I heard somewhere that there is a case law that states that police officers may ID everyone inside a car on a traffic stop for officer safety. I would like to read it, a sarge and i argued about it. any help guys

It's a Supreme Court ruling in the 9th Circut court but can't remember the section. All citizens must present ID upon being asked by LEO. If you don't its' obstructing and you can set in jail until you provide info and or cooperate with the booking process.

You had best check on that before you try it in the real world, because I have seen case law exactly to the opposite, from a lesser court. Can't remember the details, I'm going to go look for it. If I could just remember which damn court...

Hiibel v. Dist. Ct.

118 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 88

December 20, 2002



This case confirms the constitutionality of a Nevada ID statute, because the statute clearly requires the ID requirement is linked to an investigatory detention. Without reasonable suspicion it does not allow an officer to require that ID be produced.

I'm having a hard time finding a case that does link the ID requirement to reasonable suspicion.

I have been told, by a senior official in a local agency in Washington state, that requiring ID from passengers in a vehicle is unlawful (at least in this state).

Will keep looking for cases and report back.

From: www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1282465/

"Some commentators wrongly suggest that officers cannot even ask passengers’ names and can never request identification documents. One court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Muehler v. Mena to establish the bright line rule that an officer may ask a passenger for identifying information. United States v. Hernandez, 418 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (“arguments that the trooper asked questions unrelated to either officer safety, the speeding offense, or processing the citation are not determinative of our evaluation of the constitutionality of the seizure here. We are to look only at the duration of the seizure given all the circumstances: was it for an unreasonable time?”).  When an officer uses a friendly, conversation tone (talk nice, think mean!) to request passenger identification, most courts rule that the request is voluntary and requires no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Williams, 590 S.E.2d 151 (Ga. App. 2003); State v. Smith, 683 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa 2004); People v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 1174 (Colo. 2002). Other courts have allowed officers’ requests for passenger identification based on the need to record witnesses’ names, even on a traffic citation. State v. Jones, 5 P.3d 1012 (Kan. App. 2000), aff’d, 17 P.3d 359 (Kan. 2001); State v. Chagaris, 669 N.E.2d 92 (Ohio App. 1995); People v. Grant, 266 Cal.Rptr. 587 (Cal. App. 1990)."

No Federal case law on the matter as far as defining whether ID shall be produced. It is normally state law that guides the issue. In my state passengers do not have to provide ID unless they are suspected of having committed an offense.

That's the way it should be.

Nothing in Michigan on passenger ID that I have been able to find.

I have yet to not find out who someone is when they don't want to provide ID, but without any other reason, no charges.

It was obstruction for a passenger to lie about their name for a while, but a case law from our county kicked that a while ago.  Legislation is supposed to be in the works.  I am not holding my breath.

Joe

ETA:  Since I couldn't sleep anyway

This is from lexisone.  A decent free resource I use since my PA office takes forever to answer anything.  It fits your question perfect.  I read it and it appears the answer to your question is a resounding maybe.  

1. St. George v. State, NOS. 2-03-421-CR, 2-03-422-CR , COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, SECOND DISTRICT, FORT WORTH, May 25, 2006, Delivered

I was always taught that unless you have reasonable suspicion that they did something you can't demand their ID.  Now you can ask for it and if they give it to you that's fine but if they tell you to fuck off then you are SOL.

Thanks for all the help so far.  I have lots of googling and reading to do.  Thanks again.

I've been away from the job for almost 6 years, but in Texas we had to have PC to ID someone unless they were driving...I think I remeber that correctly.  Texas LEO brothers, please correct me if I'm wrong

Quoted: I've been away from the job for almost 6 years, but in Texas we had to have PC to ID someone unless they were driving...I think I remeber that correctly.  Texas LEO brothers, please correct me if I'm wrong

Thats what I am trying to figure out. A bunch of guys tell me they have seen case law that says we can ID just because.  I obviously want to read it before I try it.  I have even heard of passengers interjecting themselves into the conversation between the driver and officer.  They are I.D. for officer safety at that point because they are getting in the middle of a police investigation.   I donno I just felt I need to read up on the issue before putting it in practice.  Thanks guys.

Found it:

No Requirement to Carry ID

TX Penal Code: Sec. 38.02. Failure to Identify.
 
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
 
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
 
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
 
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
 
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
 
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
 
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
 
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




If you read #3 just right, I'd say you were good to go.  After all, last time I checked a traffic offence was criminal (except speeding..unless the law has changed since I wore a badge)

In reading the case law I posted above it appears that Glockcop is correct.  That case hinged almost specifically on whether the passenger was required to give ID.

It also covers the "scope" of the stop and how the subject may not be required at the beginning of the stop but may at some point throughout.

By my reading, baring any other information the passenger is not required.  Generate reasonable suspicion, ala Terry stop and he is required.  What was interesting is that nervous behavior and a no record name check didn't seem to be reasonable suspicion to the court.

I wish we had that failure to identify statute here.

Joe

Quoted: Generate reasonable suspicion, ala Terry stop and he is required.  What was interesting is that nervous behavior and a no record name check didn't seem to be reasonable suspicion to the court. I wish we had that failure to identify statute here. Joe

I assume you are arguing semantics.  Would locate be a better word?

I assume you look for reasonable suspicion of criminal doing on everyone you contact.

If that is a problem then we would have to agree to disagree.

Joe

Indiana law on this subject is unusual.  There is a statute that requires a person to identify themselves if there is cause to believe they have committed an infraction or ordnance violation.  If they fail to ID then it is a misd.  If they have committed a criminal offense or you have a legal detention under Terry there is no statute requiring that they ID themselves.  Of course, if you arrest them they sit in jail until they prove ID but in Indiana we cannot arrest for a most misd crimes without seeing it happen.

So essentially if I arrive on a criminal mischief scene and the suspect is standing there having just thrown a rock through a car window I detain him.  He can admit to the offense and I still can't arrest him because it was an unwitnessed misd.  If he refuses to ID himself then I can't arrest him for failure to identify, since it was a criminal offense.  

This discussion came up a while back at work and the only real option would be to detain him until you contacted a judge, get an arrest warrant for John Doe, and he could sit at the jail until he was properly ID'd.  What a PITA!!!

This is quite basic if you think about it... this has been my training and understanding:

LEO's have no right to compel a person to do ANYTHING when said person is NOT the subject of interaction evolving from Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion supporting that said person IS, HAS BEEN, OR IS ABOUT TO BE engaged in UNLAWFUL/CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

Remember, as LEO's, we can only subject the public to our lawful commands when they are subject to our lawful detention/arrest.  This includes asking for identification when the subject is simply in your presence absent any other reason.

EXAMPLES:

You stop a car for speeding and observe the front seat passenger is not wearing a seat belt.  YOU CAN COMPEL THEM to provide ID or name as they have committed a violation.  If the passenger is wearing a seat belt, you MAY ask him/her for ID but they are under NO obligation to provide it.  

You respond to a complaint of a white male looking into cars at a local shopping mall during normal business hours.  You arrive and see a black male walking past.  YOU CAN NOT COMPEL HIM TO DO SQUAT because he is not the subject of your investigation.  If no race or clothing description were provided in the call, you would have VERY LIMITED AUTHORITY to restrict his freedom and could only do so long enough to reasonably ID him and inquire as to why he is where he is.  This would be very weak and hinge on the fact he is a male at/near the scene.

You respond to a fight at a bar.  Upon your arrival, no one cooperates and says that the two guys fighting have left.  You CAN NOT compel anyone to do or say anything.  NOTE:  In some states if they lie about what happened it is a crime, but chosing not to talk is not a crime, you can not COMPEL a person to be a witness.

You walk up to an overheated car parked at a closed store and see marijuana on the console in plain view.  No one in the car admits ownership.  YOU CAN COMPEL ALL PERSONS to provide ID/name as they are all now suspects in a constructive possession charge.

In your post you mentioned that the SCOTUS ok'ed that an officer "MAY" request ID but there has been no COURT RECOGNIZED REQUIREMENT that I am aware of to do so absent a valid/lawful reason.  It just said officers may ask...

For those of you who push the limit and "find" reasonable suspicion, you are the ones who screw it for the rest of us as that's where fucked up restrictive case law comes from .  If we don't police ourselves, the courts will do it for us as they have.  You will someday find a Subpoena in your In-Box advising you that you are about to get slammed for various rights violations... been there... got cleared/excused from the case as I was not directly involved.

Guys, if it's not there, don't force it.  Sooner or later it will all go full circle and you will get the bad guy.

IF ANY ONE HAS A STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE FOLKS ID THEMSELF "JUST BECAUSE", I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT.  

Quoted: Generate reasonable suspicion, ala Terry stop and he is required.

Not sure what you mean,  If you mean lay back and observe until proper PC or RS is developed, fine.  If you mean play 100 questions until you think you have developed PC or RS then there could be a problem.

Sometimes I have simply made a "citizens contact" that quickly turned into an arrest but it's not rocket science when you do it by the book and keep it straight.  Some times folks just can't help but telling on them self.

How about having the driver come back and give you the persons name in exchange for a break on the traffic ticket?

How about a consent search, just because?

I agree there is a limit to how much effort you can put into any one stop.  However, I also believe it is solid police work to do some digging if something doesn't seem right.

Maybe you have to kick him without finding out.  You still have the time a reasonable stop would take to look around.  

I routinely ask passengers for ID.  Very rarely does anyone even ask why.  No I don't force, threaten or coerce them into tell me who they are.  I will use the means available to find out if possible.

If I got an answer of "I don't want to give you ID because I am not required and don't feel it is any of your business." I would be inclined to believe them.  Someone covering their identity because of warrants is not generally hard to spot.

Aggressive police work isn't necessarily illegal police work.  Read the case law I posted, that was a case of going a bit to far.

As far as us policing us, I couldn't agree more.

Joe

Quoted: Thanks for all the help so far.  I have lots of googling and reading to do.  Thanks again.

Driver is the only one you automatically have a right to ID... You'll need to articulate reasonable need to ID any other persons.

such as... They start yapping their mouths and interfering in your interaction with the driver.

Or you can articulate other circumstances that would raise the stop of the vehicle to a "terry" investigation rather than just dealing with a motor vehicle infraction.

That's just running off memory. I'd have to dig for the case law.

Quoted: How about having the driver come back and give you the persons name in exchange for a break on the traffic ticket? How about a consent search, just because? I agree there is a limit to how much effort you can put into any one stop.  However, I also believe it is solid police work to do some digging if something doesn't seem right. Maybe you have to kick him without finding out.  You still have the time a reasonable stop would take to look around.   I routinely ask passengers for ID.  Very rarely does anyone even ask why.  No I don't force, threaten or coerce them into tell me who they are.  I will use the means available to find out if possible. If I got an answer of "I don't want to give you ID because I am not required and don't feel it is any of your business." I would be inclined to believe them.  Someone covering their identity because of warrants is not generally hard to spot. Aggressive police work isn't necessarily illegal police work.  Read the case law I posted, that was a case of going a bit to far. As far as us policing us, I couldn't agree more. Joe

I got ya... and I agree.  I totally understand what you are saying.

Quoted: I heard somewhere that there is a case law that states that police officers may ID everyone inside a car on a traffic stop for officer safety. I would like to read it, a sarge and i argued about it. any help guys

Case law doesn't matter since Texas law does not require a person to identify himself to an officer unless the person is under arrest.

Quoted: Found it: No Requirement to Carry ID TX Penal Code: Sec. 38.02. Failure to Identify.   (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.   (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:   (1) lawfully arrested the person;   (2) lawfully detained the person; or   (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.   (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.   (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.   Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. If you read #3 just right, I'd say you were good to go.  After all, last time I checked a traffic offence was criminal (except speeding..unless the law has changed since I wore a badge)

Ok lets look at this one in particular......

"3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense"


Number three paves the way, granted according to law they do not have to provide you with a I.D. but they do have to comply and give you their name and info..

By being in the car that was pulled over while committing a offense the passengers are caught in a catch 22 per say, they are wittness to the crime committed by the driver, therefore required to provide you with ther name, residence info and birth date...  seems pretty straight forward to me..

Quoted: Ok lets look at this one in particular...... "3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense" Number three paves the way, granted according to law they do not have to provide you with a I.D. but they do have to comply and give you their name and info.. By being in the car that was pulled over while committing a offense the passengers are caught in a catch 22 per say, they are wittness to the crime committed by the driver, therefore required to provide you with ther name, residence info and birth date...  seems pretty straight forward to me..

There is one little problem with your reasoning, a person does NOT have to identify himself to an officer if he is a witness.

(a) Says that you MUST give your info to an officer that has arrested you. Unless the passenger is under arrest, that section does not apply.

(b) Says that it is against the law to give false or ficticious info. It does not say that the info is required.  (b)(3) in effect says that it is against the law for a witness to give a false or ficticious name, DOB or address.

Go back and read it. Under Texas law a person is not required to identify himself unless he is under arrest.

EDIT: The law posted by GlockcopLives is the old law. You can see that one was updated in 1994. The newest law basically stays the same but increases the penalties and was effective Sept 1, 2003.

§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.  (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1)  lawfully arrested the person;                                            
(2)  lawfully detained the person;  or                                        
(3)  requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c)  Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1)  a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or
(2)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(d)  If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or
(2)  a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(e)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Quoted: I was always taught that unless you have reasonable suspicion that they did something you can't demand their ID.  Now you can ask for it and if they give it to you that's fine but if they tell you to fuck off then you are SOL.

+1. If you ask in a nice way they give it to you.

Quoted: I was always taught that unless you have reasonable suspicion that they did something you can't demand their ID.  Now you can ask for it and if they give it to you that's fine but if they tell you to fuck off then you are SOL.

Close but even reasonable suspicion doesn't cross the threshold. Having cuffs on requires a person to identify himself. If you have PC on someone and he refuses, hook him up and them if he refuses again, it if fail to ID.

Quoted: +1. If you ask in a nice way they give it to you.

Quoted: Is a traffic stop not still calssified as an arrest?  A ticket a field relece citation? Last time I checked, the passengers will be lawfully detained....guilty by assosation.

A traffic stop is not an arrest but you can arrest on minor traffic charges by Texas law. The passengers can be lawfully detained but in Texas there is no requirement to identify if lawfully detain. Under arrest, yes. Lawfully detained, no. You just can't lie if you decide to answer.

Quoted: Just a geographical verbiage question... Is speeding,(or another traffic offense) if that was the reason for the stop, considered a "criminal offense" in TX? Here in NY there's a clear delineation between a violation(say speeding or open container in public) and a criminal offense. I think that the wording would not give the officer PC to search if the front set passenger was merely a witness to speeding in NY.

Just about everything in Texas law is a criminal act and full custodial arrests can be made.  

Texas has a couple exceptions to the arrest for traffic violations. You cannot be arrest soley for speeding or for open container. The person must be given a citation for those charges only but they are still crimes. Anything else is good to go. License plate light out, fail to signla lane change, fail to dim headlights.... a trip to the county jail at the discretion of the officer.

The SCOTUS actually ruled on arrests for minor traffic violations in Texas in 2001, Atwater v. Lago Vista where a woman was arrested and brought to jail for not wearing a seatbelt.

Atwater v. Lago Vista

That is not unlike Michigan's Minor in possession of alcohol law.  It is a Misdemeanor with no jail.  We regularly arrest people for that offense, who then sit until sober and are released with a court date.

Naturally those lodged as opposed to cited are generally lodged for a reason.

Joe

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ok lets look at this one in particular...... "3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense" Number three paves the way, granted according to law they do not have to provide you with a I.D. but they do have to comply and give you their name and info.. By being in the car that was pulled over while committing a offense the passengers are caught in a catch 22 per say, they are wittness to the crime committed by the driver, therefore required to provide you with ther name, residence info and birth date...  seems pretty straight forward to me.. There is one little problem with your reasoning, a person does NOT have to identify himself to an officer if he is a witness. (a) Says that you MUST give your info to an officer that has arrested you. Unless the passenger is under arrest, that section does not apply. (b) Says that it is against the law to give false or ficticious info. It does not say that the info is required.  (b)(3) in effect says that it is against the law for a witness to give a false or ficticious name, DOB or address. Go back and read it. Under Texas law a person is not required to identify himself unless he is under arrest. EDIT: The law posted by GlockcopLives is the old law. You can see that one was updated in 1994. The newest law basically stays the same but increases the penalties and was effective Sept 1, 2003. § 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.  (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. (b)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (1)  lawfully arrested the person;                                             (2)  lawfully detained the person;  or                                         (3)  requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. (c)  Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is: (1)  a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or (2)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). (d)  If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is: (1)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or (2)  a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). (e)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. Is a traffic stop not still calssified as an arrest?  A ticket a field relece citation? Last time I checked, the passengers will be lawfully detained....guilty by assosation.

The only thing a passenger is REQUIRED to do when I make a traffic stop is either a) stay in the car or b) get out of the car depending on what I tell them to do (Supreme Court made a very nice ruling on this a couple of years ago).

They (passenger) is not required to ID themselves to me unless they have also committed an offense (MIP, Minor with Tobacco, not wearing seatbelt are the most common).

The only other time I can think of where a passenger would be required to ID themselves is if for some reason, say the driver is arrested or found to not have a DL, and the driver wants to release the car to the passenger then I need to see a DL....but we have policy that states we will not release a car to someone without a DL it is not a "case law" requirement and the person taking control of the car can refuse to show me his/her DL or even give me a name....of course if that happens we either tow it or park it and take the keys to the jail along with the driver.....most often it is towed.

Quoted: The only thing a passenger is REQUIRED to do when I make a traffic stop is either a) stay in the car or b) get out of the car depending on what I tell them to do (Supreme Court made a very nice ruling on this a couple of years ago). They (passenger) is not required to ID themselves to me unless they have also committed an offense (MIP, Minor with Tobacco, not wearing seatbelt are the most common). The only other time I can think of where a passenger would be required to ID themselves is if for some reason, say the driver is arrested or found to not have a DL, and the driver wants to release the car to the passenger then I need to see a DL....but we have policy that states we will not release a car to someone without a DL it is not a "case law" requirement and the person taking control of the car can refuse to show me his/her DL or even give me a name....of course if that happens we either tow it or park it and take the keys to the jail along with the driver.....most often it is towed.

OK.... do you never complete RS stops?? RS is all that is needed to have a person ID themselves. That is what the NV case law is all about.

We can't demand a person ID themselves unless we are there for a RS reason or we have PC on the person.

I know you talk about PC, but let's say there are 5 guys in the back of a van. They are sitting outside a bank and are all wearing masks. Noone is driving. Are you not going to ID them since there is no PC??

Just a RS scenario for ya

I seem to recall a "fail to obay the lawful order of a peace Officer" statue in there somewhere.  I did 8 years in the Austin area, but that was 6 years ago.  I may be wrong.  As for Atwater-VS-Lago Vista, I know that case inside and out.  Someday I'll tell you the story of the "unnamed officer" that was involved in that case

Quoted: OK.... do you never complete RS stops?? RS is all that is needed to have a person ID themselves. That is what the NV case law is all about. We can't demand a person ID themselves unless we are there for a RS reason or we have PC on the person. I know you talk about PC, but let's say there are 5 guys in the back of a van. They are sitting outside a bank and are all wearing masks. Noone is driving. Are you not going to ID them since there is no PC?? Just a RS scenario for ya

You can ask all you want on a RS stop. There is just no requirement by Texas law to answer. The OP is from Texas so I am assuming that he needs information concerning his job, not that in another state.

Fortunately most people don't know the law and answer anyway when they are asked to be identified.

If there are masked men in the back of a van then I think you have RS to frisk. If there are no weapons on them or in the vehicle, are you going to arrest them for wearing masks?

Any one here do DL checks?

Quoted: Any one here do DL checks?

Yeah, on the driver who is required to produce it.

Quoted: Quoted: The only thing a passenger is REQUIRED to do when I make a traffic stop is either a) stay in the car or b) get out of the car depending on what I tell them to do (Supreme Court made a very nice ruling on this a couple of years ago). They (passenger) is not required to ID themselves to me unless they have also committed an offense (MIP, Minor with Tobacco, not wearing seatbelt are the most common). The only other time I can think of where a passenger would be required to ID themselves is if for some reason, say the driver is arrested or found to not have a DL, and the driver wants to release the car to the passenger then I need to see a DL....but we have policy that states we will not release a car to someone without a DL it is not a "case law" requirement and the person taking control of the car can refuse to show me his/her DL or even give me a name....of course if that happens we either tow it or park it and take the keys to the jail along with the driver.....most often it is towed. OK.... do you never complete RS stops?? RS is all that is needed to have a person ID themselves. That is what the NV case law is all about. We can't demand a person ID themselves unless we are there for a RS reason or we have PC on the person. I know you talk about PC, but let's say there are 5 guys in the back of a van. They are sitting outside a bank and are all wearing masks. Noone is driving. Are you not going to ID them since there is no PC?? Just a RS scenario for ya

I will try to ID them but if there is no offense (not against the law to sit in a van with masks on) there is no way to force them to ID themselves. That is why smart cops wait for a traffic offense...and there is ALWAYS a traffic offense, then stop the car....that way you at least have the driver by the short and curlies.

As for the case you are qouting re-read it. Hiible was contacted because a witness saw him striking a female (later determined to be his daughter), called the PO PO and gave a description that he and the female he was found with matched.

The caller also waited for the officers and when they arrived pointed Hiible out to them as the person who was striking the female (who was in his truck. At this point Hiible became a suspect in an assault...an actual criminal offense not just suspicous circumstances. If you watch the tape it is also very possible he was intoxicated....therefore there was also another criminal offense he was a suspect in...Public Intoxication. So you now have a person who is a suspect in two criminal offenses and he has to ID himself to investigating officers.

Now onto "RS" stops:

Yes, the Supremes have long held (in "Terry v Ohio") that we (officers) can lawfully detain and frisk those we think have comitted or are about to commit a criminal offense. Until the Hiible case the issue of whether those same persons can be compelled to ID themselves had not been addressed. Hiible cleared up whether or not we can compel someone to ID themselves if they are being detained due to investigating whether or not a crime has been committed but it is my belief that the issue of whether not we can compel someone to ID themselves who we think MAY be about to commit a crime (i.e. your guys in a van by a bank) has yet to be resolved.

Bottom line, if you ask nicely or phrase it just right most people will give their ID whether they need to or not.

Here is an article on the Hiible case:
Supreme Court Upholds Identification Law
Decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada released today
In a close decision released today, the United States Supreme Court has upheld a Nevada law that requires a person lawfully stopped by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion that the person has or will commit a crime to identify himself to the officer. In the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Defendant Larry Hiibel, who was questioned by a police officer investigating a report of an assault on a woman, challenged this law claiming that the ID requirement constituted an illegal seizure and violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court’s 5-4 majority opinion rejected these claims stating, “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.” Later in the opinion, the Court said, “Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances.”

The Court’s decision utilized arguments introduced in an amicus curiae brief by the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation which emphasized that when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, a request for identification of the suspect is essential to the investigation and not a violation of the Constitution.

“This was not an unjustified demand of ‘Your papers please’ by an officer of a totalitarian regime,” said Charles Hobson, who authored the Foundation’s brief. “It was a reasonable request by a Sheriff’s Deputy who had been called to the scene of a suspected crime. Had the Court agreed with the defendant’s claims in this case, the resulting decision would have tied the hands of police,” he added.

The case arose from a citizen complaint to the Humboldt County (Nevada) Sheriff’s Department that someone was hitting a female passenger in a truck. Sheriff’s Deputy Lee Dove responded to the call and spoke to the concerned citizen who pointed out the truck. Dove went to talk to defendant Hiibel, who was standing outside of the truck. When Deputy Dove asked Hiibel to identify himself, Hiibel absolutely refused and even challenged Dove to take him to jail. Under Nevada law, a person stopped by a police officer under a reasonable suspicion standard “shall identify himself”. After 11 denied requests for identification, Dove finally arrested Hiibel, who was subsequently convicted of resisting an officer.

Before the U. S. Supreme Court, Hiibel alleged violations of both his Fourth Amendment privacy rights and Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The CJLF brief argued that the demands of modern society minimize an individual’s interest in the privacy of his or her identity. For example, maintaining proof of ID is essential to anyone who works, drives, receives government benefits, or seeks credit. In fact, most people carry some form of identification with them when in public. Because there is little privacy interest in identity and compliance is easy and routine, Nevada’s identification requirement does not burden an individual to any constitutionally significant degree. The Supreme Court has long held that police cannot randomly stop people on the street and compel them to provide identification. The Nevada law does not contradict this rule since it only applies when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or will commit a crime. The Foundation also argued that an officer’s request for identification is not comparable to asking a person to admit guilt to a crime and therefore is not a Fifth Amendment violation.

“The constant danger of renewed terrorist activity places enormous pressure on law enforcement to identify suspected terrorists before they strike,” said Hobson. “This precedent-setting decision to uphold stop-and-identify laws in virtually every state is vital to public safety.”

Charles Hobson is available for comment at (916) 446-0345. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has helped to win five United States Supreme Court decisions benefitting public safety during the current term.


From: Hiibel Link

Well worded and very correct.

Two old sayings come to mind.

"In god we trust, everyone else gets file checked."
"You get more with honey and a big stick then just a big stick."

Kindness is not weakness and is most often the best way to accomplish something.  Anyone who has buddied up to a child sex offender to get a statement knows exactly what I mean.

Joe

Thanks...and I know what you mean. After getting a written confession from the last one I did (years ago when our CID weren't so quick to come out so I, a "mere" patrolman worked on the fella) I felt like it would take several long showers and a delousing before I would feel clean again.

On the plus side the offender pled to 30 years based on the statement he gave me....made me feel better.

Quoted: Thanks...and I know what you mean. After getting a written confession from the last one I did (years ago when our CID weren't so quick to come out so I, a "mere" patrolman worked on the fella) I felt like it would take several long showers and a delousing before I would feel clean again. On the plus side the offender pled to 30 years based on the statement he gave me....made me feel better.

Funny, "I think I need a shower" was the first thing my partner said when he walked out of the interview room.  I think my response was "that ain't no shit".

The ending of that one wasn't as good, but at least it was something.

Joe