Adam Starr v. State of Indiana
Answered all my questions.
Adam Starr v. State of Indiana
shouldn't he have been charged with:
IC 35-44.1-2-4
False identity statement
Sec. 4. (a) A person who:
(1) with intent to mislead public servants;
(2) in a five (5) year period; and
(3) in one (1) or more official proceedings or investigations;
has knowingly made at least two (2) material statements concerning the person's identity that are inconsistent to the degree that one (1) of them is necessarily false commits false identity statement, a Class A misdemeanor.
While he may not have been required to identify himself, he did provide false information during a police investigation
There is Hiibel V Nevada as a Supreme Court case stating that there is no 4th amendment violation for an officer asking a subject to identify himself IF it is an arrestable offense in that state. Indiana has no such statute to take advantage of the Hiibel decision for suspicious activity stops. Ours only applies to infractions or ordinances.
As an officer, it bothers me to read stories like the OPs... not all of us make crap up. But, even the "shortcut" copy of an IC code book is massive... and that is even for the "typical" offenses. I've been out of the academy a little bit and I still study my IC code book on a regular basis.