Could you tell me if this "police-procedural-like" situation is realistic in your opinion, or not, and why?

The man is imprisoned on what charge?

@stanley Obstruction of justice or interfering in police business, probably. Saw it on the Camadian cop show Under Arrest.

If police stop you, and ask, you are obligated to provide that info.

I was thinking Public Nudity.

He definitely lands on a sex offender list.

He probably didn’t have a home to go to or couldn’t remember his address if he had one, so they put him in jail for four months to keep him off the streets and to get his assistance by way of counselling etc

The nakedness is an issue.

The not having or refusing to give identification should not be punishable.

If he were not being charged with anything (e.g. if he were clothed), then he should not be charged with anything and not have to submit to fingerprinting, nor (in my opinion) to say who he is.

In the USA, however, formerly the “land of liberty”, circa 2001, the “Patriot Act” allows authorities to pretty much do whatever the #$%& they want to people if they use the pretext with their coworkers and/or judges that they are doing it for “national security”.

States and cities have nudity laws…like it or not….crazy or not.

We do not have a choice about identifying ourselves when asked by law enforcement.

Refusal to identify oneself in court can also invoke a contempt citation…..and incarceration could last until the defendant identifies himself.

I have no problem with any of this.

@Sagacious: And why does that person constitute a danger to society?

If you know who you are, and lie to a LEO about this, that is reason for detainment/incarceration…

@luigirovatti I didn’t mention danger to society.

The question is on the realistic nature of the premise. It seems to me that the flaw in the tale is with the 4 month prison term. Is the man imprisoned for public nudity or refusal to identify himself? Either way, there are probably isolated rural jurisdictions in the United States where such a tale might be plausible, but even here, the legal liability risks from denial of the prisoner’s civil rights must be huge. The case as stated neglects entirely the motivation or reasoning behind either of the alleged “crimes”. There is an absolute burden on the prosecuting authority to demonstrate the psychological soundness of the prisoner regarding both victimless crimes. The man is legally entitled to “remain silent” regarding any “crime”. He is also entitled to legal counsel, and punitive risks from ignoring these 2 established rights should be severe for the prosecuting and sentencing jurisdiction. The man might sensibly be detained for psychological evaluation or on grounds of regard for his own protection—but 4 months in prison?

Since this is hypothetical, I’m guessing the police and authorities would talk to the man about coming up with some proof of his identity, and they’d process him for the crime, if there was a crime to be processed for. Then he’d be released.

@Sagacious: If the man’s not a threat, then why are you comfortable with it? Especially when, as you said yourself, the man doesn’t talk forever, stays in prison forever.

If the man can’t be identified, then who knows if he’s a threat, @luigirovatti?

@jca2: Because he’s not in the FBI national database?

@luigirovatti: How do they know who he is not unless he can prove it?

@jca2: But they can prove it, with fingerprints and the DNA test.

Then why is he imprisoned?

@stanleybmanly: Because they need his consent.

His consent on what?

This is all hypothetical so arguing about it is pointless.

True

@stanleybmanly: Consent to the DNA test.

There is no “consent.” When a LEO asks you to provide basic information, you have to comply. Many people decline to offer their identity, because they are wanted/have warrents out on them. In other words, they know they are in trouble for something, but don’t want to get caught. The individual, could be wanted for multiple violent offenses, and is therefore a threat to commit more offenses.
Keeping a person like that off of the streets, usually prevents then from hurting more people. It’s of vital importance to know, who they are, and why they won’t identify themselves. It protects ordinary citizens. If the person harms someone else, after the interaction with law enforcement, it could have been prevented.

It’s a free country, but you can’t walk around naked. The individual needs to be investigated. Why is he naked? Why won’t they identify themselves? It’s a no-brainer…

When you are stopped by a LEO, you are obligated to give certain information, to the officer. Otherwise, they can/will/should detain you… Other things, like blood tests, and attempts to identify the individual, are going to happen…

@MrGrimm888: It’s a free country but you can’t walk around naked? It seems like an oxymoron to me.

There are laws, Luigi, its not a free for all. In general, laws are to protect. We dont want you naked with babies and grannies around.

The only real freedom, is freedom of religion. Do you seriously want a naked man walking through your neighborhood, who is unidentified? Come on…

@MrGrimm888: I understand the law, but, it’s got to have 1/1000000 of a probability just thinking that a naked man can be dangerous. As for his nakedness, it’s sufficient not to look at him.

Errata corrige: Maybe not enough, after all…

@luigirovatti:: If you object to a law, best to contact your local lawmakers to discuss and maybe they’ll change it Good luck with that, but arguing with @MrGrimm888 about the logic of the law is not sensible and not a good use of your time.

@jca2: Why not? They’re not gonna arrest me, are they?

@luigirovatti: You stated above that there’s only a tiny probability that a naked man is dangerous and “as for his nakedness, it’s sufficient not to look at him.” I’m saying if you feel the law about nakedness in public is foolish, then contact your local lawmakers. Arguing about it here is pointless, especially because this whole scenario is hypothetical.

Well. It’s at minimum, indecent exposure. The person would probably be arrested. Whether they serve time, or are levied a fine, probably depends on the state law. And for the record, I ran across a few naked guys, when I was a LEO. They were never “just a naked guy.”
Many powerful street drugs, cause a person’s body heat to rise, so that is the typical reason a guy is naked in public.
So. There will likely be an accompanying public into charge tacked on.
In addition, the subject often resists arrest. Another charge….