인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
학술저널
Full-text AI
오류 신고하기해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
초록·키워드
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.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-360-001374992
