Case law on veh stops

[kiddorbitz01]

Hey guys,

Anybody know if there's new case law regarding veh stops and identifying occupants other than the driver?? I was under the impression that you, as a peace officer, had the right to identify every occupant in the car. Can you demand ID on every occupant other than the driver, or does only the driver have to produce ID??

[GIOSTORMUSNRET]

There's actually a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says yes we can. I'll have to look back in the archives of Federal Law Enforcement Informer, but yes there was a ruling in a case decided by the Supreme Court that says we can identify all persons in a vehicle that is involved in a traffic stop which is considered a Terry Stop. The informer is a good source for case law and court rulings on stuff like this. You can read the pdf either online or download it.
http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...mer09.pdf/view

[kiddorbitz01]

There's actually a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says yes we can. I'll have to look back in the archives of Federal Law Enforcement Informer, but yes there was a ruling either last year or year before by the Supreme Court that says we can identify all persons in a vehicle that is involved in a traffic stop. The informer is a good source for case law and court rulings on stuff like this. You can read the pdf either online or download it.

Thank you bro... I just wanted some clarification on the matter since I've heard different answers from other guys at work. Would you happen to have a link or website for the informer??

[eagleI]

California is one of the few states that does not require anyone (other than someone operating a vehicle) to identify themselves to the police. The requirement for identification is at booking. If you are issuing them a citation and need it for ID, then you could book the person.

I recommend you subscribe to the California Legal Sourcebook.

[Blizz]

Brendlin v California

Edit:

Brendlin v California isn't "new" case law. Brendlin basically says that a passenger has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop, as they are essentially detained, same as the driver. Even though you may not reasonable suspicion to detain the passenger, per se. i.e. stopping a vehicle for a mechanical violation would entail detaining the driver. Brendlin says the passenger is "essentially" detained.

Using Brendlin to order a passenger to ID themselves is...shaky ground, at best. California law basically says someone has to provide valid ID on demand on a t-stop, or if they're signing a promise to appear (citation.) They're also required to ID themselves during booking.

I've seen guys hook for 148 when a ped fails to ID. It doesn't fly.

[nobodyjr]

http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdate...search2014.pdf

Read page 70. It's something case law has not yet dealt with if they are simply a passenger.

And remember, If you have reasonable suspicion they are involved in a crime, you have the right to ID them. They don't have to provide it, but if they want to clam up, have no ID on them, etc you get to take them to the station to fingerprint them. Which means you can cuff them, search them, etc etc only for a detention. But once you ID them, you have to either arrest them on whatever warrants you find, the initial charge, or release them… As Blizz said, 148 does not fly for fail to ID. That stopped in 1983 when 647(e) used to be the code for fail to ID was overturned.

I usually ID all passengers.

[Blizz]

http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdate...search2014.pdf

Read page 70. It's something case law has not yet dealt with if they are simply a passenger.

And remember, If you have reasonable suspicion they are involved in a crime, you have the right to ID them. They don't have to provide it, but if they want to clam up, have no ID on them, etc you get to take them to the station to fingerprint them. Which means you can cuff them, search them, etc etc only for a detention. But once you ID them, you have to either arrest them on whatever warrants you find, the initial charge, or release them… As Blizz said, 148 does not fly for fail to ID. That stopped in 1983 when 647(e) used to be the code for fail to ID was overturned.

I usually ID all passengers.

If you only have RS to detain them...what authority are you using to transport them for fingerprinting? Unless you do it and then just 849(b)...but that seems sketchy.

[velcrostripes]

Where ya working at these days, Kidd??

[GIOSTORMUSNRET]

Brendlin v California

Edit:

Brendlin v California isn't "new" case law. Brendlin basically says that a passenger has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop, as they are essentially detained, same as the driver. Even though you may not reasonable suspicion to detain the passenger, per se. i.e. stopping a vehicle for a mechanical violation would entail detaining the driver. Brendlin says the passenger is "essentially" detained.

Using Brendlin to order a passenger to ID themselves is...shaky ground, at best. California law basically says someone has to provide valid ID on demand on a t-stop, or if they're signing a promise to appear (citation.) They're also required to ID themselves during booking.

I've seen guys hook for 148 when a ped fails to ID. It doesn't fly.

Try Arizon v. Johnson 2009 U.S. LEXIS 868, January 26, 2009

[hbliam]

Try Arizon v. Johnson 2009 U.S. LEXIS 868, January 26, 2009

That case justifies pat down search's of passengers you believe are armed and dangerous, not ID'ing anyone.

[hbliam]

There's actually a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says yes we can. I'll have to look back in the archives of Federal Law Enforcement Informer, but yes there was a ruling in a case decided by the Supreme Court that says we can identify all persons in a vehicle that is involved in a traffic stop which is considered a Terry Stop. The informer is a good source for case law and court rulings on stuff like this. You can read the pdf either online or download it.
http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...mer09.pdf/view

All passengers are not considered subject to a Terry stop when you stop a car, just the occupants that you can articulate reasonable suspicion. Working graves in LA County it was never hard to articulate that for the whole car.

Look up Stufflebeam v Harris.

Bottom line is you can ask anyone for anything. Some of us are better at overcoming objections when they say no. If they flat out refuse and you have no reasonable suspicion then you have no legal justification to force them to ID themselves. In 11 years, I doubt I had more then a handful that I couldn't get an ID out of.

[JonathanE]

All passengers are not considered subject to a Terry stop when you stop a car, just the occupants that you can articulate reasonable suspicion. Working graves in LA County it was never hard to articulate that for the whole car.

Look up Stufflebeam v Harris.

Bottom line is you ask anyone for anything. Some of us are better at overcoming objections when they say no. If they flat out refuse and you have no reasonable suspicion then you have no legal justification to force them to ID themselves. In 11 years, I doubt I had more then a handful that I couldn't get an ID out of.

Almost exactly what I would have said. You have to learn how to talk to people. As hbliam stated, I too have barely had a handful of people refuse what I asked them for. Sometimes in reply to a why question I simply stated because I asked nicely. Bottom line if you can talk to people they will generally answer.

[GIOSTORMUSNRET]

That case justifies pat down search's of passengers you believe are armed and dangerous, not ID'ing anyone.

So you're just going to do a pat down with out identifying? This ruling pretty much places a vehicle traffic stop in the same realm as a Terry Stop, part of a Terry stop is identifying the person you are dealing with. So in essence the ruling allows you to identify based on Terry Stop and Terry Search protocalls.

Reasonable suspicion is a lower requirement than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion can be articulated quite easy just by a persons behavior, or actions at the time we make contact.

[hbliam]

So you're just going to do a pat down with out identifying? This ruling pretty much places a vehicle traffic stop in the same realm as a Terry Stop, part of a Terry stop is identifying the person you are dealing with. So in essence the ruling allows you to identify based on Terry Stop and Terry Search protocalls.



Reasonable suspicion is a lower requirement than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion can be articulated quite easy just by a persons behavior, or actions at the time we make contact.

Keep in mind when you pop into a California thread we deal with California law. Florida is a stop and frisk State, California is not.

So yes, you are going to only do a pat down without ID'ing if that's all you are legally allowed to do. And if you don't have RS you aren't even allowed to do that. Refusing to present ID isn't RS either.

And I'd be careful, and probably talk to your local DA before you take your Florida 901.151 via Arizona v Johnson via Terry via Ohio and mix in some weak RS.

Did you even read the case I posted? Maybe re-read and focus on the part where the officer lost the qualified immunity protection from a civil suit.

This is actually a pretty interesting subject and you can go from case to case to case finding the nuances. Like the one in Stufflebeam v Harris where once the Officer resolved his reason for stopping the driver, he lost his Terry stop on the passenger and should not have demanded he present ID. Which means you (in FL) need to balance your detention time vs coming to your conclusions on your initial stop so you CAN have time to ID the other occupants. But if you conclude in your initial contact with the driver that your RS is gone then you just lost your right to ID the occupants.

[Mountaintopcop]

Terry stop followed by
Pennsylvania vs Mimms
Followed by Maryland vs Wilson
Supported by Brendlin vs California.
Finally, Court resolved the issue of stop and identify in Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

Reference 9th edition legal guide for police constitutional issues. Walker and Hemmens