Connecticut Refusing to Identify: No Statute, but Aloi Makes It Interfering

Most states without a stop-and-identify statute leave a refusal uncharged. Connecticut went the other way. Its Supreme Court read the general interfering statute to reach a person who won’t identify at a lawful Terry stop — with limits that decide every one of these cases.

Connecticut Refusing to Identify

Connecticut has no stop-and-identify statute, but refusing a demand for identification during a legitimate Terry stop can be interfering with an officer, § 53a-167a, a class A misdemeanor — State v. Aloi, 280 Conn. 824 (2007). The stop has to be lawful, the refusal has to impede you to some appreciable degree, and the person has to know why you need the ID.

What Aloi holds

Unanimous Connecticut Supreme Court: “a refusal to comply with a police command to provide identification in the course of a Terry stop may constitute a violation of § 53a-167a even if that refusal is unaccompanied by any physical force or other affirmative act.” The statute reaches conduct that hinders the police “irrespective of whether the offending conduct is active or passive.”
§ 53a-167a: a person is guilty when they “obstruct[], resist[], hinder[] or endanger[] any peace officer” performing their duties. Class A misdemeanor; class D felony if it causes death or serious physical injury.
Aloi reversed the Appellate Court, which had held the refusal was not interfering. That lower-court reading is no longer the law.

The three limits

1. A legitimate Terry stop. The Court limited its holding to a refusal “in connection with a legitimate Terry stop.” A consensual encounter isn’t covered. And the Second Circuit, in Friend v. Gasparino, 61 F.4th 77 (2023), read Aloi to reach only lawful commands — no reasonable suspicion, no lawful demand.
2. It actually impeded you. The duty exists “if, and only if, the state can establish that the suspect’s refusal to provide identification hindered or impeded the police in the performance of their duties.” The delay need not be substantial, but it has to reach “some appreciable degree.”
3. Intent. The Aloi defendant knew he was the subject of the trespass investigation and why the ID was sought. Say both out loud.
No constitutional or vagueness challenge was raised in Aloi; those questions remain undecided.

Words alone are not interfering

State v. Williams, 205 Conn. 456 (1987), narrowed § 53a-167a to “physical conduct and fighting words that ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,’” and to interference that is intentional.
Aloi squared the two: that conviction rested on the conduct of refusing to produce ID, not on what the defendant said. Arguing doesn’t make the charge; the refusal does.

Drivers — § 14-217, and Silva on top of it

§ 14-217: an operator or person in charge of a vehicle may not, on request of an officer in uniform, refuse to give name and address, give a false name or address, refuse to produce license, registration and insurance card or let the officer take them in hand, or refuse to sign their name. Infraction. Passengers aren’t covered.
§ 14-213: failing to carry the license while operating is a separate infraction.
State v. Silva, 285 Conn. 447 (2008): Aloi controls a driver who refuses license, registration and insurance card to officers writing a ticket. § 14-217 does not displace § 53a-167a.

When the seizure starts, and what a false name gets you

State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635 (1992): Connecticut rejects Hodari D. Under the state constitution a seizure happens at a show of authority that would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave — submission isn’t required. Your suspicion has to exist at that earlier moment. The quantum of suspicion itself mirrors Terry (State v. Lamme, 216 Conn. 172 (1990)).
False names: § 14-217 covers a driver’s false name or address. False statement, § 53a-157b, needs a written statement under oath or on a form carrying a penalty notice — an oral roadside lie doesn’t fit. We found no Connecticut Supreme Court decision squarely holding that a pedestrian’s false name is § 53a-167a.
Massimino v. Benoit (2d Cir. Aug. 2026) — federal, not binding on Connecticut courts — found probable cause for § 53a-167a where the subject of a legitimate Terry stop refused an order to produce ID.

The federal floor underneath it

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) — with no reasonable suspicion for the stop, a person cannot be punished for refusing to identify. If the stop fails, the identification charge fails with it.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) — a state may require a name during a lawful Terry stop, but the duty has to come from state law, not the Fourth Amendment. Stating the name satisfies it — Hiibel does not reach documents — and the request must be reasonably related to the reason for the stop.

How it plays out on the street

You stop a person coming out of a fenced construction site after hours, on reasonable suspicion of trespass. No name. Before you charge, build the three elements on camera. Say why you stopped them and that you need identification to complete the trespass investigation. Ask again. If the refusal holds and you can’t finish the investigation, you have Aloi — write down what the refusal kept you from doing and for how long. If the person gives you a name and argues while doing it, that’s not interfering. If it was a consensual contact to begin with, there’s no charge at all.

Frequently asked questions

Does Connecticut have a stop and identify law?

Connecticut has no statute that requires a person to give a name. But the Connecticut Supreme Court held in State v. Aloi (2007) that refusing a police demand for identification during a legitimate Terry stop can be interfering with an officer under § 53a-167a, even if the refusal is passive.

Can you be arrested for refusing to identify in Connecticut?

Yes, under the limits Aloi set: the stop must be a lawful Terry stop, the refusal must hinder or impede the investigation to some appreciable degree, and the person must know why the identification is being sought. There is no duty in a consensual encounter.

Do drivers have to give their name and license to police in Connecticut?

Yes. Under § 14-217, a vehicle operator who refuses a uniformed officer’s request for name, address, license, registration or insurance card commits an infraction. In State v. Silva (2008) the Supreme Court held a driver’s refusal can also be interfering under § 53a-167a.

Carry the rule, not the guesswork. StreetSense breaks down Connecticut law like this — the statute, the limit, and the charge that actually sticks — verified against the code and available fully offline on shift. Start the free trial.

StreetSense is an educational reference for law enforcement, not legal advice. State law changes, and your department policy may be stricter than the statute. Always follow your state’s current rule and your agency’s policy.

Spot an error? Email nick@mnsindustriesllc.com with the post and your source. Corrections to the app go out over the air. How we verify.