Teaching Cops how to get around "Terry Stop" identification refusals...

What If a State Does Not Criminalize Refusal to Identify?An interesting question arises when state law does not make it a crime to refuse to identify oneself but does clearly allow the police to temporarily detain the suspect and determine his identity. The decision in Hiibel suggests that Terry allows officers to ask for identification as long as the request for identification is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial stop.[sup]15[/sup] Also, Terry may permit an officer to establish or negate a suspect’s connection to a crime by compelling the suspect to submit to fingerprinting.[sup]16[/sup]
In Hayes the police were investigating a string of burglary-rapes and had recovered latent prints from one of the crime scenes and herringbone-patterned shoe prints.[sup]17[/sup] Hayes was one of 40 suspects interviewed and came to be a principal suspect. Hayes refused to accompany police officers to the station for fingerprinting until threatened with arrest for refusing to comply. The police also seized from Hayes’s house a pair of sneakers with a herringbone tread pattern. Hayes’s prints matched the latent prints found at the scene.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hayes’s fingerprints were illegally obtained and inadmissible. The Court endorsed the practice of fingerprinting a subject when there is reasonable suspicion that the prints will establish or negate the person’s involvement in the crime being investigated. Further, the Court made it very clear that, under certain circumstances, the judiciary may authorize the seizure of a person on less than probable cause, and removal to the police station, for the purpose of fingerprinting. This is not to suggest that drivers, passengers, or pedestrians who refuse to identify themselves can be taken to the station for fingerprinting in all cases, only that it is possible in some cases.
​