Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: when to produce ID question....

  1. #1
    Regular Member Slave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    143

    when to produce ID question....

    You guys are very very good with laws, so I have a question for you all.

    I know, if I am driving, have a CPL, and I get pulled over, I have the duty to inform here in Michigan.

    What if I am a passenger?

    Furthermore, what if I am not carrying at all, and the officer asks for my ID, from the passenger, or back seat.

    In Michigan, are passengers required to produce ID?

    Can you guys point to some case law, or a statute number?

    Thank you OCDO!

  2. #2
    Regular Member sprinklerguy28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    666
    If you are carrying and are a passenger in vehicle being stopped, you must disclose as everyone in the vehicle is being stopped. If you are not carrying you have no duty to disclose regardless if you're the driver or a passenger. Only the driver is required to have their driver licence on them and must present it when asked by a LEO.

  3. #3
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    I will add that you would have to ID yourself in the situation... at a minimum Name and address if you did not have your physical ID on you. (or do not have one.. Child,License suspended whatever) The Supreme court has ruled that on a traffic stop everyone is detained.
    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."

  4. #4
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by autosurgeon View Post
    I will add that you would have to ID yourself in the situation... at a minimum Name and address if you did not have your physical ID on you. (or do not have one.. Child,License suspended whatever) The Supreme court has ruled that on a traffic stop everyone is detained.
    I was looking for that SCOTUS cite recently. Can you post it or the link, my google fu is too weak to find it; thanks.

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by WARCHILD View Post
    I was looking for that SCOTUS cite recently. Can you post it or the link, my google fu is too weak to find it; thanks.


    Brendlin v. California

    Facts of the Case:
    Police stopped Karen Simeroth's car for having expired registration tabs. Bruce Brendlin, who had a warrant out for his arrest, was riding in the passenger seat. Police found methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in the car and on Simeroth's person. In a California trial court, Brendlin filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained at the traffic stop, claiming that the stop was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court found that Brendlin had never been detained or "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It denied the motion, and Brendlin pleaded guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine. A California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a traffic stop necessarily results in a Fourth Amendment seizure.

    The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and ruled for California. The court held that the driver of the car is the only one detained in a traffic stop. The movement of any passengers is also stopped as a practical matter, but the court considered this merely a necessary byproduct of the detention of the driver. The court held that Brendlin had been free to leave the scene of the traffic stop or to simply ignore the police. Since he was never "seized," however, he could not claim a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Question: When a vehicle is subject to a traffic stop, is a passenger in the vehicle "detained" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?

    Conclusion: Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice David Souter, the Court held that when a vehicle is stopped at a traffic stop, the passenger as well as the driver is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The justices said, "We resolve this question by asking whether a reasonable person in Brendlin's position when the car stopped would have believed himself free to 'terminate the encounter' between the police and himself." The Court held that Brendlin would have reasonably believed himself to be intentionally detained and subject to the authority of the police. Thus, he was justified in asserting his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. The Court noted that its ruling would not extend to more incidental restrictions on freedom of movement, such as when motorists are forced to slow down or stop because other vehicles are being detained. To accept the state's arguments, however, would be to "invite police officers to stop cars with passengers regardless of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything illegal."

    Decisions

    Decision: 9 votes for Brendlin, 0 vote(s) against
    Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment


    http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_8120

  6. #6
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks Hank

    This came up in a conversation with a relative and I didn't push my point without this cite.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by sprinklerguy28 View Post
    If you are carrying and are a passenger in vehicle being stopped, you must disclose as everyone in the vehicle is being stopped. If you are not carrying you have no duty to disclose regardless if you're the driver or a passenger. Only the driver is required to have their driver licence on them and must present it when asked by a LEO.
    +1

  8. #8
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248
    if i remember right the supreme court also ruled that if you are in the vehicle there is a reasonable culpable knowledge of illegal activities from the other occupants of the vehicle. basically you can't say you didn't know. not sure if it came out of that case.
    the CPL requires you to inform the police of your concealed weapon at any police contact. what if they are behind you in line at dunkin donuts? i've had police in line behind me when i was OC at a gas station and nothing was said to me about it but that was OC not concealed. they looked at me when i left but that was it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by autosurgeon View Post
    I will add that you would have to ID yourself in the situation... at a minimum Name and address if you did not have your physical ID on you. (or do not have one.. Child,License suspended whatever) The Supreme court has ruled that on a traffic stop everyone is detained.
    If the passengers are not carrying and the officer doesn't have any charges on them, I don't see why they can't refuse to give the officer their info. I'm not aware of any law that would allow the officer to arrest them for failing to ID. While they are considered stopped, they were not operating the vehicle or carrying so I can't see any requirements for them to talk or ID themselves.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by kryptonian View Post
    if i remember right the supreme court also ruled that if you are in the vehicle there is a reasonable culpable knowledge of illegal activities from the other occupants of the vehicle. basically you can't say you didn't know. not sure if it came out of that case.
    the CPL requires you to inform the police of your concealed weapon at any police contact. what if they are behind you in line at dunkin donuts? i've had police in line behind me when i was OC at a gas station and nothing was said to me about it but that was OC not concealed. they looked at me when i left but that was it.
    If you are not "Stopped" by an LEO, there is no duty to disclose. Having an officer behind you in line is not considered stopped.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave View Post
    You guys are very very good with laws, so I have a question for you all.

    I know, if I am driving, have a CPL, and I get pulled over, I have the duty to inform here in Michigan.

    What if I am a passenger?

    Furthermore, what if I am not carrying at all, and the officer asks for my ID, from the passenger, or back seat.

    In Michigan, are passengers required to produce ID?

    Can you guys point to some case law, or a statute number?

    Thank you OCDO!
    States may not require people to carry and produce ID on demand to the police. See Kolender v. Lawsen.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    This is another example of the courts ability to screw around with our rights for their own purposes. A person has no right to search their friends pockets, or to know what is in their pockets. Those passengers have the right to privacy, not only from .gov, but from everyone else. You can't expect everybody to have , for example, drugs on them all the time, in fact, the reasonable expectation would be to assume that they dont. Most people dont use drugs, and the people who do, do not always have drugs on them. Furthermore, people who use drugs tend to avoid people who don't, especially people who study laws regularly. As far as the 4th goes, there is nothing about being a passenger in a car, or sitting next to someone, (whether in a vehicle or not), that gives anyone any reasonable suspicion that they, or either one of them are breaking any law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    While you can't always know what someone has, typically we all know our friends and family well enough to know if they even occasionally use drugs. My policy, if you even recreationally use drugs I will not get in your car or let you ride in mine. That may seem harsh to some, but I canít afford the consequences of an arrest and or conviction. There have been too many cases where a driver is stopped, someone dumps the drugs, nobody wants to take ownership, and everyone takes the rap.

  14. #14
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by budlight View Post
    While you can't always know what someone has, typically we all know our friends and family well enough to know if they even occasionally use drugs. My policy, if you even recreationally use drugs I will not get in your car or let you ride in mine. That may seem harsh to some, but I canít afford the consequences of an arrest and or conviction. There have been too many cases where a driver is stopped, someone dumps the drugs, nobody wants to take ownership, and everyone takes the rap.

    i have the same policy!
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    Michigan Concealed Pistol Instructor. Cost 80.00 With advanced techniques included free. PM for more information!

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Few things make me feel more patriotic, or evoke a feeling of respect for the law, than to have to worry about being convicted for another persons so called crimes.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    I would also like to see a cite requiring a person to identify themselves if stopped as a passenger in a vehicle.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by lapeer20m View Post
    I would also like to see a cite requiring a person to identify themselves if stopped as a passenger in a vehicle.
    Exactly, that is why I said I don't see why they can't refuse to give the officer their info.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Im looking for another cite, I've seen it and it referes as "being detained" because you were a passenger in the car is no different than being slowed or stopped in traffic because of a police action, unless the officer has RAS the passenger has commited or is about to commit a crime, while he can ask for ID the passenger has no legal requirement to produce it...but I cant find that court case for some reason

    but

    Brown Vs Texas

    On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion by Burger, Ch. J., expressing the unanimous view of the court, it was held that the defendant's conviction under the Texas law requiring identification upon a lawful police stop was improper, the police officer's stopping the defendant and requiring him to identify himself having violated the Fourth Amendment, since the officer admittedly stopped the defendant solely to ascertain his identity and had no reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.
    Last edited by Onnie; 11-22-2010 at 12:38 AM.
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by autosurgeon View Post
    I will add that you would have to ID yourself in the situation... at a minimum Name and address if you did not have your physical ID on you. (or do not have one.. Child,License suspended whatever) The Supreme court has ruled that on a traffic stop everyone is detained.
    You do not have to ID yourself if a passenger. No more than if you were walking down the street.

    If you are CCing then yes you must disclose, then wait for the officer to ask to see your CPL.
    Last edited by Venator; 11-22-2010 at 08:22 AM.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Slave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    You do not have to ID yourself if a passenger. No more than if you were walking down the street.

    If you are CCing then yes you must disclose, then wait for the officer to ask to see your CPL.
    You got some case law I can look up?

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave View Post
    You got some case law I can look up?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes
    Last edited by Big Gay Al; 11-23-2010 at 03:17 AM. Reason: misunderstood the previous post
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    good cite for CPL holders, but I think he was referring to anyone who was guilty of nothing but being a passenger.

  23. #23
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    good cite for CPL holders, but I think he was referring to anyone who was guilty of nothing but being a passenger.
    Yup, realized that shortly after I posted, so I changed it. Put a link to Wikipedia on stop and identify laws.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave View Post
    You got some case law I can look up?
    bump #18 here supreme court decision in Brown Vs Texas

    If he stopped a car you were a passenger in, unless you were breaking the law there is no duty for you to id yourself. Can he ask sure he can ask, do you have to id, not according to the supreme court
    Last edited by Onnie; 11-23-2010 at 09:30 AM.
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338
    Guys, this was discussed before. In the case of Hiibel vs. Nevada SCOTUS determined that states can have laws requiring that people must provide ID. But, this is subject to State Law. Also, ID producing requirement should be limited in scope. So, if certain states have such "Stop & ID" laws, then a person must ID him/herself when stopped and asked so by LEO. If a state does not have any "Stop & ID" laws, then a person has no obligation to provide ID or, even verbally to ID. Last time I checked, Michigan had no "Stop & ID" laws at all. This means that, in theory, one is under no obligation to provide ID or verbally ID in Michigan regardless at what stage your interaction with LEO is (voluntary encounter, detainment or arrest). In practice, it makes sense in certain situation refuse to ID during first two stages mentioned above. However, once arrested, it no longer makes sens, in my opinion. One reason is because refusing to ID (lets say a person carries no ID, so search did not produce one) will not allow you to secure a bond and you will remain in jail.

    Nevada vs. Hiibel ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_...ourt_of_Nevada

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •