They can some ask you to identify. Not sure if CT is a must identify state but there is this:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-167a.htm
CT has arrested people for failing to identify but it seems they later get overturned.
" Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer's, special policeman's, motor vehicle inspector's or firefighter's duties.
(b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor."
Is it a "duty" of a police officer to detain a person, question them, and require them to identify themselves when they have no reasonable suspicion that there is a crime being committed? Does driving a vehicle provide reasonable suspicion of the crime of driving without a license? Does the fact that I am talking on a cell phone provide reasonable suspicion of stealing a cell phone and thus being in unlawful possession of it? Why does carrying a rifle, for which there is no permit required to carry, provide reasonable suspicion for the officer to detain someone to investigate the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm?
I'm glad we don't have these problems in WA state:
http://forum.nwcdl.com/index.php?PH...b621e70ae81&action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=9
WA State Supreme Court, State v. Casaad:
Casad walked down the street in Port Angeles on a Saturday afternoon carrying two rifles partially wrapped in a towel. A woman called 911. Police responded, detained Casad, frisked him, and asked why he carried the weapons. Casad admitted that he was a felon, an admission that lead to his arrest and charges for unlawfully possessing the weapons. The trial court held that the police had no authority to detain Casad for a Terry stop and suppressed the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. We affirm.
You also mention "must identify" states. A "must identify" statute is still only constitutional if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed:
(I know this is wikipedia, but the facts are easy enough to verify)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.
Since when does carrying a rifle in a manner that is allowed by law and for which NO permit is required rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed? I will say it again - that seems the same as driving a car rises to the level of reasonable suspicion of committing the crime of driving without a license.
