Is there an RSA requiring you to give your name to police?

[JonM]

That Supreme Court ruling that one must give their name to police was upholding a Nevada law.  If a state does not have such a law, there is no national requirement for identifying yourself to local or state police (I dunno about feds).  A while back I searched the RSAs for something to this effect, but didn't have much luck finding anything.  Perhaps someone a bit more enterprising can ask official channels, or if someone is more adept at reading the RSAs let us know.

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't know about NH but remember the courts have ruled in other places that the cops can stop you and demand you identify yourself even without probably cause.

It would be nice to find out where the "legal" line is in NH.

[NC2NH]

Here is a relevant motor vehicle RSA
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/XXI/265/265-4.htm

Here is a similar and even more absurd RSA dealing with boats, rafts, floats, amphibious aircraft, etc.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/XXII/270/270-12-b.htm

I haven't yet found a relevant RSA that isn't transportation-related.

[Russell Kanning]

It would be nice to find out where the "legal" line is in NH.

We will start finding out the actual line between freedom and detainment as some of us refuse to tell them our names.

[Kat Kanning]

Lauren refused.  She's free.

[Russell Kanning]

but they did arrest her ... so for that day ... with the feds involved ... identity might have been the arrest factor

[J’raxis 270145]

You do NOT have to identify yourself: RSA 644:6, concerning loitering and prowling, states that "Failure to identify or account for oneself, absent other circumstances, however, shall not be grounds for arrest." Read the rest of the statute for context; this appears to be the statute that would cover a police office stopping someone who's just walking down the street.

[J’raxis 270145]

I don't know about NH but remember the courts have ruled in other places that the cops can stop you and demand you identify yourself even without probably cause.

It would be nice to find out where the "legal" line is in NH.

That's the Hiibel decision to which Jon was referring. If a state has one of these laws, it's constitutional—that's all. Some states have no such laws, and some states have had their own courts (e.g., Massachusetts) strike down their laws based on their state constitutions.

[money dollars]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-mrg.htm

Section 594:2
    594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

[J’raxis 270145]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-mrg.htm

Section 594:2
    594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

That requires that the cop suspect a crime is taking place—which is why you refuse to answer questions until they articulate such a suspicion. Also, that law says the cop "may demand" but I see nothing requiring that the person "shall answer," nor do I see penalties for refusal, nor that refusal to answer is itself grounds for arrest.

[KBCraig]

This is an interesting section:

Notice of Arrest; Right to Advice of Counsel, etc.
Section 594:15
    594:15 Notice of Arrest. – The officer in charge of a police station to which an arrested person is brought shall immediately secure from the prisoner, if possible, the name of the parent, nearest relative, friend or attorney with whom the prisoner may desire to consult, and shall immediately notify such relative, friend or attorney of the detention of the prisoner, when possible. Notice shall be given by telephone or messenger when practicable.

Source. 1917, 92:1. PL 364:7. RL 423:7.
Section 594:16
    594:16 Conference With Friends or Counsel. –
    I. The officer in charge of a police station shall permit the prisoner to confer with his attorney at all reasonable times.
    II. Such officer shall establish regular visiting hours during which the prisoner shall be allowed to confer with relatives and friends.

Source. 1917, 92:1. PL 364:8. RL 423:8. RSA 594:16. 1981, 563:1, eff. Aug. 29, 1981.
Section 594:17
    594:17 Penalty. – A person who violates the requirements of this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor.

[EthanAllen]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-mrg.htm

Section 594:2
    594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

That requires that the cop suspect a crime is taking place—which is why you refuse to answer questions until they articulate such a suspicion. Also, that law says the cop "may demand" but I see nothing requiring that the person "shall answer," nor do I see penalties for refusal, nor that refusal to answer is itself grounds for arrest.

It is fairly easy to make charges of violating a law where there are no witnesses. Charging people with crimes and then sorting out the mess after the fact via the courts seems like standard procedures.

[Russell Kanning]

    II. Such officer shall establish regular visiting hours during which the prisoner shall be allowed to confer with relatives and friends.

or not