In which case was it ruled that failure to answer questions does not constitute obstruction?

The ruling in State v. Camilo is significant because it clarified that simply failing to answer questions from law enforcement does not amount to obstruction of justice. This case emphasized the distinction between non-cooperation and active interference with a police investigation. The court recognized that individuals have the right to remain silent and are not compelled to respond to police inquiries, provided they are not engaging in actions that would mislead or hinder the investigation actively.

In contrast, the other cases mentioned focus on different legal principles. Delaware v. Prouse deals with the legality of stops and the requirements for reasonable suspicion. Mapp v. Ohio addresses the exclusionary rule and the need for warrants to secure evidence. Graham v. Connor deals with excessive force in relation to arrests made by law enforcement. Each scenario serves to illustrate different legal precedents and considerations, underscoring the specificity of State v. Camilo concerning the right to remain silent without facing charges of obstruction.