Page 8 of 8 First ... 5678
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Passenger refuses to provide ID on traffic stop

  1. #176
    Forum Member
    SgtScott31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by irish21 View Post
    Actually...Now that it's here I have a question

    Late night traffic stop. Two males in car. Strong odor of marijuana in car, visibly see "shake"(bits of marijuana) on center console. Ask permission from driver to search car. Driver agrees. Get both males out. Passenger male is acting very strange; not looking at us, ducking his head down, mumbled responses. ID both subjects, both are clear, no marijuana in car. Let them go on their way.

    10 minutes later dispatch tells us the passenger used a fake name, and has a history of concealing identity. The actual person(confirmed with descriptors and color picture) has a warrant.

    Can the passenger be charged with concealing identity from that?
    Criminal impersonation in my state.
    I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

  2. #177
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    912
    Of course. And why are you asking for permission/consent?

  3. #178
    Forum Member
    SgtScott31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by flash40 View Post
    Of course. And why are you asking for permission/consent?
    That too....
    I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

  4. #179
    Forum Member
    GIOSTORMUSNRET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by irish21 View Post
    Actually...Now that it's here I have a question

    Late night traffic stop. Two males in car. Strong odor of marijuana in car, visibly see "shake"(bits of marijuana) on center console. Ask permission from driver to search car. Driver agrees. Get both males out. Passenger male is acting very strange; not looking at us, ducking his head down, mumbled responses. ID both subjects, both are clear, no marijuana in car. Let them go on their way.

    10 minutes later dispatch tells us the passenger used a fake name, and has a history of concealing identity. The actual person(confirmed with descriptors and color picture) has a warrant.

    Can the passenger be charged with concealing identity from that?
    Not going to MMQB you, but if you could smell something wouldn't you want a K-9 unit to come and comfirm? The other thing is the SCOTUS has never established what a reasonable amount of time is for a traffic stop, and have also said extenuating circamstances negates any time considered to be unreasonable for a proper investigation. The odor and the elusive behavior of the passenger just gave you PC to extend the detainment for a better investigation.
    GOD IS A NINJA WITH A SNIPER RIFLE, WAITING TO TAKE YOU OUT.

    "For weapons training they told me to play DOOM"

  5. #180
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by irish21 View Post
    Actually...Now that it's here I have a question

    Late night traffic stop. Two males in car. Strong odor of marijuana in car, visibly see "shake"(bits of marijuana) on center console. Ask permission from driver to search car. Driver agrees. Get both males out. Passenger male is acting very strange; not looking at us, ducking his head down, mumbled responses. ID both subjects, both are clear, no marijuana in car. Let them go on their way.

    10 minutes later dispatch tells us the passenger used a fake name, and has a history of concealing identity. The actual person(confirmed with descriptors and color picture) has a warrant.

    Can the passenger be charged with concealing identity from that?
    Maybe I'm wrong, but if you smell Marijuana in a vehicle thats occupied multiple times, I would think that gives reason to identify everyone, as you're now investigating the possible offense of possession, unless you can pin point where that odor is specifically coming from.
    Respect All, Fear None

  6. #181
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by GIOSTORMUSNRET View Post
    Not going to MMQB you, but if you could smell something wouldn't you want a K-9 unit to come and comfirm? The other thing is the SCOTUS has never established what a reasonable amount of time is for a traffic stop, and have also said extenuating circamstances negates any time considered to be unreasonable for a proper investigation. The odor and the elusive behavior of the passenger just gave you PC to extend the detainment for a better investigation.
    Nearest K9 unit is about an hour away on a good day....And they'll only come out if there's a large amount of drugs possibly involved. All in all the entire stop lasted about 5 minutes; which seemed pretty reasonable...of course who knows what a court would say huh? Thanks for the insight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
    Maybe I'm wrong, but if you smell Marijuana in a vehicle thats occupied multiple times, I would think that gives reason to identify everyone, as you're now investigating the possible offense of possession, unless you can pin point where that odor is specifically coming from.
    That's what I was thinking. Thanks!

  7. #182
    Equal Height Equal Light

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,348
    He's already said there's visible shake on the console. That plus the smell = solid PC.

  8. #183
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    3,122
    Quote Originally Posted by LT Dangle View Post
    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?
    In Ohio I do not have to provide ID, I just must give my full name and maybe address. If you asked nicely I might decide to provide ID. If I was legally armed I would have to notify you immediately and provide ID.

    Bill
    Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

  9. #184
    Forum Member
    SgtScott31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,499
    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..

  10. #185
    Forum Member
    sibpd893tf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    211
    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.

  11. #186
    Forum Member
    sibpd893tf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by kyle bermingham View Post
    This is not legally sound in Florida, and like I wrote before, there is a conformity clause in our constitution; i.e., in theory, our constitution isn't supposed to grant more freedom than the US Constitution.

    Unless there is RS, on a normal traffic stop a passenger is able to get out and walk away. However, I have been searching US Case law, and have yet to fing a cite for my argument. I haven't thrown in the towel yet; I will continue to search. That being said (written), I hope I am wrong. I hope in other states during a traffic stop you can keep all present for the duration. It seems silly that we can't in our state.

    If anyone has a SCOTUS or Federal Court of Appeals cite regarding not letting passengers leave until the stop is completed, I would like to read it.
    Case: Wilson v. State, 24 FLW D1118, 4TH DCA

    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.

  12. #187
    Forum Member
    SgtScott31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by sibpd893tf View Post
    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.
    Any occupant that is in a vehicle that is stopped is "seized" as a matter of law. This was clarified in CA v. Brendlin. Officers can order passengers out of the vehicle during a stop. This was clarified in MD v. Wilson. As indicated in my previous post, since passengers are already seized as a matter of law during a legal traffic stop, the US Supreme Court has stated (in U.S. v. Soriano-Jarquin) that obtaining identification from them during the stop is no more intrusive than the stop itself.

    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.”
    Here is what Wisconsin said from that sentence:

    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).
    Now every case that comes before the courts is very fact-based. Based on recent cases and the U.S. Supreme Court's approach regarding officer safety, I don't think forcing a passenger to remain on scene is a constitutional violation. It all depends on the circumstances involving the stop (reason for stop, area, # of officers, drug/weapon risk, etc). It will be each officer's own judgment when deciding who to pull out of a vehicle and whether to keep those persons on scene. I think the courts are generally going to back LEOs on this for officer safety concerns. They certainly did in AZ v. Johnson. I'm going home at the end of the day.

    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.
    Bottom line if I feel any passenger is a threat during a lawful traffic stop I'm going to control their movements.
    Last edited by SgtScott31; 01-18-2013 at 04:51 AM.
    mdrdep likes this.
    I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

  13. #188
    An Obvious problem
    mdrdep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    5,479
    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."
    Albert Einstein

Page 8 of 8 First ... 5678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register