RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        미국의 정지 및 신원확인규정에 대한 이해

        조길형 경찰대학교 2011 경찰학연구 Vol.11 No.2

        This study introduces the stop and identify statute of the United States, paying particular attention to the historical development and current stop and identify statutes. A “stop and identify” statute requires an individual detained at a traffic or Terry stop to identify himself, and provides penalties for a failure to do so. In theory, “stop and identify” statutes strikes a realistic and necessary compromise between the needs of police and the fundamental rights of the individual. Such statutes typically obligate a lawfully detained individual to provide certain information to the police, but also guarantee that the individual's detention will be legitimate and brief. Various appellate courts have overturned convictions under such statutes based on constitutional challenges. Until Hiibel case, the United States Supreme Court has not had a case involving both a question of reasonable suspicion for the stop and a violation of a “stop and identify” statute which has survived a vagueness challenge. The Supreme Court's decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada threatens to erode the protections of the Fourth Amendment by allowing arrests on reasonable suspicion alone, thereby subverting the probable requirement. Part II of this article traces the development of “stop and identify” statutes, including its origins in historical vagrancy and loitering statutes, courts' treatment of such laws, and the progression of the specific Nevada statutes at issues. Part III introduces and analyzes the twenty-four states' stop and identify statutes which are enacted in United States. It is quite to th contrary to the Korean conventional wisdom that Unites States' stop and identify states are uniform. The wording of “stop and identify” laws varies considerably from state to state. Part specifically explains legal implications for Korean lawmakers to consider when they make stop and identify statutes or deal with the current bill to amend the Act on the

      • KCI등재

        경찰작용에 대한 법적 고찰 불심검문에서의 신원확인에 관한 법적 고찰

        이영돈 ( Young Don Lee ) 한국경찰법학회 2015 경찰법연구 Vol.13 No.1

        Police stop and question is the important authority for police officers to prevent crimes and arrest suspects. Police duties performance Act in korea states that a police officer can stop and question someone if the officer have probable cause to believe that a person has committed the crime or is intending to commit crime under surrounding circumstances. In recently, some people are likely to refuse to police officer’s request to stop and question. So, Police National Agency and some scholars have suggested that “stop and identify statutes” should be amended in Police duties performance Act in korea. “Stop and identify statutes” is law that authorize for police officers to request and obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed a crime. However, it has been criticized to pose a potential danger to invade the individual rights such as privacy and the right to remain silent guaranteed by Korean Constitutional Law. This study examined foreign countries‘ laws related to stop and identify. Most major countries have enacted “stop and identify” statutes. For example, some states of United States have “Stop and identify laws that allow police to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they refuse to identify themselves. Especially, Germany, France and Twain have the law permitting for police officers to request one’s identification card in case of emergency situations regardless of committing crime. In conclusion, Korean Police should try to recover people’s trust by obeying the due process of stop and question. Also, it is necessary to introduce “stop andidentify” statutes with systems to prevent people’s individual rights.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼