Some states have laws (statutes) that require a person to accurately provide their identification (ID) (name, residence address, date of birth) to the police if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe (1) a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed and (2) the person asked to provide identification is involved as a participant or as a witness. If there is no reasonable suspicion, a person does not have to provide identification—but courts often find reasonable suspicion as a matter of course.

These statutes are sometimes called stop-and-identify laws or stop and ID laws, and the violation of the statute may be a criminal offense or crime known as “failure to ID.” Stop and ID laws vary from state to state in the states that have such laws. For example, in some states failure to ID cannot be the basis for an arrest (there must be an underlying criminal offense) and in some states the obligation to provide identification only applies to a person who has been arrested.

And in some states it is a criminal offense for a person to provide a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth if the person has been detained by police on the basis of reasonable suspicion or is believed to be a witness to a criminal offense.

The United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution may allow suspects to refuse to give their name if they have a reasonable belief their name could be incriminating. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).

In California, the law regarding providing identification to police under reasonable suspicion is governed by a combination of state statutes and constitutional principles. California Penal Code section 148.9 makes it a misdemeanor for any person to falsely represent or identify themselves to any peace officer upon lawful detention or arrest. This means that if a person is lawfully detained or arrested, they are required to truthfully identify themselves. However, if there is no reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime, a person is not legally required to provide identification to police officers. The U.S. Supreme Court case Kolender v. Lawson, which originated in California, struck down a California statute for being too vague in defining what constituted 'credible and reliable' identification, thereby potentially violating the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. As a result, while individuals must provide accurate identification when lawfully detained or arrested, they may invoke the Fifth Amendment if providing their name could be self-incriminating. It is also a criminal offense in California to provide false information to a police officer during a lawful detention or arrest.