Maybe you should actually bnother to read what you are talking about. The statute which the State of Nevada relied on to justify the police officers demands was

NRS 171.123

[ QUOTE ]
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of his parole or probation.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

[/ QUOTE ]

New York has an equivalent statute:

CPL Section 140.50

[ QUOTE ]
§ 140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
weapons.
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.
3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
possessed, or arrest such person.

[/ QUOTE ]

These Statutes are pretty similar, and the NY statute is even cited in the Court's decision as being a similar statute.


Years ago one might count on the New York Court of Appeals to find that State's Constitution grants broader protection to individuals than does the US Constitution, but in recent years the Court of Appeals seems to construing the State COnstitution much more in line with The US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitutional protections. (As reflected in People v. Robinson where the NY Court of Appeals adopted the Whren v. US standard on the subject of pretect stops)

Keep in mind under the De Bour standards the New York Court of Appeals put stop and identify at the lowest level of scrutiny for police citizen encounters.

I would not be so quick to say that the Hibel case is not without significnace for New Yorkers.