Does a passenger HAVE TO show ID during traffice stop?

[cp2010]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

my friend was stopped for a missing taillightin California. I was passenger. Cop asked me if I had my drivers license. I told him I didnt (I had no wallet on me). he asked me for name, dob, etc and got testy with me when I asked him why he needed that.

I reluctanly gave it to him because I didnt want to make trouble for my friend, who ended up with a fixit ticket.

was I lawfully required to provide him my info? does he have probable cause to question a passenger during a burned-out taillight stop?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[BOR]

Probable cause is not needed to ask any occupant questions.

It may be the officer's way of conducting a stop.

Can he force you to submit? Unless you are under investigation yourself, no.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial district v. Nevada, US SC, outlines when a person is required to submit a name/ID.

Now, absent Hiibel, there a some exceptions when NOT under investigation you need to comply. Absent any surprises in your case, you were not required to show ID.

The fact is though, MOST do not know the law, and will comply with the demand.

 

[BOR]

Read this whole thread, but my post 16 outlines how it was declared UNconstitutional in MA. Of course this was PRE Hiibel, so it was based on the MA Constitution.

I know you are asking about CA, but Hiibel is SC law of the land.

Unless the officer can point to specific and articulable facts he can demand it, you do not have to produce it.


License Must Be Carried Even when Not Driving

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

The cop can ask and even can get testy.. he is expanding the scope of investigation beyond the reason for the stop ...ie fishing. Under CA law, you are under no obligation to give it to him, but he can ask and even make it seem like you have to give it; he doesnt have to advise you that you dont have to provide it.

 

[You Are Guilty]

You hit the nail on the head. The officer can ask for ID, the same way he can ask you to step out of the car, pull up your shirt, and do the Truffle Shuffle. If you comply, then you cannot complain about an illegal request.

As a practical matter though, if officer asks for ID (without legal justification to compel it), and you don't provide it, what do you think the result will be? Nice Officer issues a warning or nothing at all, or Mad Officer looks for reasons to issue multiple tickets?

 

[BOR]

Steven, just out of curiousity, is that CA case law pre Hiibel or after Hiibel.

 

[xylene]

I know you are asking about CA, but Hiibel is SC law of the land.

South Carolina law of the land...

You and I both know the Supreme Court does not make law, so what else could you be talking about...

Broadly speaking, a police office can lawfully enforce negative consequences, like detention or even arrest for failing to identify oneself.

So play cupholder lawyer and get jerked around by a cop who is within the law to do so, or give up your very much non-secret name...

The reasons would be so incredibly easy to articulate. "You looked like a guy on the parole violator sheet... why didn't you just clear that up. Have a nice walk home."

 

[BOR]

South Carolina law of the land...

Supreme Court, NOT South Carolina.

You and I both know the Supreme Court does not make law, so what else could you be talking about..

.

The SC does not make law?? Where did you get that notion??

Broadly speaking, a police office can lawfully enforce negative consequences, like detention or even arrest for failing to identify oneself.

A crooked cop can do anything, remember the St. George MO case where he threatened to make up charges. It was on tape and the officer did not know it. He was fired and the city and officer were sued.

So play cupholder lawyer and get jerked around by a cop who is within the law to do so, or give up your very much non-secret name...

The reasons would be so incredibly easy to articulate. "You looked like a guy on the parole violator sheet... why didn't you just clear that up. Have a nice walk home."

A crooked cop can do anything.

Would you let a cop search your home without a warrant because he said we would arrest you if you did not??

 

[You Are Guilty]

Would you let a cop search your home without a warrant because he said we would arrest you if you did not??

Do you know how many people this works on?! Why wouldn't they say it?

 

[justalayman]

Do you know how many people this works on?! Why wouldn't they say it?

Because it causes a search to be permitted under duress. Permission under duress is a defense to the legality of the permission.

don't know if it has been contested as such but sure seem like a reasonable defense to me.

 

[BOR]

Because it causes a search to be permitted under duress. Permission under duress is a defense to the legality of the permission.

don't know if it has been contested as such but sure seem like a reasonable defense to me.

Right, but I was addressing Xylene's post and another example of coercion.

Showing an ID at a traffic stop may be the more practical approach, but the poster asked abouth the legality, not the option of or consequences that are based on a crooked cops law.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Because it causes a search to be permitted under duress. Permission under duress is a defense to the legality of the permission.

don't know if it has been contested as such but sure seem like a reasonable defense to me.

Maybe it's a local thing. We have case law that basically says that threats to "peacefully invoke the law" does not equate to duress. (Of course, you then have to wonder how one "un-peacefully" invokes the law, but that is neither here nor there).

Showing an ID at a traffic stop may be the more practical approach, but the poster asked abouth the legality, not the option of or consequences that are based on a crooked cops law.

100% true, and maybe it's just me, but I like to deal in practicalities. Even as a lawyer, when I get pulled over and can either (a) nitpick the officer with my "superior" knowledge of the law, or (b) be polite, answer his questions and otherwise keep my mouth shut, practical experience dictates the better choice is the latter, no matter what the law may say.

I guess I am the only one here who doesn't like the view from the back seat of police cruisers

 

[justalayman]

You Are Guilty;2601444]Maybe it's a local thing. We have case law that basically says that threats to "peacefully invoke the law" does not equate to duress. (Of course, you then have to wonder how one "un-peacefully" invokes the law, but that is neither here nor there).

I would not see how committing a crime or threatening to commit crime would be peacefully invoking the law.While a person can willingly relinquish their rights, any act that removes their rights without legal cause is in fact a violation of the rights of the person.

100% true, and maybe it's just me, but I like to deal in practicalities. Even as a lawyer, when I get pulled over and can either (a) nitpick the officer with my "superior" knowledge of the law, or (b) be polite, answer his questions and otherwise keep my mouth shut, practical experience dictates the better choice is the latter, no matter what the law may say.

sometimes you just get in one of those moods though and say:

"I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"

at some point you must simply tire of an officer using BS bullying tactics to effect a result.

I guess I am the only one here who doesn't like the view from the back seat of police cruisers

never been subjected to the view, yet even though I held out my hands after the officer said "you want to be arrested? I can take you down right along with that guy (reference to a guy that was being stuffed right between me and the officer)."

I looked at my watch and realized it was fairly late in the evening and said, quite calmly:

"well, do you know if they have served dinner at the jail yet? It is getting kind of late and I haven't had dinner yet and I am a bit hungry. If they have already served dinner, I would rather not go but if they haven't served dinner yet, heck, I'm not doing anything else tonight." as I held out my hands for him to cuff me if he wanted to cuff me.

I slept in my own bed that night. I guess they had already served dinner

 

[BOR]

Layman, I was pulled over a few years back for having my LP light out, a valid reason.

He could see I was not drunk, etc. I cooperated fully. He gave me the pen to the eyes test to see if I was loaded.


I knew I did NOT have to take it, but did anyway as I did not want a citation for my LP light. I could have refused, legally, but I did not want the hassle.

He asked if I had any other citations within that year. I said no. He did not know that I knew a 2nd within a year elevates it to a Misdemeanor of the 4th degree and arrestable then.

I was keeping an eye on his actions, but I was not going to Q every little move.

However, you are right though.

I may "bend" myself just to save myself the BS, but if I am threatened with arrest when I know I can NOT legally be arrested, I draw the line and will let them do it. I want him to lie to a court.

 

[xylene]

The SC does not make law?? Where did you get that notion??

Despite the importance of their rulings, the supreme court does not make law.

A crooked cop can do anything, remember the St. George MO case where he threatened to make up charges. It was on tape and the officer did not know it. He was fired and the city and officer were sued. A crooked cop can do anything.

A law enforcement officer engaging in wantonly unlawful behavior is not the same as a cop putting a mild (and legal)inconvenience to an uncooperative perosn in a traffic stop.

Would you let a cop search your home without a warrant because he said we would arrest you if you did not??

It depends.

I would be inclined to take arrest. But I could easily articulate many scenarios were I would agree.

I would definitely give a policeman my name, if demanded, under just about any situation.