Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Passengers must disclose!

  1. #1
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    This is a subject that has come up time and time again. It is extremely important that everyone read this.

    According to Justice Corrigan of the Supreme Court,
    ALL OCCUPANTS OF A VEHICLE ARE BEING DETAINED WHEN THE VEHICLE IS STOPPED!

    This means that if you are a passenger in a vehicle that has been stopped, you are being detained and must disclose!


    Here is the link to Brendlin v. California, in which the subject is mentioned:

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Brendlin v. California deals with the seizure of a person during a traffic stop as it relates to the fourth amendment. From the link:

    "Justice Corrigan said that a traffic stop entails the seizure of a passenger even when the driver is the sole target of police investigation because a passenger is detained for the purpose of ensuring an officer’s safety and would not feel free to leave the car without the officer’s permission."

    These are my personal findings and conclusions so if you disagree with me, let me know why.
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I'd say based on the 5th amendment alone, the disclosure law should be challenged in court.

    But perhaps I'm too much of an idealist.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    I'd say based on the 5th amendment alone, the disclosure law should be challenged in court.

    But perhaps I'm too much of an idealist.
    The constitutionality of disclosure being in violation of the 5A has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Michigan.

    By your reasoning, implied consent to BAL testing would also be a 5A violation.

    Give it a shot. Call the ACLU.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ecorse, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    EM87 wrote:
    This is a subject that has come up time and time again. It is extremely important that everyone read this.

    According to Justice Corrigan of the Supreme Court,
    ALL OCCUPANTS OF A VEHICLE ARE BEING DETAINED WHEN THE VEHICLE IS STOPPED!

    This means that if you are a passenger in a vehicle that has been stopped, you are being detained and must disclose!


    Here is the link to Brendlin v. California, in which the subject is mentioned:

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...clnk&gl=us

    Brendlin v. California deals with the seizure of a person during a traffic stop as it relates to the fourth amendment. From the link:

    "Justice Corrigan said that a traffic stop entails the seizure of a passenger even when the driver is the sole target of police investigation because a passenger is detained for the purpose of ensuring an officer’s safety and would not feel free to leave the car without the officer’s permission."

    These are my personal findings and conclusions so if you disagree with me, let me know why.
    This is excellent and relevant information. Thanks so much, EM 87!

  5. #5
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    JamesIan wrote:
    This is excellent and relevant information.* Thanks so much, EM 87!
    My pleasure!
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  6. #6
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    Bump for more views. This is important!
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI, ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Yes the Supreme Court came to that conclusion but it was Justice Souter who wrote it, just referencing Justice Corrigan

    but all in all the same conclusion

  8. #8
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    This is one of those things that too many CPL instructors or the legal person do not mention!

    And this can get you jammed up quick fast in a hurry if you don't know about it and for some reason get searched on a traffic stop.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    EM87 wrote:
    This is a subject that has come up time and time again. It is extremely important that everyone read this.

    According to Justice Corrigan of the Supreme Court,
    ALL OCCUPANTS OF A VEHICLE ARE BEING DETAINED WHEN THE VEHICLE IS STOPPED!

    This means that if you are a passenger in a vehicle that has been stopped, you are being detained and must disclose!


    Here is the link to Brendlin v. California, in which the subject is mentioned:

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...clnk&gl=us

    Brendlin v. California deals with the seizure of a person during a traffic stop as it relates to the fourth amendment. From the link:

    "Justice Corrigan said that a traffic stop entails the seizure of a passenger even when the driver is the sole target of police investigation because a passenger is detained for the purpose of ensuring an officer’s safety and would not feel free to leave the car without the officer’s permission."

    These are my personal findings and conclusions so if you disagree with me, let me know why.
    I think the proper way to construe the Brendlin opinion is that it pertains to passengers is that the passengers "would not feel free to leave the car without the officer’s permission" and so therefore they are detained for fourth amendment purposes, so they have standing to challenge the stop’s constitutionality. There are other opinions that explicitly note that passengers are free to leave the vehicle is they want provided they are not the reason for the stop.

    In an event, I do not understand what your post is about - passenegrs "detained" must disclose somthing? Disclose what?

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    EM87 wrote:
    "Justice Corrigan said
    Corrigan was a judge in the court below.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    In an event, I do not understand what your post is about - passenegrs "detained" must disclose somthing? Disclose what?
    If they are carryinga pistol since a CPL is required in Michigan to have a loaded pistol in the passenger compartment of a car, and we are required to immediately disclose we are carrying when stopped.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Bronson wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    In an event, I do not understand what your post is about - passenegrs "detained" must disclose somthing? Disclose what?
    If they are carryinga pistol since a CPL is required in Michigan to have a loaded pistol in the passenger compartment of a car, and we are required to immediately disclose we are carrying when stopped.

    Bronson
    OK, one of just a few states like this - would be a good bill to repeal this requirement.

    What is the link to the actual notify statute?

  13. #13
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    I am still looking for the MCL but here is the excerpt.

    http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7...0941--,00.html
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  14. #14
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    I want to make sure my interpretation is correct.

    Do you all agree that the court case I linked makes it necessary for passengers to disclose?
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Is it a California only issue?

Posting Permissions

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