v. Marr, 250 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Ky.2008); RCr 9.78. Although we have reservations concerning the justification and scope of the Terry stop, they are not determinative in our resolution of the present case. Identification In the context of a Terry stop, an “officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Whether a Terry detainee is required to provide identification to an officer is determined by state law. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., 542 U.S. 177, 188, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (<HOLDING>). In support, the Hiibel Court cited twenty
holding that a state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid terry stop is consistent with fourth amendment prohibitions holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that officers may consistent with the fourth amendment conduct a brief investigatory stop when they have a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot holding that an anonymous tip supported a terry stop where the informant provided several details but refused to give his name holding that a detention remained a valid terry stop despite detaining the suspect at gunpoint handcuffing him and placing him in a police car because police may take reasonable actions under the circumstances to ensure their own safety as well as the safety of the public during an encounter with a suspect