What are stop and identify laws in different US states?

1. What the supplied materials actually claim — and why that matters

The three items in your analysis do not address legal or policy matters: they concern operating-system/process questions, programming input/output semantics, and a Java syntax issue. None of the supplied entries describe statutes, case law, state-level distinctions, or enforcement practice related to stop-and-identify rules. Because the dataset contains only technical programming content, there is no basis in these sources to extract claims about which states have identification statutes, how courts have interpreted them, what penalties or obligations exist, or how they interact with Fourth and Fifth Amendment doctrines ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Any attempt to answer the original legal question by citing these items would misrepresent the evidentiary record and risk factual error.

2. What specific information is missing from the evidence you provided

A legally accurate overview of stop-and-identify laws requires explicit statutory text, judicial decisions interpreting those statutes, and contemporaneous guidance (e.g., state attorney general opinions, police department manuals). The provided sources include none of that: they contain neither state statutes nor court names, dates, nor legal holdings. The missing elements include which states have express stop-and-identify statutes, the precise language of those statutes (for example whether they require disclosure of name only or additional information), controlling appellate or Supreme Court rulings constraining enforcement, and any statutory penalties or civil remedies. Without those documents, one cannot responsibly compare state regimes, note important exceptions, or summarize constitutional limits ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Why this absence prevents responsible factual conclusions

Legal questions turn on language and precedent. Small differences in statutory wording or a single binding appellate ruling can change whether police may demand identification, whether refusal is a crime or only a basis for detention, and whether suspects must physically produce ID or merely state their name. Because the items you provided are unrelated technical posts, they provide no evidence to answer those distinctions. Drawing conclusions about U.S. state law from unrelated programming analyses would be methodologically unsound and legally misleading. To preserve accuracy and avoid false claims, I must refrain from asserting which states have which rules based on the current materials ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. What authoritative sources are required to settle the question

A trustworthy, comprehensive answer requires a mix of primary and secondary legal materials. Primary sources include state statutes and municipal ordinances that use language such as “stop and identify,” criminal-refusal-to-identify statutes, and controlling state-court or federal appellate decisions (including U.S. Supreme Court precedents). Secondary sources that synthesize and contextualize—law review articles, summaries from nonprofit civil-liberties organizations, state attorney general opinions, and updated legal databases—are also essential. Police training manuals and official guidance documents explain enforcement practice. None of these are present among the provided items; replacing the technical posts with these legal materials would allow a precise, source-cited comparison ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. How I would structure a fact-based, multi-state comparison if given proper sources

With authoritative materials, I would: (a) list states with express stop-and-identify statutes and provide the statutory text verbatim; (b) annotate each state entry with binding appellate or supreme-court decisions shaping enforcement; (c) flag states where refusal is criminalized versus those where refusal can justify detention only; (d) note important exceptions (e.g., traffic stops, investigative stops, juvenile interactions); and (e) summarize recent legislative or court changes. Each entry would be accompanied by direct citations to statutes and cases so readers can verify the claims. Because your current sources lack legal content, I cannot perform that evidence-based synthesis from them ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Practical next steps I recommend for you to get a definitive answer

Provide or permit access to legal materials: either upload state statute excerpts, case law citations, or links to trusted summaries from legal research services or civil-rights groups. If you prefer, I can fetch and synthesize up-to-date statutes and cases covering each state, annotate key differences, and produce a state-by-state comparison—request that explicitly and I will compile primary-source citations and dated court opinions. Absent new input, the only defensible conclusion from the supplied files is that they do not contain relevant legal information, and therefore cannot answer “What are stop-and-identify laws in different US states?” ^{[1] [2] [3]}.