MACS wrote:No, but you CAN be lawfully detained until your proper identity is known. And if that means taking you in for fingerprints, so be it.
I'm not disagreeing, but I think clarification is needed. The SCOTUS ruled on this in the case: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
Nevada has a statute on the books:
Quote:NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of the person’s parole or probation.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the person’s identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172; 1995, 2068)
In the Hiibel case, the SCOTUS ruled that under the circumstances noted above, it is reasonable to require a person to identify themselves.
However, AFAIK it is not lawful to detain someone simply for the sake of identifying them absent at the very least a reasonable suspicion they are involved in criminal activities. In fact, when I was in the academy we were taught legal by a retired FBI agent who is a lawyer and through out his career he was tasked with writing, among other things, Affidavits of Probable Cause. He specifically taught us that if we detained someone absent at least reasonable suspicion we ran the risk of a civil rights violation.
In terms of fingerprinting them to identify them, it better be done quickly because the SCOTUS ruled in Hiibel that they can be detained no longer than 60 minutes. The other problem is when that person is placed in a squad car to be taken for prints they are for all intents and purposes under arrest. To arrest someone requires probable cause which is a more strict requirement than reasonable suspicion. Should a judge find there was no probable cause to arrest then a civil rights violation can easily be argued.