When can the Police stop and frisk?

[md2000]

@LawMonkey

Sure, but that’s something else: basically, don’t resist arrest. You will lose, and then you’ll have a resisting arrest charge on top of whatever else you got nailed for. Failure to heed this bit of common sense advice, along with failure to exercise the constitutional right to remain silent, are but a few of the myriad entries in the “Criminals R Dum” file.

Plus fighting with the cops adds to their evidence that “his demeanour appeared erratic and irrational, which is why we stopped him”.

[lawbuff]

@LarryM

State law is probably more relavant than federal law.

States can afford greater protection under statutory or constitutional law.

In many states there is a law that you are required to identify yourself to LE.

ONLY if under investigation, per the Hiibel case. I am not talking about having to show a license when pulled over or such.

This gives them reason to stop you in many cases.

No, it does not!

This gives a open door to the search. But not all states have that law.

No state has that law, the 4th AM controls. As an example, not even all persons on the “compact premises” when a search warrant is executed can be searched automatically. The 4th AM permits all to be detained generally, yes.

[lawbuff]

@Crafter_Man

Very true, and this is something I neglected to mention. Here in Ohio, I am required to provide my name, address, or DoB (when asked by an LEO) if I am suspected of committing a crime.

You are speaking of Ohio’s so called "Stop and Indentify law. Passed 2 years after Hiibel was announced.

Section 2921.29 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

[lawbuff]

@md2000

Not sure if it’s been settled that a random person walking down the street is required to..

NO!

From Brown v. Texas;

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.” Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1;