Your fact-checks will appear here
The fact-check discusses the existence and variations of stop-and-identify statutes across US states, including the scope, penalties, and court interpretations.
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 them...
All-party (often called “two-party”) consent states require that every participant in a private conversation agree before audio can be recorded; most states, and federal law follow one‑party consent, ...
Identification rules are not uniform: state "" statutes vary widely and can require a name or ID in some circumstances, local departments set their own disclosure policies, and there is no single fede...
Twenty‑six U.S. states had some form of “stop‑and‑identify” or “must‑identify” statute as of recent surveys, but the exact scope and penalties vary widely from state to state and depend on whether an ...
ICE training materials and operational guidance from the Obama-era described a conventional law-enforcement approach to uniforms and identification: recruits were required to wear and maintain officia...
A distinct subset of jurisdictions imposes affirmative "" requirements—statutes that require people carrying firearms to tell a police officer they are armed—and many of those jurisdictions attach civ...
Five states currently issue (EDLs)—, , , , and —documents designed to serve as both state driving credentials and limited border‑crossing proof of U.S. citizenship . Election offices in those jurisdic...
and conditionally: with so‑called “stop‑and‑identify” or “failure to identify” laws, an officer can lawfully detain a person long enough to establish identity when there is reasonable suspicion of cri...