Do you have to show ID??

[motorman587]

This one should stir up some questions. Traffic stop, bike or car, officer ask for the "passenger" for ID. You comply or tell him to go, you know where. Why, just to check for warrants, nothing else, if you refuse to give ID a crime??

[Deadboy]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

 

Clear as mud: In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.

 

That's been my understanding: if a cop asks, you have to provide name and address, but you are not required to carry or provide ID, except in the case of someone operating a motor vehicle, who must show (on demand) proof that they are legally authorized to operate the vehicle they are driving.

[leikam]

If it's a traffic stop, for instance for speeding, the police have no reason to suspect the passenger of anything. Asking for ID in that case is trolling.

 

As for the court case, I think Stevens got it right:

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens says the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination must always shield a criminal suspect who is being questioned by police. Since police may only request the name of someone they find suspicious (under the upheld Nevada statute), that person is by definition a criminal suspect who may not be compelled to make statements that might incriminate him, Justice Stevens says.

 

"The court reasons that we should not assume the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him," Justice Stevens writes. "But why else would an officer ask for it?"

 

However, the arrest in Nevada is somewhat different since the officer had a specific reason to suspect the man of a crime. That's quite a different situation.

[Glenn Reed]

Based on the news article Deadboy links to, the Supreme Court ruled on a particular law in Nevada, which only required that the person give their name, not that they had to produce some form of identification.

 

Basically, they said that - for now - states can enact such legislation, and therefore the answer to the OP's question, is that it is up to state law.

 

If and when a person is convicted of a crime based on disclosing such information, they are open to revisiting under Fifth Amendment protections.

 

IANAL, and that's just what I got out of it.

[DaveTheAffable]

This one should stir up some questions.

 

And you're goal is?

[steve404]

 

I have been told twice somewhat recently by CHP officers that civilians are required to carry ID when in public.

I did not argue the point the last time. I was pulled over while test driving my son's new car and I had no ID papers at all. I normally keep my wallet stashed in my vehicle, and it was still in my vehicle. I was allowed to drive home after several "yes Sir"s but the idea that that police believe they can demand ID even if you are just out walking really bothers me.

[David13]

That is the modern world we live in.

With regard to giving the name it is not something that will convict you of a crime. There would have to be evidence on that.

With regard to 5th Amendment refusals to answer questions, I believe that only applies to questions that would incriminate you. Not information about who you are.

Of course I could be wrong, as I have never had to use the 5th.

I understand that there was a recent case where the person gave a false name. But the false name turned out to be someone with warrants. Thus he went to jail on someone else's warrants.

So the bottom line is you can't win. Just please guilty and get it over with.

dc

[Powers77]

This one should stir up some questions. Traffic stop, bike or car, officer ask for the "passenger" for ID. You comply or tell him to go, you know where. Why, just to check for warrants, nothing else, if you refuse to give ID a crime??

I'm generally a yes sir/no sir type of stop and would likely comply just because I know there is nothing to hide. Having said that, what if said officer then decides he wants to search the vehicle. No reason evident or stated. I've pondered this before and again would have nothing to hide but, for some reason that REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Not sure how to respond to such a request. Is a reason needed or are you at their mercy because you are on a public road?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Having said that, what if said officer then decides he wants to search the vehicle. No reason evident or stated. I've pondered this before and again would have nothing to hide but, for some reason that REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Not sure how to respond to such a request. Is a reason needed or are you at their mercy because you are on a public road?

 

They can ask you for absolutely anything they want; that doesn't mean you are required to give permission. If they're asking for your permission, feel free to say no. In fact, just to be very clear, your answer should be "you do not have my permission to search my XXX" (where XXX is your car, motorcycle, pants, house, etc.); he might ask "can I search," he might ask "do you mind if I search," he might say "you don't mind if I search, do you?" You can avoid tripping on the language by responding "you do not have my permission," no matter how the question is phrased.

 

Having said all that, I think the officer is allowed to search your body and anything in your immediate vicinity to assure his own safety, if he chooses to do so.

 

If he has probable cause, he doesn't need your permission, and won't bother asking; you'll be in handcuffs in the back of his car while he examines every nook and cranny of your vehicle.

 

Even if you think you have nothing to hide, you might be surprised, depending on who else has ever been in your car. Maybe you left the car parked somewhere with the window rolled down, and some stoner tossed a bag of weed (or a murder weapon) under your seat. Give permission for a search, and you'll be in hot water for whatever he can find in your car. There's no good reason to give him that opportunity.

 

 

[motorman587]

This one should stir up some questions.

 

And you're goal is?

 

lol, at work I can ask 10 cops, 10 supervisors and I get 20 different answers............

[motorman587]

This one should stir up some questions.

 

And you're goal is?

 

lol, at work I can ask 10 cops, 10 supervisors and I get 20 different answers............

 

The goal is to see what the board thinks...........

[upflying]

No one is required to carry any identification when in public..unless you are involved in activity that is regulated..driving for example.

As for passengers in vehicles, I frequently cite them for not wearing a seat belt. They are not required to provide any ID however. If they refuse to identify themselves..they get arrested. If the passenger in a vehicle is not violating a law, I do not have the right to ask who they are or identify them. Often the passenger will voluntarily comply and consent to an identification request by a LEO.

If the car reeks of a funny odor, everyone in the car gets "identified" and searched.

[upflying]

This one should stir up some questions.

 

And you're goal is?

 

I think John may have received another complaint.

[Bud]

A good friend of mine was a ISP officer. He said that most drug runners coming thru Illinois answered "Sure, search my vehicle, I have nothing to hide." He claimed they weren't the brightest bulb on the porch.

 

Several years ago, there was a sign on I 57 south of Effingham, IL that said drug checkpoint ahead. This sign was right before an exit. Wanna guess if there were officers at the top of that exit ramp that asked to look in the vehicles they stopped?

 

We are rapidly headed the wrong way in this country. Rather than asking LEO's do you have a reason to stop/search etc, we are starting to lean towards the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide so why refuse" mentality.

 

Lacking judicial restraint, government will do what ever they want w/o any thoughts to individual rights. History has shown that over and over again. We need be vigilant as the government gets its limited powers by "we the people".

[Dave39]

My son lost his driver's license several year ago, and it was found by some dirt bag who proceeded to violate speed limits all over N. Calif. Apparently when stopped by a variety of officers (CHP and local) he would say he forgot his license and would simply give the officer his (my son's driver#) and drive away with a citation. This went on for several months until my son found out he had half a dozen warrants out for his arrest. We had one hell of a time clearing it up, eventually by convincing the powers-that-be that the plate numbers on the vehicle matched, not my son's car, but that of some scuzzbag with a long arrest record.

 

I am in great support of the driver of any motor vehicle be required to show some kind of ID if stopped for a violation. If he can't his car should be impounded.

[Bob Palin]

This went on for several months

He didn't go to the DMV and get a new one? That would surely have cancelled the old one, it's a bit like losing your credit card and ignoring it.

[bmurphypdx]

Depends on state law so this answer varies state to state. In the State of Washington, passenger identification is not required:

 

“Mr. Barwick was not driving. Thus, there was no requirement he have a driver’s

license on his person. Indeed, there is no general requirement in this country for citizens to

carry any identification.” State v. Barwick, 66 Wn. App. 706 at 709, 833 P.2d 421 (July 30, 1992).

 

“An officer may not require a passenger in a vehicle stopped for an infraction to

provide identification.” State v. Rankin, 108 Wn.App. 948, at 954, 33 P.3d 1090 (October 29,

2001).

 

“Vehicle passengers are not required to carry driver’s licenses or other identification.”

State v. Cole, 73 Wn. App. 844, 848, 871 P.2d 656 (1994) (citing State v. Barwick, 66 Wn. App. 706,

709, 833 P.2d (1992)).” State v. Chelly, 94 Wn. App. 254 at footnote #18 on page 260, 970 P.2d 376

(January 25, 1999).

 

“. . . a passenger is also free not to respond to police officer’s questions. State v. Rankin,

108 Wn.App. 948, 33 P.3d 1090 (2001). . . . a passenger is also free to leave once any exigent

circumstances regarding control of his or her movements dissipates. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 223-

24; Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 10-122, 16. . . . Thus, a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police

officers can contest the lawfulness of the stop.” State v. Byrd, 110 Wn.App. 259, at 263-64, 39

P.3d 1010 (February 11, 2002).

 

“. . . a passenger may challenge a stop of a vehicle on Fourth Amendment grounds even

if she has no possessory interest or ownership interest in the vehicle.” United States v. Garcia,

205 F.3d 1182, 1187-88 (9 Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 5, 2000) (No. 99-10021);

United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 482-83 (9 Cir.1989).” U.S. v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092,

at 1095 (9 Cir. August 14, 2000).

 

 

“[A] stop based on a parking violation committed by the driver does not reasonably

provide an officer with grounds to require identification of individuals in the car other than the

driver, unless other circumstances give the police independent cause to question passengers.” State

v. Larson, 93 Wn.2d 638, at 642, 61 P.2d 771 (1980). See also State v. Cook, 104 Wn.App. 186,

15 P.3d 677 (2001).

 

The right of a passenger to refuse to provide identification is actually constitutionally based and should. therefore, not depend on state law. The reality is that state courts are all over the map. You will ultimately prevail, based on the constitutional argument, but it might take you a while to get there. In Washington, the courts are clear, as seen above.

 

[Agent_Orange]

http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=bst&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Right_Stuff&quote=josejimenez.txt&file=josejimenez.wav

[Dave39]

This went on for several months

He didn't go to the DMV and get a new one? That would surely have cancelled the old one, it's a bit like losing your credit card and ignoring it.

 

He did, but there was apparently some overlap. If there is some kind of state-wide data system, it wasn't working. But remember. We're talking about DMV.

 

It blows my mind that in some places driving violators are not required to identify themselves. They forgo their "right to privacy" when they violate the law.

[Powers77]

Having said that, what if said officer then decides he wants to search the vehicle. No reason evident or stated. I've pondered this before and again would have nothing to hide but, for some reason that REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Not sure how to respond to such a request. Is a reason needed or are you at their mercy because you are on a public road?

 

They can ask you for absolutely anything they want; that doesn't mean you are required to give permission. If they're asking for your permission, feel free to say no. In fact, just to be very clear, your answer should be "you do not have my permission to search my XXX" (where XXX is your car, motorcycle, pants, house, etc.); he might ask "can I search," he might ask "do you mind if I search," he might say "you don't mind if I search, do you?" You can avoid tripping on the language by responding "you do not have my permission," no matter how the question is phrased.

 

Having said all that, I think the officer is allowed to search your body and anything in your immediate vicinity to assure his own safety, if he chooses to do so.

 

If he has probable cause, he doesn't need your permission, and won't bother asking; you'll be in handcuffs in the back of his car while he examines every nook and cranny of your vehicle.

 

Even if you think you have nothing to hide, you might be surprised, depending on who else has ever been in your car. Maybe you left the car parked somewhere with the window rolled down, and some stoner tossed a bag of weed (or a murder weapon) under your seat. Give permission for a search, and you'll be in hot water for whatever he can find in your car. There's no good reason to give him that opportunity.

 

I've always thought I'd politely decline. I can just hear the response being, if you have nothing to hide, why not. Kind of like trying to disprove a negative.

[motorman587]

Depends on state law so this answer varies state to state. In the State of Washington, passenger identification is not required:

 

“Mr. Barwick was not driving. Thus, there was no requirement he have a driver’s

license on his person. Indeed, there is no general requirement in this country for citizens to

carry any identification.” State v. Barwick, 66 Wn. App. 706 at 709, 833 P.2d 421 (July 30, 1992).

 

“An officer may not require a passenger in a vehicle stopped for an infraction to

provide identification.” State v. Rankin, 108 Wn.App. 948, at 954, 33 P.3d 1090 (October 29,

2001).

 

“Vehicle passengers are not required to carry driver’s licenses or other identification.”

State v. Cole, 73 Wn. App. 844, 848, 871 P.2d 656 (1994) (citing State v. Barwick, 66 Wn. App. 706,

709, 833 P.2d (1992)).” State v. Chelly, 94 Wn. App. 254 at footnote #18 on page 260, 970 P.2d 376

(January 25, 1999).

 

“. . . a passenger is also free not to respond to police officer’s questions. State v. Rankin,

108 Wn.App. 948, 33 P.3d 1090 (2001). . . . a passenger is also free to leave once any exigent

circumstances regarding control of his or her movements dissipates. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 223-

24; Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 10-122, 16. . . . Thus, a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police

officers can contest the lawfulness of the stop.” State v. Byrd, 110 Wn.App. 259, at 263-64, 39

P.3d 1010 (February 11, 2002).

 

“. . . a passenger may challenge a stop of a vehicle on Fourth Amendment grounds even

if she has no possessory interest or ownership interest in the vehicle.” United States v. Garcia,

205 F.3d 1182, 1187-88 (9 Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 5, 2000) (No. 99-10021);

United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 482-83 (9 Cir.1989).” U.S. v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092,

at 1095 (9 Cir. August 14, 2000).

 

 

“[A] stop based on a parking violation committed by the driver does not reasonably

provide an officer with grounds to require identification of individuals in the car other than the

driver, unless other circumstances give the police independent cause to question passengers.” State

v. Larson, 93 Wn.2d 638, at 642, 61 P.2d 771 (1980). See also State v. Cook, 104 Wn.App. 186,

15 P.3d 677 (2001).

 

The right of a passenger to refuse to provide identification is actually constitutionally based and should. therefore, not depend on state law. The reality is that state courts are all over the map. You will ultimately prevail, based on the constitutional argument, but it might take you a while to get there. In Washington, the courts are clear, as seen above.

 

Good information here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

[motorman587]

This one should stir up some questions.

 

And you're goal is?

 

I think John may have received another complaint.

 

Ouch, Sir!!!

[DaveTheAffable]

lol, at work I can ask 10 cops, 10 supervisors and I get 20 different answers............

The goal is to see what the board thinks...........

 

That's fine. I just saw that it had the potential of doing exactly what you said... stirring something up. Some here are pretty educated in these matters. Others not, but that won't prevent them from having a strong opinion on the matter.

 

I'll stay out of this one.

[tallman]

lol, at work I can ask 10 cops, 10 supervisors and I get 20 different answers............

The goal is to see what the board thinks...........

 

That's fine. I just saw that it had the potential of doing exactly what you said... stirring something up. Some here are pretty educated in these matters. Others not, but that won't prevent them from having a strong opinion on the matter.

 

I'll stay out of this one.

 

Sir,

Do you know why I pulled your keyboard over?

You were typing pretty fast back there.

May I see your keyboard license.

 

Left your license at home didja now?

Well, since you pulled over so quickly I'll cut you a break.

I'll write the ticket for only one good idea even though you definitely had more than that.

 

 

 

 

 

[upflying]

Ca LEO's can arrest anyone who fails to present a driver's license or other satisfactory identification after committing a vehicle code violation.

From a practical standpoint, it's been my experience about 25% of the driver's I stop can only provide verbal identification of themselves. Using law enforcement data bases, I can confirm or deny the truthfulness of who they say they are about 90% of the time. For the other 10%, I can detain under 40302aCVC and bring them to jail where instantaneous fingerprint identification can be made. Once positive ID is made at the jail, they are released on a citation. Unfortunately many driver's in Ca cannot legally obtain a driver's license even if they wanted to.

The only option a LEO has with them is to impound their cars for 30 days. The 30 day hold also applies to anyone driving on a suspended or revoked license. A very common violation in Ca.

 

40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this

code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken

without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in

which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who

has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible

with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the

following cases:

(a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license

or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.

(b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise

to appear in court.

© When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance

before a magistrate.

(d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section

23152.

 

 

 

 

[Bud]

This went on for several months

He didn't go to the DMV and get a new one? That would surely have cancelled the old one, it's a bit like losing your credit card and ignoring it.

 

Seems to obvious, doesn't it. Would like to know "the rest of the story" that hasn't been told.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I've always thought I'd politely decline. I can just hear the response being, if you have nothing to hide, why not. Kind of like trying to disprove a negative.

 

If an officer asks "why not," you don't have to give him a reason.

[DaveTheAffable]

Mini-hijack for humor

....it's a bit like losing your credit card and ignoring it.

My wifes credit card was stolen last year and we didn't report it for the first 6 months....

 

...the thief was spending less than my wife.

 

- Hijack off

[Tank]

I've always thought I'd politely decline. I can just hear the response being, if you have nothing to hide, why not. Kind of like trying to disprove a negative.

 

If an officer asks "why not," you don't have to give him a reason.

 

 

 

It does really help to have nothing to hide when proving this point of law.

[Dave39]

In view of the following CA code (14607.6. ©(1)), it would appear that the officers did little to ID the driver who stole my son's identity. If such a data base is indeed available in the field, a vehicle license number check would have raised suspicion....and after several such stops, a search of data base should have revealed prior arrest warrants. I can understand that this guy could have slipped through in one incident, but this was a repeated occurrence in N. Calif for a month or two. Only when we went down to the Sac Police Dept and they actually checked the database did they admit, "Oh yeah, I guess it wasn't your son."

 

From California Vehicle Code:

 

V C Section 14607.6 Impoundment and Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles

Impoundment and Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles

 

14607.6.

 

© (1) If a driver is unable to produce a valid driver's license on the demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 12951, the vehicle shall be impounded regardless of ownership, unless the peace officer is reasonably able, by other means, to verify that the driver is properly licensed. Prior to impounding a vehicle, a peace officer shall attempt to verify the license status of a driver who claims to be properly licensed but is unable to produce the license on demand of the peace officer.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I've always thought I'd politely decline. I can just hear the response being, if you have nothing to hide, why not. Kind of like trying to disprove a negative.

 

If an officer asks "why not," you don't have to give him a reason.

 

 

 

It does really help to have nothing to hide when proving this point of law.

 

It doesn't matter if you're hiding a stack of dead bodies and a hundred-pound bale of pot in your trunk; you are still not required by law to consent to a search.

 

I was watching an episode of "Cops" the other day. The officer had pulled over a girl for some minor traffic infraction, but was suspicious of drug activity (I don't recall why). He had her out of the car, talked to her for a bit, and she hadn't admitted to anything illegal. After that point, the conversation went like this:

 

=========================================

Officer: OK, you are free to go at this point, do you understand?

 

Girl: Yes.

 

Officer: Having said that, is there anything in the car that shouldn't be there?

 

Girl: No, you can search it if you want.

=========================================

 

Gadzukes, she was free to go, and then she volunteered her car for a search before he even asked! Cop searches the car, finds narcotics in the cupholder. Now with probable cause, he searches her pockets and finds more. She could have gone home that night if she'd kept her mouth shut, but instead she went to jail because she offered her car up on a platter. It may be argued that the arrest was a good thing for her particular long-term future, but my point is, if you don't want to chance ending up in deep legal doo-doo, don't consent to a search if you don't have to, unless you're 100% sure of everything that is and is not in your car, even if you think you have nothing to hide.

[Bud]

Bingo, we have a winner!

 

Mitch's advice is spot on. The issue isn't if you do or do not have anything to hide. The issue is your Constitutional rights as a US citizen.

 

And his example shows that most dopers aren't the brightest bulb on the porch.

[Bud]

Mini-hijack for humor

....it's a bit like losing your credit card and ignoring it.

My wifes credit card was stolen last year and we didn't report it for the first 6 months....

 

...the thief was spending less than my wife.

 

- Hijack off

 

Now that is funny!

[upflying]

Hmm, reminds me of a traffic stop I made 15 years ago. I run plate, registered owner has warrants. Contact driver, she's the one with warrants. I hook her up. Passenger sits there fat dumb and happy. He don't have a driver's license so I tell him to leave on foot but he hangs around. I search car incident to the driver's arrest and find a sawed off shotgun and a large quantity of meth where passenger is sitting. He went to jail..it turned out he was also a murder suspect. Up until I searched the car, he was free to go.

[Bud]

Which once again proves the point that dopers aren't the best and brightest our country has produced.

 

BTW Thanks for serving.

[SANTA]

Bingo, we have a winner!

 

Mitch's advice is spot on. The issue isn't if you do or do not have anything to hide. The issue is your Constitutional rights as a US citizen.

 

And his example shows that most dopers aren't the brightest bulb on the porch.

 

okay so since i am not an American citizen, do i also have right to refuse a search? can't hide the fact my license plate is canadian?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

okay so since i am not an American citizen, do i also have right to refuse a search? can't hide the fact my license plate is canadian?

 

AFAIK the only distinctions between citizen and non-citizen are that you can't vote in elections or hold public office, or work in the employ of the federal government (and there are exceptions to this last one). That, and of course different policies WRT residence.

 

IOW, I'm pretty the Bill of Rights, including the fourth amendment, applies to anyone on US soil.

[dba]

but the idea that that police believe they can demand ID even if you are just out walking really bothers me.

 

They legally can't. They need Reasonable Suspicion; defined thus:

 

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; [1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts". [2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop, (Terry v Ohio) . If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, and [3] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.