Hiibel has been out for a while now. That incident took place about 100 miles east of where I used to be a cop, in the same state. In that case, a sheriff's deputy was responding to a report of a domestic disturbance taking place in or around a particular vehicle. The deputy located the vehicle with Mr. Hiibel standing outside of it, and a woman seated inside. The deputy explained his reason for stopping, and asked Hiibel for identification. Hiibel refused. The deputy eventually asked Hiibel for identification 11 times before placing him under arrest. Hiibel was convicted of obstructing and/or resisting a public officer and appealed his conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds. He claimed that he had no obligation to present identification to the officer under these circumstances.

Nevada actually has a specific statute that defines the limits of a Terry stop more rigidly. A Terry stop cannot go more than an hour, and anyone stopped must identify themselves to the officer on demand (Hiibel could have fulfilled this requirement by simply saying, "I'm Larry Hiibel" ). The U.S. Supreme Cout ruled that Mr. Hiibel did have an obligation to identify himself, and upheld the conviction.

Berkemer v. McCarty actually has more to do about when roadside questioning during a traffic stop (which does not fall under the Miranda requirement) ends and custodial interrogation begins. McCarty was stopped by an Ohio state trooper, who suspected him of driving under the influence. When asked at the scene of the stop, McCarty said that he had consumed two beers and smoked marijuana. The trooper arrested McCarty and took him for a breath test, which showed him not to be under the influence of alcohol. The trooper then asked McCarty more questions about his marijuana use, and McCarty made a number of incriminating statements in response. These were used at trial as evidence against him, and resulted in a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case that the trooper's questions at the roadside about McCarty's use of alcohol and drugs were proper, and did not require a Miranda warning. But when McCarty was arrested and taken to the county jail, any questions asked thereafter had to be in the context of a custodial interrogation, before which a Miranda warning must be given if the responses are to be admissible as evidence.

Back to the original topic: the only requirement, in terms of answering questions, that a person stopped by a FAM has is to identify oneself. My personal interpretation is that (truthfully) giving one's name satisfies this, but the FAM might ask for an identification document. It's your call whether you want to provide this or not. If you don't want to answer other questions that the FAM might ask, don't, but I doubt that you will doing yourself any favors.

It occurs to me that basic civility and courtesy is a significant factor here. Some forum members seem to be motivated not to cooperate with questions from FAMs or other security/law enforcement people simply because they don't have to. Consider how that would impact my dealing with other people if I were to adopt that approach in other human interactions. When a waitress brings coffee to my table, I don't have to say "thank you." I don't have to. Moreover, I don't have to leave her a tip. After all, she gets paid for being there, and she has to bring me the coffee whether I tip her or not. Why should I?

My neighbor occasionally brings my garbage bin in from the curb on pick-up day if I haven't gotten to it yet - I also do the same for him. Maybe I should stop this. I get nothing out of it, and he might actually expect me to start bringing his bin in if I kept it up. Further, I never asked him to do this, so there's no need to thank him for it.

My point: I don't think anyone is giving up anything significant by answering questions asked by a FAM or a ticket agent. I haven't seen anyone present an argument that they will suffer some loss or indignity in doing so. The principle argument seems to be that they will make as big a deal of this as they can because they can. Sounds like protest for the sake of protest, and people that are way too full of themselves.

By the way, in case I give the wrong impression here: I am not a lawyer, have never been a lawyer, don't want to be a lawyer, and nothing that I say should be construed as legal advice.