01-12-2013, 05:59 AM #176
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Of course. And why are you asking for permission/consent?
01-12-2013, 06:43 AM #177
01-12-2013, 08:32 AM #178GOD IS A NINJA WITH A SNIPER RIFLE, WAITING TO TAKE YOU OUT.
"For weapons training they told me to play DOOM"
01-12-2013, 05:25 PM #179
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
01-13-2013, 03:43 AM #180
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- ABQ, NM
01-13-2013, 03:44 AM #181
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
He's already said there's visible shake on the console. That plus the smell = solid PC.
01-13-2013, 10:56 AM #182
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- NW Ohio
01-13-2013, 08:05 PM #183
In the 6th Circuit, who also cites US Supreme Court caselaw that favors its stance, it is not a violation of the passenger's rights in the vehicle to obtain his/her ID, whether the officer believes he/she has committed a crime or not.
Odom claims that Officer O'Gwynn violated the Fourth Amendment when he asked for identifying information from Odom and the other passengers. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), an officer may make an investigatory inquiry of a person, including asking for identification and patting down the person for weapons, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that illegal activity is afoot. While the Officer certainly had reasonable suspicion (and even probable cause) concerning Ms. Johnson's violation of the traffic ordinance, Odom argues that he had no reason to investigate Odom or any of the other passengers at that time.
In this circuit we have held that in situations similar to the present case, an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop by asking for passenger identification, even where there was no reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing by the passengers. In United States v. Smith, 601 F.3d 530 (6th Cir.2010), we held that an officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking both the driver and passenger for identification, even where he had no reasonable suspicion regarding the passenger. See id. at 542 (“Nor was it inappropriate for [the officer] to check both whether [the driver] and [the passenger] had valid identification and whether they had any outstanding warrants.”); see also United States v. Ellis, 497 F.3d 606, 613–14 (6th Cir.2007).
Other circuits have confirmed that even without reasonable suspicion concerning the passengers, a police officer may ask the passengers for identification during a lawful traffic stop. See United States v. Fernandez, 600 F.3d 56, 61 (1st Cir.2010) (“Although the [Supreme] Court has not explicitly held that an inquiry into a passenger's identity is permissible, its precedent inevitably leads to that conclusion.”); United States v. Soriano–Jarquin, 492 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.2007) (“If an officer may ‘as a matter of course’ and in the interest of personal safety order a passenger physically to exit the vehicle, he may surely take the minimally intrusive step of requesting passenger identification.” (internal citation omitted)).
We hold that Officer O'Gwynn did not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking the passengers for identification. Our precedent compels this holding. See Smith, 601 F.3d at 542. Because the passengers had already been detained by virtue of the lawful traffic stop, the officer's asking for their identification would not have subjected them to any significant additional intrusion.I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..
01-17-2013, 11:11 AM #184
First and foremost, a passenger does not have to provide Identification. If a passenger is legally detained; ie, seat belt, narcotics investigation, etc, he would be legally required to Identify himself. There is a big difference between providing identification and identifying oneself. If false information is provided, then the passenger can be charged with resisting or providing false info.
01-17-2013, 11:18 AM #185
Date: May 14, 1999
FACTS: A deputy stopped a vehicle for speeding and having an unauthorized tag. The passenger got out of the vehicle and started walking towards a nearby bar. The deputy stopped the passenger and instructed him to return to the vehicle and remain inside. The deputy later testified that it was his personal standard procedure to require all occupants to remain inside the vehicle until he concluded the stop. The deputy then noticed the passenger trying to conceal something in the floorboard area. It turned out to be marijuana. A search of the passenger led to the discovery of a plastic bag containing cocaine. The passenger moved to suppress the evidence on the basis that the deputy's ordering him to return to the vehicle and remain there for the duration of the stop was an unreasonable seizure of his person.
RULING: Courts have ruled that law enforcement officers, as a matter of course, can order passengers to exit the vehicle pending completion of the stop. The reason for this is officer safety. By removing a passenger from a vehicle, the person is denied access to any possible weapon that may be in the vehicle. In the instant case, the court held that “officers' safety” could not be the basis for ordering a passenger to remain in the vehicle since that would give him greater access to any weapons concealed inside. The court further ruled that unless an officer has reason to believe that the passenger is engaged in criminal activity, the person can not be ordered to remain in the vehicle, or for that matter, be required to stay at the scene. The passenger could be requested to remain, but if the passenger decides to walk away, the officer cannot order him/her to remain or otherwise move to prohibit him/her from leaving unless there is an articulated reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop.
01-18-2013, 04:26 AM #186
I disagree that they cannot keep passengers on scene. Read the US Supreme Court case of AZ v. Johnson. This case was reinforced on several points in a recent Court of Appeals case from Wisconsin. (State v. Salonen, 338 Wis.2d 104).
Here is the last sentence of U.S. v. Johnson that the Wisconsin court based their argument on:
“Officer Trevizo surely was not constitutionally required to give Johnson an opportunity to depart the scene after he exited the vehicle without first ensuring that, in so doing, she was not permitting a dangerous person to get behind her.”
It is this last sentence in Johnson that tells us how to decide these issues. The reason why passengers *111 must normally remain on the scene with the drivers until the stop has concluded is because of officer safety concerns. Public interest in officer safety during traffic stops is great. See, e.g., Johnson, 555 U.S. at 331, 129 S.Ct. 781. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, traffic stops are inherently “fraught with danger to police officers.” Id. at 330, 129 S.Ct. 781 (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1047, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)). Importantly, the Supreme Court has also noted that the risk of violence during traffic stops “stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop.” See Johnson, 555 U.S. at 331, 129 S.Ct. 781 (quoting Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 414, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997)). A passenger's motivation to employ violence “to prevent apprehension of such a crime” is therefore “every bit as great” as that of the driver. Johnson, 555 U.S. at 331–32, 129 S.Ct. 781 (quoting Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414, 117 S.Ct. 882). The risk of harm to police and occupants of a stopped vehicle is minimized “if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” Johnson, 555 U.S. at 330, 129 S.Ct. 781 (citation omitted).
On a side note, the Wilson case you cited above from the Court of Appeals of Florida is 10 years old. AZ v. Johnson was decided several years later. Even the same Florida Appellate Court who ruled on the Wilson case later reversed a trial court's ruling involving similar circumstances where a FL deputy ordered a passenger back into a vehicle. See state of FL v. McClendon (845 So.2d 233).
The US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) did not agree with the Florida court in the Wilson case when deciding very similar circumstances in U.S. v. Williams in 2005.
Giving officers the authority to control all movement in a traffic encounter is sensibly consistent with the public interest in protecting their safety. Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414, 117 S.Ct. 882; Rogala, 161 F.3d at 53 (“[I]t follows from Maryland v. Wilson that a police officer has the power to reasonably control the situation by requiring a passenger to remain in a vehicle during a traffic stop [.]”) (emphasis in original). Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation by splitting the officer's attention between two or more individuals, and enabling the driver and/or the passenger(s) to take advantage of a distracted officer. Cf. Ruvalcaba v. Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1323, 1327 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that “it may be more dangerous to have the driver outside the vehicle while one or more other passengers are left inside ... making it difficult, if not impossible, for the officer to keep a close watch on these passengers”). Balancing the competing interests does not require us to ignore real dangers to officers, especially in light of the minimal intrusion. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111, 98 S.Ct. 330.
In the final calculus, we think it best left to the discretion of the officers in the field who confront myriad circumstances we can only begin to imagine from the relative safety of our chambers. We hold that under the Fourth Amendment it is reasonable for an officer to order a passenger back into an automobile that he voluntarily exited because the concerns for officer safety originally announced in Wilson, and specifically the need for officers to exercise control over individuals encountered during a traffic stop, outweigh the marginal intrusion on the passenger's liberty interest.
Last edited by SgtScott31; 01-18-2013 at 04:51 AM.I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..
01-23-2013, 01:33 AM #187
SibPD if your courts are required to follow Federal Standards as California courts are, the case you quoted is out dated. All passengers are detained as a matter of course during a traffic stop. See CA v Brendlin and AZ v. Johnson.Today's Quote:
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."