Stop and Identify Statues: A New Form of an Inadequate Solution to an Old Problem
![handle is hein.journals/rutlj12 and id is 595 raw text is: STOP AND IDENTIFY STATUTES: A NEW FORM OF AN
INADEQUATE SOLUTION TO AN OLD PROBLEM
I. INTRODUCTION
Courts face a familiar dilemma when reviewing the conduct of law en-
forcement agents who encounter an uncooperative citizen in their quest
for information to investigate or prevent criminal activity. This quandary
results from the inherent tension between society's need for information
to control crime and the constitutional safeguards that protect the in-
dividual from unwarranted governmental intrusion' and place on the
state the entire burden of gathering sufficient information to initiate the
criminal justice process.2 The problem is exacerbated by the difficulties
of policing a modern society that is both highly diffuse and mobile.
In recent years, the courts have subjected law enforcement practices
during the investigatory stage of the criminal justice process to increased
constitutional scrutiny. In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona,' the
Supreme Court, for the first time, utilized the privilege against self-
incrimination to achieve a balance between the state's overwhelming
power to exact information from a suspect during the investigatory pro-
cess and the individual's interest in his right to silence.' Within two
1. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966) (outlining the func-
tion of the fourth amendment). The fourth amendment provides that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
2. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966) (elucidating the purpose
of the fifth amendment). The fifth amendment states that [n]o person ... shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .... U.S. CONST. amend. V.
3. 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
4. The Court held that when an individual is subjected to custodial inter-
rogation, procedural safeguards must be employed to protect his fifth amendment
privilege against self-incrimination. Id at 444. Prior to questioning, a suspect must
be apprised of his right to remain silent, warned that any statement he does make
may be used against him, and informed of his right to the presence of an attorney,
either retained or appointed. Id The Court interposed these protective warnings
to dispel the coercive atmosphere inherent in custodial interrogation and insure
that any statements obtained from the suspect are the product of free choice. Id at
468. The intent of the Court's decision was to abrogate the effectiveness of coer-
cive methods employed in the investigatory process to cajole a suspect into relin-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/rutlj12&div=28&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Stop and Identify Statues: A New Form of an Inadequate Solution to an Old Problem
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most