Which U.S. states currently have stop-and-identify statutes and what exactly do they require?
Executive summary
A plurality of U.S. states have some form of “stop-and-identify” statute that allows police who have reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to require a stopped person to identify themselves, but the number of states and the precise obligations vary across sources and statutes [1] [2] [3]. At minimum most statutes require a suspect to give a name; some require additional details such as address, date of birth, or an explanation of conduct, and courts have limited those laws where they are vague or lack a reasonable-suspicion precondition [1] [2] [4].
1. What “stop-and-identify” means and the constitutional backdrop
“Stop-and-identify” statutes permit police to demand identifying information from a person when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is, has been, or is about to be involved in criminal activity, a threshold affirmed as necessary by the Supreme Court’s Hiibel decision but constrained by earlier rulings such as Kolender v. Lawson that struck down vague identification requirements [2]. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures means the legal safety valve is that identification demands generally must follow a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing, not mere curiosity [1] [2].
2. How many states: conflicting tallies, why counts differ
Different organizations report different counts—WorldPopulationReview summarized 26 states as of 2024 while DataPandas found 27 states in 2025 and several advocacy/legal summaries list between 23 and 27—because statutes differ in scope, some apply only in limited jurisdictions, some are phrased as permissive “may demand” versus mandatory “shall identify,” and some states have related obstruction or loitering laws that function similarly but are not labeled “stop-and-identify” [1] [3] [5] [2]. These methodological differences explain much of the variation between sources and indicate that any single count should be treated cautiously unless tied to a specific statutory definition [3] [2].
3. Which states are commonly listed as having statutes
Authoritative compilations and encyclopedic listings commonly include Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri (with a noted municipal carveout for Kansas City), Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin among others, though exact lists vary by source and date [2] [6] [5]. Advocacy groups and legal resource centers such as the ILRC and the ACLU maintain state-by-state charts that clarify statutory text and local interpretations when a general list is ambiguous [7] [8].
4. What these laws actually require — the common elements and important variations
Across jurisdictions the minimal common requirement is disclosure of a name in response to a lawful stop; several statutes go further and authorize demands for address, date of birth, destination, or an explanation of one’s conduct, and some statutes expressly limit detention length or the scope of questioning [4] [1] [9]. In practice whether an officer can demand documentation (e.g., a physical ID card) or whether a failure to speak can be prosecuted depends on statutory wording—some statutes only allow police to “demand” identity without criminal penalties, while others make refusal a separate offense—leading to divergent enforcement outcomes [2] [1].
5. Debates, enforcement realities, and hidden agendas
Civil liberties groups emphasize vagueness and racial profiling risks in stop-and-identify laws and point to court rulings that invalidate vague demands; law-enforcement proponents argue these statutes are narrow crime-fighting tools when tied to reasonable suspicion [2] [7]. Source agendas matter: advocacy groups compile restrictive lists to press reform [8] [7], while general-interest trackers aim for comprehensiveness but may conflate related statutes, producing different state counts [1] [3].
6. Reporting limitations and how to verify current status
Because statutes change and because compilations use different inclusion criteria, a definitive current list requires checking the actual state code or a recent legal-chart compilation (for example the ACLU chart and the ILRC table) for the precise wording and any local carve-outs; the sources provided here summarize and explain the core features but differ on counts and specific state listings [8] [7] [1].