West Virginia Stop and Identify: Refusal Isn't Obstruction Until You Say Why

In West Virginia the same silence can be lawful or obstruction, and the difference is a sentence the officer says. The state’s highest court held a refusal alone isn’t obstruction — and that a refusal after you explain why you need the name may be.

West Virginia Stop and Identify

No. West Virginia has no statute requiring a pedestrian to identify, and a refusal standing alone is not obstruction under § 61-5-17(a) (State v. Srnsky, 2003). The charge “may be substantiated” when a statute requires ID or the refusal comes after you tell the person why you need the name. False-statement charges are narrow: § 61-5-17(c) can’t be based on statements by the person under investigation.

Srnsky — Syllabus point 4

State v. Srnsky, 213 W. Va. 412 (2003): “Refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer does not, standing alone, form the basis for a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer … However, the charge of obstructing an officer may be substantiated when a citizen does not supply identification when required to do so by express statutory direction or when the refusal occurs after a law enforcement officer has communicated the reason why the citizen’s name is being sought in relation to the officer’s official duties.”
The Court’s example of a communicated reason: “providing the name of the person appearing on an arrest warrant the officer is attempting to execute and/or otherwise disclosing the need for the investigation, may well be sufficient to support an obstruction charge.”
Decided 3–2; the dissent called syllabus point 4 “wholly unnecessary.” The second half wasn’t applied to Srnsky’s facts, but in West Virginia a syllabus point states the Court’s law.

Reaffirmed — Carney and Dunbar

State v. Carney, 222 W. Va. 152 (2008) (per curiam): § 61-5-17(a) requires “forcible or illegal conduct that interferes with a police officer’s discharge of official duties.” It restated Srnsky’s two prongs and reversed the convictions.
City of Martinsburg v. Dunbar, No. 20-0492 (W. Va. Jan. 28, 2022): re-adopted Srnsky as syllabus point 4. A person who gave a false name before knowing the plain-clothes detective was an officer did not “knowingly” give false information under a city ordinance, and had no duty to correct it later.

§ 61-5-17 — what each subsection reaches

(a) hindering or obstructing an officer “by threats, menaces, acts, or otherwise forcibly or illegally.” Misdemeanor: $50–$500 and/or up to one year.
(c) knowingly and willfully making a materially false statement with intent to impede an investigation of a misdemeanor or felony. Misdemeanor: $25–$200 and/or five days. It excludes listed relatives of the person under investigation, and: “Statements made by the person under investigation may not be used as the basis for prosecution under this subsection.”
(c) also says “law-enforcement officer” “does not include a watchman, a member of the West Virginia State Police, or college security personnel who is not a certified law-enforcement officer.” As literally worded, that leaves out State Police members — troopers should get prosecutor guidance before charging (c).
(d) fleeing on foot from a lawful arrest or detention: $50–$500 and 10 days.

False names — the suspect versus everyone else

Because of (c)’s exclusion, a suspect’s own false statement is not a (c) offense.
State v. Davis, 229 W. Va. 695 (2012) (per curiam): a woman lied to a deputy about a wanted man’s presence during a felony investigation, and the Court upheld (a) obstruction: “making a materially false statement to a police officer during the course of a felony investigation is an illegal activity.” That was a third party’s lie, the illegality rested on her concession, and it predates (c)’s current exclusion.
Whether a suspect’s own false name can be charged as (a) obstruction is unsettled. Don’t charge it without prosecutor review.
Documents are different: § 17B-4-1 makes it a misdemeanor to display a fictitious or altered license, or to represent as one’s own a license not issued to them. Identity theft, § 61-3-54, doesn’t reach a false name to police.

Drivers — § 17B-2-9

The licensee must carry the license while driving and “display the same, upon demand of a … peace officer.” Misdemeanor, fine up to $500; no conviction if the driver produces a license valid at the time of arrest in court or at the arresting officer’s office.
Srnsky’s footnote 15: its holding does “not encompass situations involving motorists.” No statute requires a passenger to identify.

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’re serving an arrest warrant for Jordan Price at an apartment, and the person who answers the door won’t give a name. Silence alone isn’t § 61-5-17(a). So say it on camera: “I’m a police officer. I have an arrest warrant for Jordan Price, and I need to know whether that’s you.” A refusal after that is what Srnsky said “may well be sufficient.” A false name from the person you’re investigating is not a (c) charge. If a roommate falsely tells you Price isn’t there on a felony warrant, that’s the Davis pattern, and (c) reaches it unless the roommate is one of the listed relatives. If the person runs, it’s § 61-5-17(d).

Frequently asked questions

Does West Virginia have a stop and identify law?

No. No West Virginia statute requires a pedestrian to give a name, and the Supreme Court of Appeals held in State v. Srnsky (2003) that refusing to identify, standing alone, is not obstruction under § 61-5-17(a). The Court added that obstruction may be substantiated when a statute requires identification or the refusal comes after the officer explains why the name is needed.

Is giving a false name to police a crime in West Virginia?

It depends on who gives it. § 61-5-17(c) makes a materially false statement made to impede an investigation a misdemeanor, but it bars prosecuting statements made by the person under investigation and excludes close relatives. Whether a suspect’s own false name can be charged as obstruction under § 61-5-17(a) is unsettled.

Do drivers have to show a license to police in West Virginia?

Yes. § 17B-2-9 requires a driver to carry the license and display it on a peace officer’s demand. A violation is a misdemeanor with a fine up to $500, and there is no conviction if the driver later produces a license that was valid at the time of arrest.

Carry the rule, not the guesswork. StreetSense breaks down West Virginia 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.

West Virginia Stop and Identify: Refusal Isn’t Obstruction Until You Say Why