If you ran a Bitcoin related service before the thing hit $100 you prolly ought to be somewhat concerned and/or prepared

[coderman]

On 9/1/14, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> Not necessarily... he doesn't indicate being detained (per RS) and
> subsequently asked, so he has no obligation (in US) to respond in confirmation.

you don't have to be detained per Reasonable Suspicion for RS to
apply. so if there was RS refusing to identify could get you arrested
by itself. [0][1]  i imagine you'd only discover you were detained if
you tried to leave the premises?

presumably the "use of bitcoin for anonymous pre-paid payments
associated with other known criminal activity" or similar bullshit was
bravely painted "reasonable".

i am not a lawyer, of course, but this is my understanding of how one
explained it to me. it also seems this guidance may be very state
specific.



>  And unbelievably, he keeps on talking.

it went bad from there ...

get their badges and names before identifying yourself.  then let your
very next words be "i demand legal counsel be present for any further
inquiry."

best regards,



0. "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada"
 - http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html

1. "Stop and identify statutes"
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes