Duty to Inform

[Tay]

Adam Starr v. State of Indiana

Answered all my questions.

 

[Rookie]

Answered all my questions.

Sarcasm?

 

[Destro]

Adam Starr v. State of Indiana



Indiana Lawyer

shouldn't he have been charged with:

IC 35-44.1-2-4
False identity statement
Sec. 4. (a) A person who:
(1) with intent to mislead public servants;
(2) in a five (5) year period; and
(3) in one (1) or more official proceedings or investigations;
has knowingly made at least two (2) material statements concerning the person's identity that are inconsistent to the degree that one (1) of them is necessarily false commits false identity statement, a Class A misdemeanor.




While he may not have been required to identify himself, he did provide false information during a police investigation

 

[SteveM4A1]

shouldn't he have been charged with:

IC 35-44.1-2-4
False identity statement
Sec. 4. (a) A person who:
(1) with intent to mislead public servants;
(2) in a five (5) year period; and
(3) in one (1) or more official proceedings or investigations;
has knowingly made at least two (2) material statements concerning the person's identity that are inconsistent to the degree that one (1) of them is necessarily false commits false identity statement, a Class A misdemeanor.




While he may not have been required to identify himself, he did provide false information during a police investigation

I think the problem is he wasn't under investigation. They had no RAS to suspect him of anything, therefore he wasn't subject to an investigation.

 

[wally05]

There is Hiibel V Nevada as a Supreme Court case stating that there is no 4th amendment violation for an officer asking a subject to identify himself IF it is an arrestable offense in that state. Indiana has no such statute to take advantage of the Hiibel decision for suspicious activity stops. Ours only applies to infractions or ordinances.

As an officer, it bothers me to read stories like the OPs... not all of us make crap up. But, even the "shortcut" copy of an IC code book is massive... and that is even for the "typical" offenses. I've been out of the academy a little bit and I still study my IC code book on a regular basis.

 

[Destro]

There is Hiibel V Nevada as a Supreme Court case stating that there is no 4th amendment violation for an officer asking a subject to identify himself IF it is an arrestable offense in that state. Indiana has no such statute to take advantage of the Hiibel decision for suspicious activity stops. Ours only applies to infractions or ordinances.

As an officer, it bothers me to read stories like the OPs... not all of us make crap up. But, even the "shortcut" copy of an IC code book is massive... and that is even for the "typical" offenses. I've been out of the academy a little bit and I still study my IC code book on a regular basis.

In Hiibel the subject was required to identify himself. In this case he was not required to identify himself. That does not mean the officer couldn't ask (even reiterated in the decision). The subject could have said no but instead chose to give false information.