James G. Warner


Part II of this note 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 statute at issue. Part III examines the appellate and Supreme Court decisions in the Hiibel case. Part IV analyzes the Court’s decision in Hiibel under the void for vagueness doctrine and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and highlights the recent enactment of a “stop and identify” statute in Arizona. Finally, Part V concludes that the Nevada “stop and identify” statute allows too great of an intrusion for too minimal of a benefit.