imported post
I numbered your questions in the quote.
Nevada carrier wrote:
In that case I have these questions as well:
- 1. Before giving my name to a LEO, am I permitted to ask them on what grounds I am being questioned?
2. Are they required to tell me their reasonably articulate suspicion?
3. If they say something to the effect that it is because I'm OCing or that they are performing a routine safty check can I then refuse to give my name, as there is no implied offense in that statement?
4. Would it be prudent to just give them my name anyway?
1. You can ask them anything you want, but they are not required to tell you.
2. No.
3. You can object, but whether or not you can refuse depends on whether or not you are being detained. Detained=must provide name if asked, or Driver's License if driving.
4. I wouldn't unless I absolutely had to, but that's more of a personal decision. It may make things go faster or slower, depending upon the circumstances. More on that in a second.
The easiest way to navigate these murky waters is to imagine that there are three possible states you can be in when dealing with the police: Under arrest, detained, or free.
A free man can terminate the conversation and walk away/ drive away whenever he chooses to. I recommend you do just that. Any conversation you have can (and will) be used against you, and the officer is not required to give you a Miranda warning or anything like that because, legally speaking, you are just two human beings having a voluntary conversation. Asking "Am I free to go?" is the easiest way to determine that. Any answer other than "no"means you are a free man.
A detained man is being held temporarily for investigative or administrative purposes. A traffic stop is the classic case. They may cuff you, or pat you down outside your clothes for weapons, or if they feel something brittle that could be a weapon, they can reach into your pockets for that item. Or they may do none of that, and just tell you that you are not free to go. Just like a free man, the officer does not need togiveyou a Miranda warning. That's why LEOs prefer to keep you in this limbo as long as possible. They must have probable cause to do so, or what the courts have called reasonable, articulable suspicion (often called RAS on this board) of a crime. In other words, they can't just have "a funny feeling" or a sense that "something wasn't right," they have to have a clear reason that can be put into words, like "I saw his hand move down like he was hiding something" or "I smelledmarijuana" etc. The key is, this is what he has to tell the court, not you. They need an RAS to justify the initial detainment later. And if it seems like this is a vague and manipulable requirement, it is. The only thing they have to tell you is that you are detained/ not free to go/ something equivalent.
When you are being detained, the NV law says you must give your full name, when asked. If you believe that the detention was unlawful, state your objections, but you still must provide your name.You do not have to answer anything else, and you
shouldn't answer anything else. You fight unlawful detentions in court, not verbally.
Arrest speaks for itself, so I'll only add one thing, from a conversation I had once:
ME: I assert my right to remain silent.
OFFICER: You're not under arrest, so you don't have a right to remain silent.
ME: Good to know. In that case I freely choose not to say anything.
From that point on I said nothing other than asking periodically if I were free to go.
That leads me to my final point. Declining to give your name
when you are a free man is usually the fastest way out. "No thanks! I don't wish to talk," you say over your shoulder as you walk off, and that's it.
Once you are detained or arrested, it is now a legal requirement, soprudence (Question 4, above)has nothing to do with it. They are collecting evidence against you, so your job is to not help them in any way whatsoever. Just the name, as required, and nothing more. Shut the hell up.
