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

[grarpamp]

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:42 PM, coderman <coderman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Detainer is only permissible via specific and articulable facts and rational
inference therefrom leading to RS [Terry]. Only when detained are you
required to name yourself if asked/ordered [Hiibel]. If you're 'being detained',
you may leave when you're 'free to go'. Otherwise you may keep on walking
[past your 'casual' encounter]. Detainer is different from arrest (per PC).

> state specific

Federal minimum is in Hiibel. States may be more intrusive,
at risk of unconstitutionality. There may still be an untested claim
to the Fifth at 542:177:190,191.

http://www.papersplease.org/
http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

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

If you read this stuff you'd change that 404 to
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=03
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/542bv.pdf