Which U.S. states currently criminalize refusing to identify to police and what are the penalties?

1. What “criminalize refusing to identify” means in practice

“Stop‑and‑identify” statutes generally permit police to require a detained person to disclose identifying information when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime; courts have treated these laws as applying to detentions rather than consensual encounters ^[2]. The high‑level rule from the U.S. Supreme Court allows states to require a name disclosure during a lawful Terry stop, but only where the stop itself is justified by reasonable suspicion, so the duty to identify is conditional, not universal ^[2].

2. How many states and where the authoritative lists point

Contemporary compilations show roughly half the states with some statutory “stop‑and‑identify” language—WorldPopulationReview counted twenty‑six such states as of 2024, while civil‑liberties and immigrant‑rights groups maintain regularly updated charts cataloguing each state’s statute and enforcement powers ^{[1] [3]}. Nonprofit legal research tables like the Immigrant Legal Resource Center’s chart provide the statutory citations and short descriptions useful for drilling down to a particular state’s wording ^[6].

3. Penalties: broad patterns and concrete examples

Penalties are not uniform: many states make failure to identify a misdemeanor or allow an officer to charge someone under separate obstruction or resisting statutes, which can elevate consequences depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances ^{[4] [5]}. Indiana’s statute is a clear example of a capped misdemeanor exposure—conviction under Indiana’s stop‑and‑identify law can be a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine up to $500 ^[7]. Texas has recently revised its law to expand identification duties in some traffic and detention contexts and to expose refusers to misdemeanor penalties that, depending on classification, can carry fines and up to a year in jail in the more serious classes of misdemeanor cited in practice ^[8].

4. How states differ about what must be given

Some states require only a name, others require additional data such as address or date of birth, and a subset clarifies that verbally stating a name is sufficient while others require production of ID if available—these statutory differences change what counts as “refusal” and therefore what conduct can trigger a penalty ^{[1] [5]}. Courts have struck overly vague identification requirements in the past, so statutory language matters in both enforcement and litigation ^[2].

5. Controversy, enforcement realities, and where to look next

Civil liberties groups and commentary emphasize that stop‑and‑identify laws intersect with concerns about racial profiling, discretionary policing, and vagueness in statutory language; the ACLU and ILRC maintain resources cataloguing state law text and critiques for advocates and researchers ^{[3] [6]}. Reporting and legal guides note that even in states without an explicit “must‑ID” statute, officers may rely on obstruction, loitering, or related statutes to charge someone who refuses to cooperate, so outcomes can look similar even where statutory wording differs ^{[5] [4]}.

6. Limits of available reporting

Public summaries and advocacy charts provide state lists and examples but do not always synchronize on effective dates, local prosecutorial practices, or recent amendments; comprehensive, state‑by‑state penalty tables require consulting the primary statutes and updated charts such as the ACLU’s and the ILRC’s to determine current criminal classifications and maximum penalties for each state ^{[3] [6]}. Where this analysis cites specific penalties, it relies on the named sources’ reporting of those statutes and should be verified against the current state code for litigation or defense purposes ^{[7] [8]}.