brief detention at the [police] station on less than the grounds needed for arrest, where the purpose of the detention is to conduct certain identification procedures”) [hereinafter Search and Seizure ]. Some of these statutes, like Iowa’s, allow issuance of a non-testimonial identification order based upon reasonable grounds to suspect that the person subject to the order has committed the crime under investigation. E.g., State v. Rodriguez, 186 Ariz. 240, 248, 921 P.2d 643, 651 (1996); People v. Madson, 638 P.2d 18, 32 (Colo.1981); State v. Welch, 316 N.C. 578, 583, 342 S.E.2d 789, 792 (1986); In re Nontestimonial Identification Order, 762 A.2d at 1240-41. We do not think the order challenged by Bousman violated his constitutional rights solely because it .2d 1155, 1161 (1983) (<HOLDING>). See generally 4 Search and Seizure § 9.7(b),
holding that leon requires a less demanding showing than the substantial basis threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause in the first place holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion holding that identification procedures that are comparable to fingerprinting will be sustainable upon a showing of less than traditional probable cause holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding that probable cause does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false