If someone (an ex-girlfriend, my kid's schoolteacher, a police officer, a representative of DSS/FDA/CBP/FBI/IRS etc.) just wants to talk to me and to have some of their questions answered then I do not have any legal obligation to satisfy their curiosity, at least in the absence of a subpoena.
(I do realize that in many cases a person is required to produce various items, records, fingerprints, DNA samples etc. even if these turn out to be incriminating.)
My conclusion from reading Hiibel is that a person is required to state his name only if the state had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. Of course,a practical matter, when one is asked by a police officer s(he) does not know whether the latter has a reasonable suspicion or not, so s(he) does not know for sure whether the answer is required.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:04 pm (UTC)(I do realize that in many cases a person is required to produce various items, records, fingerprints, DNA samples etc. even if these turn out to be incriminating.)
My conclusion from reading Hiibel is that a person is required to state his name only if the state had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. Of course,a practical matter, when one is asked by a police officer s(he) does not know whether the latter has a reasonable suspicion or not, so s(he) does not know for sure whether the answer is required.