Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 82

Thread: ID requirements

  1. #1
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239

    ID requirements

    I know you have to show your driver's license if stopped when driving. I know you have to show your CPL when carrying concealed. I also know that there is no requirement to show ID during a "Terry Stop" unless the officer has RAS that you committed a crime.

    Are you required to show ID if you are the passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop? Every time i've been stopped they ask my passengers for ID, I was just wondering.

    Along the same lines, if the driver/owner of the car gives permission to search the vehicle, does that include the passenger's person and/or baggage?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by JIMMBOB View Post
    I know you have to show your driver's license if stopped when driving. I know you have to show your CPL when carrying concealed. I also know that there is no requirement to show ID during a "Terry Stop" unless the officer has RAS that you committed a crime.

    Are you required to show ID if you are the passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop? Every time i've been stopped they ask my passengers for ID, I was just wondering.

    Along the same lines, if the driver/owner of the car gives permission to search the vehicle, does that include the passenger's person and/or baggage?

    In Washington state, you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being given a citation or driving a vehicle.

    In my opinion, the passengers have no duty to Id unless they are being written a citation for something.

    Since I don't currently have any cites (on phone), I will also say of my opinion, if a driver gives permission to search it only covers him and his belonging not the passengers. They must each wave there rights individualy.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 02-27-2012 at 01:03 AM. Reason: spelling
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    I'm of the same opinion. I like how you did the cites as links like that, its kinda slick.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    Your answer might be somewhere in here

  5. #5
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Its not an opinion per say because the supreme court already ruled on it. a passenger in the vehicle is not the person the LEO is investigating a statute on. he has RAS to stop the vehicle operator. he has no legal authority to question detain or ID the passenger unless he is given some reason to think that he has a crime (RAS) on his hands. also note that SCOTUS already ruled fishing for a reason for a lawful terry stop after the fact is a crime as well.

    check the SCOTUS website for past decisions related to the 4th ammendmant.
    Last edited by Schlepnier; 02-27-2012 at 06:53 AM.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by JIMMBOB View Post

    Are you required to show ID if you are the passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop? Every time i've been stopped they ask my passengers for ID, I was just wondering.
    There is no law that says they can't ASK. Many comply because of the "Intimidation Factor".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    --
    Posts
    88
    Heeeh, another one of these huh? I guess I'll just quote myself:


    Quote Originally Posted by hazek View Post
    I always laugh at these type of questions. Don't you see how you have only 3 options in response to his ID/permit request?

    1. obey

    2. decline and not resist

    3. decline and resist with any means necessary


    I'm thinking you're just trying to find out what will happen if you pick option nr. 2 so your question isn't really if you have to obey, but what will happen to you once you refuse but don't resist, right?

  8. #8
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Getting to the minds of the matter...

    http://forums.officer.com/showthread...n-traffic-stop

    Also, another RCW for thought.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46.61.021
    RCW 46.61.021
    Duty to obey law enforcement officer — Authority of officer.

    (1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.

    (2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.

    (3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address.

    [2006 c 270 § 1; 1997 1st sp.s. c 1 § 1; 1989 c 353 § 7; 1979 ex.s. c 136 § 4.]

    Notes:
    Effective date -- 1997 1st sp.s. c 1: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [September 17, 1997]." [1997 1st sp.s. c 1 § 2.]

    Severability -- Effective date -- 1989 c 353: See RCW 46.30.900 and 46.30.901.

    Effective date -- Severability -- 1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
    Last edited by FMCDH; 02-28-2012 at 12:14 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    [QUOTE=JIMMBOB;1710277]Are you required to show ID if you are the passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop? Every time i've been stopped they ask my passengers for ID, I was just wondering.QUOTE]

    Huh? I have been driving in WA since 1970, and drove through WA before that...I have NEVER had anyone that was with me when I was driving, asked to ID themselves, ever. I have been a passenger in a car traveling through WA since 1947, and I have never been asked for my ID as a passenger either, didn't matter if we had BC plates, or OR plates.

    From the way the law reads, IF requested, the passengers are supposed to give their name,,,but I have nevr heard that before...must be from 1994 and Lowry again, and have never encountered it.

    IMHO: You get stopped for a traffic violation, the driver hands the officer their drivers license, their registration and proof of insurance, and that is it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    [QUOTE=hermannr;1710903]
    Quote Originally Posted by JIMMBOB View Post
    Are you required to show ID if you are the passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop? Every time i've been stopped they ask my passengers for ID, I was just wondering.QUOTE]

    Huh? I have been driving in WA since 1970, and drove through WA before that...I have NEVER had anyone that was with me when I was driving, asked to ID themselves, ever. I have been a passenger in a car traveling through WA since 1947, and I have never been asked for my ID as a passenger either, didn't matter if we had BC plates, or OR plates.

    From the way the law reads, IF requested, the passengers are supposed to give their name,,,but I have nevr heard that before...must be from 1994 and Lowry again, and have never encountered it.

    IMHO: You get stopped for a traffic violation, the driver hands the officer their drivers license, their registration and proof of insurance, and that is it.
    The way I read the law, it only covers the driver unless there is some reason that the passenger might have been involved in the "traffic infraction".

    Any request for ID from a passenger requires RAS. In reality, if a vehicle is stopped for a traffic infraction, the passenger is under no obligation to remain and/or ID themselves to the officer.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Personally I think it best to let the proverbial 'horses mouth' answer this question. Pages two and three (PDF) hold the pertinent text, but the 'money quote' is found in the last paragraph of page three:


    "Because Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify statute like Nevada’s statute requiring identification during Terry stops, we think that Washington officers lack statutory authority to arrest for “obstructing” or for any other current Washington crime in this circumstance."

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    NavyLCDR, don't you mean IF they are a material witness?
    Oftentimes passengers look out the side window instead of the windshield, they have conversations with backseat passengers, they look at a book rather than look at the driver's speedometer, they talk on the telephone, or text, or look through magazines, read books, tease passing truckers, apply makeup..... I probably spent more time asleep in the passenger seat than awake (not sure if that was because I trusted my co-driver or just because I'd rather have died peacefully in my sleep rather than screaming in terror as I saw the crash coming.)

    Just because you're a passenger in a car doesn't necessarily mean you're any more of a material witness than you might be if you were in the seat of a taxi, or sitting behind the driver of the big-dog bus.

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    My personal interpretation of the statute is that my presence at the scene during the time the infraction was committed is enough to cause me to be required to give my name and address if asked by the officer issuing the citation. Then, my testimony in court would be where it would be sorted out whether or not I witnessed anything.

    Give the officer any other information, or present an identification document? Hell no!
    There was a court decision that said the passenger in a traffic stop was under no obligation to ID. I believe it involved a case in Spokane but I haven't been able to locate it. Anyone else?

    As I recall the passenger ran into other issues because they actually remained at the scene of the stop. The court specifically stated that if they were free to leave absent any violations on THEIR part.

    This could also segue into a discussion or just exactly who you have to show your CPL to. Only to LEO's when asked? Or every Tom, Dick, Harry, and "Paul Blart Mall Cop" out there??
    Last edited by amlevin; 02-28-2012 at 07:52 PM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Well, when one OCs, they are not breaking the law. But carrying a concealed pistol is illegal and your only defense would be a CPL.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    There was a court decision that said the passenger in a traffic stop was under no obligation to ID. I believe it involved a case in Spokane but I haven't been able to locate it. Anyone else?

    As I recall the passenger ran into other issues because they actually remained at the scene of the stop. The court specifically stated that if they were free to leave absent any violations on THEIR part.

    This could also segue into a discussion or just exactly who you have to show your CPL to. Only to LEO's when asked? Or every Tom, Dick, Harry, and "Paul Blart Mall Cop" out there??
    I read the same case I think, passenger have no duty to ID themselves unless they are suspected of a crime. I too have misplaced that case.

    State vs Mendez is a start...though..
    A police officer should be able to control the scene
    and ensure his or her own safety, but this must be
    done with due regard to the privacy interests of the
    passenger, who was not stopped on the basis of
    probable cause by the officer. An officer must
    therefore be able to articulate an objective rationale
    predicated specifically on safety concerns, for officers,
    vehicle occupants, or other citizens for ordering a
    passenger to stay in the vehicle or to exit the vehicle
    to satisfy art. I, § 7. This articulated objective
    rationale prevents groundless police intrusions on
    passenger privacy
    From State vs. Opher
    Article 1, § 7 prohibits law enforcement officers from
    requesting identification from passengers for investigative purposes
    unless there is an independent basis justifying the request,
    meaning an articulable suspicion of criminal activity for that
    passenger. State v. Rankin, 151 Wn.2d 689, 699, 92 P.3d 202
    (2004); State v. Brown, 154 Wn.2d 787, 797, 117 P. 3d 336 (2005).
    A mere request for identification of a passenger for investigatory
    -purposes constitutes a seizure. Rankin, 151 Wn.2d at 697; Brown;
    154 Wn.2d at 798. And evidence obtained in violation of article I , §
    7 must be suppressed. Rankin, 151 Wn.2d at 699
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 02-29-2012 at 09:57 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Thanks guys. Some of the documents you posted were awesome.

  17. #17
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    That is completely false information. That is NOT the way the statute is written. It is not by default illegal to carry a concealed pistol. It is illegal to carry a concealed pistol without a license. Entirely different wording. The actual statute is RCW 9.41.050:



    If what you stated, "carrying a concealed pistol is illegal and your only defense would be a CPL" was accurate, then RCW 9.41.050 would read, "Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person." Then a CPL would be listed as an exception, along with all the other exceptions in RCW 9.41.060. Your statement of, "your ONLY defense would be a CPL" is false for a second reason as well, there are many exceptions listed in RCW 9.41.060.
    So in all actuallity, you could carry concealed in a place like Wal-Mart, which is a fixed place of business and private property, without recourse, and if you were open carrying and they asked you to cover up without a CPL, they indeed would not be asking you to break the law???
    Last edited by amzbrady; 03-01-2012 at 01:00 PM.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    So in all actuallity, you could carry concealed in a place like Wal-Mart, which is a fixed place of business and private property, without recourse, and if you were open carrying and they asked you to cover up without a CPL, they indeed would not be asking you to break the law???
    You make an interesting point. You don't automatically have the right since it isn't "your fixed place of business" it belongs to the owner of Walmart, but if you are on private property and the owner has NOT asked you to leave, can you be cited for violation of some statute while you are on private property? I suspect that the courts would argue that as this is a publicly accessible area, even though private property, the statute would apply.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    RCW 9.41.050

    The statute applies just as much on private property as it does on the public street. For example, it's just as illegal to shoot heroine inside your house or your neighbor's house as it is on the capitol steps. Although, because of the specific exception contained at the beginning of the statute, it is not illegal to conceal a pistol without a CPL in your own house, but it would be in your neighbor's house.
    Ah but is it constitutional to tell people what they can or can't allow on private property? I say it flies in the face of private property rights, but that hasn't stopped the courts from ruling against property rights especially since the end of the lochner era by FDR's court packing. And court packing schemes.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    RCW 9.41.050
    Carrying firearms.

    (1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

    Fixed place of business only applies to that person's fixed place of business. Otherwise the statute would have to read "Except in the person's place of abode or a (or any) fixed place of business...."

    So. unless your last name is Walton, it would be illegal for you to carry a concealed pistol in Walmart without your CPL in your immediate possession.



    The statute applies just as much on private property as it does on the public street. For example, it's just as illegal to shoot heroine inside your house or your neighbor's house as it is on the capitol steps. Although, because of the specific exception contained at the beginning of the statute, it is not illegal to conceal a pistol without a CPL in your own house, but it would be in your neighbor's house.
    Just a thought on the boldface portion above...

    Your "neighbors house" would fall under the "place of abode" category I believe, same as your hotel or motel room, given that the private property owner knew and consented to your carry I would imagine. "Place of abode" is typically interpreted very broadly in Washington, provided it is within an enclosed structure (such as an enclosed veranda at the minimum), as per WA court precedence. If you could reasonably be invited to "reside" in the "abode" by the owner, I am of the opinion you would be covered.

    Private property open to the general public for the purposes of business, and private property used as a residence are treated very differently as to the rights of the public upon them.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Then wouldn't the state have to allow murder on my private property? Child pornography? Heroin, coccaine?
    Are murder, Heroin, cocaine, an enumerated right?

    I'm not saying I disagree with you on how the state would interpret it, just is it constitutional. Our right to bear arms shall not be impaired, if you didn't want me to have my gun on your property that trumps my right, but who is the state to trump your property right of allowing me to have it on your property and to carry it in whatever way you allow me too?

    Murder is also a Mala in se crime, a crime that is wrong in nature no matter where it occurs.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The Constitution of both the U/S and Washington say you have a right to CARRY a firearm..... not the right to CONCEAL it.
    I personally believe that the state turning a chosen method of carrying into a "privilege" impairs your right to bear arms. I would love to be the next state to institute "constitutional carry".

    My liberty loving side still questions why should the state have any say on your private property, as long as you are not causing harm to anyone else?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    RCW 9.41.050
    Carrying firearms.

    (1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

    Fixed place of business only applies to that person's fixed place of business. Otherwise the statute would have to read "Except in the person's place of abode or a (or any) fixed place of business...."

    So. unless your last name is Walton, it would be illegal for you to carry a concealed pistol in Walmart without your CPL in your immediate possession.



    The statute applies just as much on private property as it does on the public street. For example, it's just as illegal to shoot heroine inside your house or your neighbor's house as it is on the capitol steps. Although, because of the specific exception contained at the beginning of the statute, it is not illegal to conceal a pistol without a CPL in your own house, but it would be in your neighbor's house.
    Maybe I dont fully understand the meaning of OR. I would think they would have said " or in the persons fixed place of business.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The Constitution of both the US and Washington say you have a right to CARRY a firearm..... not the right to CONCEAL it.
    That's a slippery slope right there. What if a law was passed stating that all firearms must be carried unloaded...or disassembled? If your argument is correct, then it would not be unconstitutional, since you'd still be carrying the firearm...and you could still hit someone with the frame in self-defense.

    The Washington state constitution does not specify how the firearm may or shall be carried, only that carrying one is a right that shall not be impaired (actually it says arms, rather than specifying firearms).

  25. #25
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wow,, wow!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    That's a slippery slope right there. What if a law was passed stating that all firearms must be carried unloaded...or disassembled? If your argument is correct, then it would not be unconstitutional, since you'd still be carrying the firearm...and you could still hit someone with the frame in self-defense.

    The Washington state constitution does not specify how the firearm may or shall be carried, only that carrying one is a right that shall not be impaired (actually it says arms, rather than specifying firearms).
    are we in california???

    Heller affirms the right,,to bear an arm ready to use in case of confrontation!
    Heller also affirms that a hand GUN is the prefered ARM to have in case of confrontation.

    unloaded or dissasembled,,, for safety,,, are not what the 2nd amendment was talking about.
    Heller affirms the RIGHT to be ready to defend yourself,, others and the state!


    EDIT.... I see now that I am really responding to the quote in your post... Not to you.. for that I am sorry.
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 03-02-2012 at 04:09 AM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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