Passenger refuses to provide ID on traffic stop

[LT Dangle]

I have been having a nice little chat in PM land with a member of this forum who wants to know what would happen if he was in the passenger seat of a car that was stopped for a simple traffic violation. Once stopped the officer(s) ask them for their ID, to which he politely refuses.

What happens from this point in your area of the world?

[CityCopDC]

Originally Posted by LT Dangle

I have been having a nice little chat in PM land with a member of this forum who wants to know what would happen if he was in the passenger seat of a car that was stopped for a simple traffic violation. Once stopped the officer(s) ask him for his ID, to which he politely refuses.

What happens from this point in your area of the world?

Cant check for wanted status if you dont provide a name. It all depends on the stop and circumstances. If I believed the person had something to hide or may have been wanted then they would get an ultimatum.
The charge? "Failure To Make Identity Known"- arrestable offense. Then once you are hooked up to the livescan machine, you will be indentified then.

[napes]

But if you think theres more to it and it means arresting them for not wearing a seatbelt...

[Mstangfk]

Originally Posted by CityCopDC

Cant check for wanted status if you dont provide a name. It all depends on the stop and circumstances. If I believed the person had something to hide or may have been wanted then they would get an ultimatum.
The charge? "Failure To Make Identity Known"- arrestable offense. Then once you are hooked up to the livescan machine, you will be indentified then.

x2.

[Name Taken]

To the best of my knowledge unless they have commited an offense as a passenger (Good luck finding one in MD unless it's a seatbelt, video taping reckless driving/speed constest, or messing with the drivers control of the car) you have no reason to arrest them/identify them.

Sitting next to a criminal doesnt make you a criminal in my book.

It's all in how you talk to them.

[CityCopDC]

Originally Posted by Name Taken

To the best of my knowledge unless they have commited an offense as a passenger (Good luck finding one in MD unless it's a seatbelt, video taping reckless driving/speed constest, or messing with the drivers control of the car) you have no reason to arrest them/identify them.

Sitting next to a criminal doesnt make you a criminal in my book.

It's all in how you talk to them.

Video taping from the passenger seat is an arrestable offense?

[t150vsuptpr]

I make a lot of traffic stops. I do not routinely identify every individual in every vehicle I stop just to identify them or to run fishing trips. Only if I have reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the individual is wanted or has or is committing some violation, etc. do I seek to identify them, and then I have "a hook".

If an accident case, I will need to identify passengers who are witnesses or injured, it's generally in their interest to so identify themselves, never been a problem.

To me, just routinely and without some specific, articulable cause ... seeking to identify passengers of a motor vehicle stopped simply because the driver was running 13 over (or blew a stop sign or failed to signal three lane changes or had a dead inspection sticker or etc)..... is much akin to my stopping random pedestrians walking down a street and identifying them.

Hell, if I'm the passenger and you stop my wife, BIL, SIL (very real possibility there, she's not the smoothest driver) and you just randomly ask me for my ID, I very probably will ask you why first.

[Omega17632]

If they have NOT committed an offense, and I ask for their ID and they tell me to **** off, I have no lawful right to demand their ID. I have had several people ask me why, and I just simply state that you see my name on my chest and I like to know who i'm talking to. They're usually pretty good about giving it up. It's all in talking to them with respect and dignity.

Now on the flipside, if they have committed an offense and I ask for their ID and they do not provide it to me, well then they're getting cited for failure to provide ID. If they do not have it on them they're getting hooked, and taken to the PD to be fingerprinted and ID'd.

In my neck of the woods, I gotta be able to articulate why the passengers ID was necessary for me to obtain in order for me to do my job. Sometimes the passenger interferes with my investigation and I end up with the ID that way. But you might want to see California v Brendlin or US v Diaz-Castaneda.

[adamt35]

I don't think that you would be able to refuse up here in Alberta...

Stopping for peace officer
166(1) For the purposes of administering and enforcing this Act or a bylaw, a peace officer may
(a) with respect to a vehicle,
(i) signal or direct a driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle, and
(ii) request information from the driver of the vehicle and any passengers in the vehicle, and
(b) with respect to a pedestrian using or located on a highway, request information from that pedestrian.

[t150vsuptpr]

Bad post deleted.

[Name Taken]

Originally Posted by CityCopDC

Video taping from the passenger seat is an arrestable offense?

21-1126 B - (Commit, Engage another to commit) a violation for purpose of filming, videotaping, photographing or recording.


Yup....

[RedMan1]

Originally Posted by Name Taken

21-1126 B - (Commit, Engage another to commit) a violation for purpose of filming, videotaping, photographing or recording.


Yup....

Simply video taping isn't an offense. If you are distracting the driver, it may be.

[Name Taken]

Originally Posted by RedMan1

Simply video taping isn't an offense. If you are distracting the driver, it may be.

You are an accessory to the crime for ID purposes....

[Name Taken]

Originally Posted by CityCopDC

Video taping from the passenger seat is an arrestable offense?

Oh and it's not an arrestable offense at all.

[gopherpuckfan]

I had something similar occur last spring.

I stopped a car that almost sideswiped me while exiting from one highway to another. I ended up citing a passenger for Give False Name/DOB (a misdemeanor). Our prosecutor emailed me and asked why the passengers were ID'd. I explained that we never *demanded* their information, because we had no reasonable suspicion that they were committing a crime. My partner and I simply asked, "You guys got your ID's on ya?". The passengers volunteered their ID's, except for one guy. He verbally provided a false name/dob because he had a warrant from another county. Turns out the warrant was non-extraditable more than 100 miles from the county, so he lied for no reason and now had another charge.

Muehler v. Mena states that mere questioning does not automatically constitue a seizure for 4th Amendment purposes.

[jonesy515]

A long time ago, my buddy and I were driving across the country, from New Mexico to PA, and our car died in Illinois. (R.I.P., little brown Honda.) So happened we were about half a mile from a weigh station, and I had seen a state trooper car there as we passed, so I walked back and requested assistance. The trooper was quite nice and said he would drive me back to the breakdown site, but the first thing he said once I was in the car was that he wanted my ID. I had no problem giving it to him, as I understood he would probably like to know if he was sitting in a car with a serial killer or something. He ran it, I was clean, he gave it back, all very nicey-nice. He ran my buddy's ID too, once we got back to the car, but he was also clean, and so he ended up giving us a ride to my friend's grandmother's house, which was just a few miles away.

Question is: if I had refused to give him my ID once I was in the car, would I have been guilty of something? (Besides being an obstreperous jerk, that is.)

[Frank Booth]

Can anyone cite the case law that requires a passenger to either a) produce ID or b) verbally ID themselves for no other reason than the the fact that the driver committed a traffic violation?

Last I checked, this wasn't 1930's Munich....

Originally Posted by jonesy515

A long time ago, my buddy and I were driving across the country, from New Mexico to PA, and our car died in Illinois. (R.I.P., little brown Honda.) So happened we were about half a mile from a weigh station, and I had seen a state trooper car there as we passed, so I walked back and requested assistance. The trooper was quite nice and said he would drive me back to the breakdown site, but the first thing he said once I was in the car was that he wanted my ID. I had no problem giving it to him, as I understood he would probably like to know if he was sitting in a car with a serial killer or something. He ran it, I was clean, he gave it back, all very nicey-nice. He ran my buddy's ID too, once we got back to the car, but he was also clean, and so he ended up giving us a ride to my friend's grandmother's house, which was just a few miles away.

Question is: if I had refused to give him my ID once I was in the car, would I have been guilty of something? (Besides being an obstreperous jerk, that is.)

Answering your question - no, but you would have had a long walk ahead of ya, though!

[texaschickeee]

In Houston I believe that failure to provide ID upon request from LEO is a reason to investigate further. Its actually a misdemeanor.

this however is from ohio,,,

"Michael Righi was arrested in Ohio over the weekend after refusing to show his receipt when leaving Circuit City. When the manger and 'loss prevention' employee physically prevented the vehicle he was a passenger in from leaving the parking lot, he called the police, who arrived, searched his bag and found he hadn't stolen anything. The officer then asked for Michael's driver's license, which he declined to provide since he wasn't operating a motor vehicle. The officer then arrested him, and upon finding out Michael was legally right about not having to provide a license, went ahead and charged him with 'obstructing official business' anyways."

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...49200&from=rss

[texaschickeee]

BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
443 U.S. 47

BROWN v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

No. 77-6673.

Argued February 21, 1979.
Decided June 25, 1979.

Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=443&invol=47

[RedMan1]

Originally Posted by Frank Booth

Can anyone cite the case law that requires a passenger to either a) produce ID or b) verbally ID themselves for no other reason than the the fact that the driver committed a traffic violation?

Last I checked, this wasn't 1930's Munich....

'Hiibel' (google it) requires that you identify yourself to police if they ask, but you are only required to give your Name. You do not have to produce picture ID. As a passenger, you only have to give your name. Drivers have to produce a license because they are driving the vehicle. And police can arrest for driving without a license.

But, police are ALWAYS allowed to ask you for more than just your name. And they might try to trick you into thinking it's required, but it is not. Don't fall for the line, "Well what do you have to hide?" Police rely on citizens not really knowing their rights. And it works, because most people don't know their rights at a traffic stop.

One thing you should know is that police CAN ask you to exit the vehicle without reasonable suspicion (see Pennsylvania v Mimms). And they CAN pat you down outside your clothing with only an articulable suspicion (Terry v Ohio). So don't argue with either of those things if they do it. And they will usually do it to intimidate you.

The police won't like it if you exert your rights, and they are more likely to write you a ticket if you do. So the choice is really up to you.

[Frank Booth]

'Hiibel' (google it) requires that you identify yourself to police if they ask, but you are only required to give your Name. You do not have to produce picture ID. As a passenger, you only have to give your name. Drivers have to produce a license because they are driving the vehicle. And police can arrest for driving without a license.

I'm well aware of Hiibel. It addresses what is required of suspects or "subjects" of investigatory stops. How is the passenger of a car stopped for traffic a "suspect" for purposes of investigation? I guess if the car had two steering wheels and gas pedals.....I don't think the passenger on a traffic stop comes anywhere near what the court had in mind in Hiibel:

Syllabus



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 03—5554. Argued March 22, 2004–Decided June 21, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Petitioner’s conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 3—13.

(a) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 167—171, this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms. The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52, where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off. Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3—6.

(b) The officer’s conduct did not violate Hiibel’s Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment. INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34. The Nevada statute is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures because it properly balances the intrusion on the individual’s interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654. An identity request has an immediate relation to the Terry stop’s purpose, rationale, and practical demands, and the threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself, changing neither its duration nor its location. Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Kolender, Brown, and Papachristou. They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U.S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. Cf. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 817. The request in this case was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 6—10.

(c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486. It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555. If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here. 10—13.

118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

[RedMan1]

Well, feel free to challenge Hiibel. But right now, its the law of the land. Stopping a car for a traffic infraction is a detention, and therefore, getting the names of the individuals involved is a 'government interest'. One could argue that the passenger might be called as a witness (either by the driver or police officer).

But there's good news for passengers too. A recent case said the following..

Passengers in cars that are stopped by the police are "seized," the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday, and therefore have a right to contest the legality of the stop if they are searched and arrested. The 9-0 ruling clarifies the law on traffic stops, and it overturns the view of the California Supreme Court.

See Brendlin v. California. It was a 9-0 decision in favor of passengers. When the decision is 9-0, you know it's right.

[Frank Booth]

Well, feel free to challenge Hiibel. But right now, its the law of the land.

Yes, it is the law of the land. Which is why passengers aren't required to ID themselves for a mere traffic violation by the driver. They are not the subject of the stop, unless the stop was because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the car and occupants were involved in a holdup or some other crime other than a traffic violation. The passengers have to be reasonably suspected of something other than riding in a car when the driver failed to signal a lane change.

Did you even read the case? How are you a suspect for speeding when you're sitting in the backseat? Hiibel deals with SUSPECTS.