• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Passengers must disclose!

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
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...ENDLIN+V.+CALIFORNIA&cd=3&hl=en&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.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

JamesIan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
113
Location
Ecorse, Michigan, USA
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:L1OO06Zc7EoJ:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf+BRENDLIN+V.+CALIFORNIA&cd=3&hl=en&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.
This is excellent and relevant information. Thanks so much, EM 87!
 

cvogtmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
17
Location
Kalamazoo, MI, ,
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
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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:L1OO06Zc7EoJ:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf+BRENDLIN+V.+CALIFORNIA&cd=3&hl=en&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.

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?
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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?
 

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
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?
 
Top