미국의 정지 및 신원확인규정에 대한 이해

Abstract

This study introduces the stop and identify statute of the United States, paying particular attention to the historical development and current stop and identify statutes. A “stop and identify” statute requires an individual detained at a traffic or Terry stop to identify himself, and provides penalties for a failure to do so. In theory, “stop and identify” statutes strikes a realistic and necessary compromise between the needs of police and the fundamental rights of the individual. Such statutes typically obligate a lawfully detained individual to provide certain information to the police, but also guarantee that the individual's detention will be legitimate and brief. Various appellate courts have overturned convictions under such statutes based on constitutional challenges. Until Hiibel case, the United States Supreme Court has not had a case involving both a question of reasonable suspicion for the stop and a violation of a “stop and identify” statute which has survived a vagueness challenge. The Supreme Court's decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada threatens to erode the protections of the Fourth Amendment by allowing arrests on reasonable suspicion alone, thereby subverting the probable requirement. Part II of this article traces the development of “stop and identify” statutes, including its origins in historical vagrancy and loitering statutes, courts' treatment of such laws, and the progression of the specific Nevada statutes at issues. Part III introduces and analyzes the twenty-four states' stop and identify statutes which are enacted in United States. It is quite to th contrary to the Korean conventional wisdom that Unites States' stop and identify states are uniform. The wording of “stop and identify” laws varies considerably from state to state. Part Ⅲ specifically explains legal implications for Korean lawmakers to consider when they make stop and identify statutes or deal with the current bill to amend the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. Part V. concludes that United States stop and identify statutes are the realistic compromise that balances an individual's interest against the governmental interests furthered by an identification requirements, including crime prevention, crime detection, police officer safety, public safety, and even terrorism.