when to produce ID question....

Slave · Nov 21, 2010

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!

sprinklerguy28 · Nov 21, 2010

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.

autosurgeon · Nov 21, 2010

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.

WARCHILD · Nov 21, 2010

autosurgeon said:
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.

HankT · Nov 21, 2010

WARCHILD said:
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

WARCHILD · Nov 21, 2010

Thanks Hank

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

budlight · Nov 21, 2010

sprinklerguy28 said:
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

kryptonian · Nov 21, 2010

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.

budlight · Nov 21, 2010

autosurgeon said:
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.

budlight · Nov 21, 2010

kryptonian said:
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.

Mike · Nov 21, 2010

Slave said:
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.

stainless1911 · Nov 21, 2010

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.

budlight · Nov 21, 2010

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 can’t 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.

NHCGRPR45 · Nov 21, 2010

budlight said:
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 can’t 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!

stainless1911 · Nov 21, 2010

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.

lapeer20m · Nov 21, 2010

I would also like to see a cite requiring a person to identify themselves if stopped as a passenger in a vehicle.

budlight · Nov 21, 2010

lapeer20m said:
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.

Onnie · Nov 22, 2010

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.

Venator · Nov 22, 2010

autosurgeon said:
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.

Slave · Nov 23, 2010

Venator said:
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?

when to produce ID question....

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member