Reply #261: I think that law [View All]

has to do in the general sense of if you are walking down the street, minding your business, and a police officer requests/demands that you identify yourself. In the above discussion, a post (#104) mentions the 1968 case of Terry v Ohio. I provide a link in post #144. This case, which included a fascinating dissent that reflects what many DUers are saying on this thread, also includes the majority decision that details, in general, how an officer can reasonable interpret circumstances that allow him/her to make demands that would otherwise be viewed as unreasonably intrusive.

Whenever there is a solid dissent in a Supreme Court case, it is possible for another good case to come around to challenge the first one. It may be that there will be just such a test case regarding the rights of a citizen when an officer demands a form of identification other than a verbal response. This does not seem to be the case, in my opinion. But I respect that others view it differently.