courtroom, and they don't even have to tell you what they suspect you of until they actually arrest you, so you don't just get to decide for yourself that their detention and demand for ID is unreasonable. If they demand ID, you pretty much have to show ID or risk being arrested. Sure, maybe you can fight it in court and win, but is it really worth it?
Maybe someone can explain this to me, but I don't see what refusing to identify yourself to a cop actually accomplishes, other than possibly pissing the cop off and giving him a new excuse to arrest you. You can just give your ID to avoid all that, and then just refuse to give any more information or to consent to any searches. If they're demanding ID but not arresting you to begin with, your ID of all things is not going to close the case.
But anyway, that's my two cents about it. I just don't want to see any members getting arrested because they took that part of the informational sheet a little too seriously.