Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Request for identification?!

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Request for identification?!

    Facts: Saturday at 0115 hours I stopped a vehicle. I noticed the passenger had an open can of beer at his feet, (matching the one he threw out at the stop sign...where myself and a trooper were chatting, 10 feet from same stop sign...idiot) The driver also gave me permission to run through the vehicle as well. I asked everyone to exit the vehicle. I grabbed the beer can and a cooler that was next to his (passenger's) feet.

    The trooper then asked him (back seat driver's side passenger) for his ID. He stated he didn't have any on him. I then asked him for his name and date of birth. Long story short he refused to give his name and date of birth. I evntually took him to jail and he contiuned the act there. He would not give his name and date of birth. Finally after looking on DVS for 2 hours I found his info.

    There used to be a statute that stated upon the request of a licesened peace officer in the State of Minnesota you were required to provide name and date of birth....now for the life of me I can't find that statute to reference. If nothing more than for a learning experiecne is anyone familiar with the statute I'm reffering to and have you had a similar situation, what did you do?

  • #2
    This is what I go with...

    609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING.

    Subdivision 1.Crime.

    Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:

    (1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;

    (2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties;

    https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.50

    Comment


    • #3
      To the best of my understanding the ruling of the US Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983) found that the only two times a person must have identification on his/her person that may be requested is in an establishment where alcohol is served and when a person is stopped by a licensed peace officer while operating a motor vehicle when the officer can articulate probable cause that a crime is or has been committed as per Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S.

      Therefore, by that ruling that person would in fact have to at least surrender his information for the officer to conduct his investigation but would not have to have identification on his person.

      I wish DAL would comment as I believe his knowledge and understanding far superceeds mine.

      If this is completely irrelevent then I appologize.
      Last edited by seth0687; 09-09-2009, 01:45 AM. Reason: clarification

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by EDJ View Post
        There used to be a statute that stated upon the request of a licesened peace officer in the State of Minnesota you were required to provide name and date of birth.
        There is no statute even remotely close to this on the books in Minnesota. I tutor students for the POST exam so I most certainly invite anyone to please correct me if I’m wrong and I’d be happy to admit that I’m the most ill-prepared teacher on the face of the earth.

        So the real question here is: “can an officer demand ID from a passenger” when the passenger has not committed a crime. The answer is “NO”….not without a Probable Cause arrest

        I’ll be straight on the issue….please read it because this information protects both the citizen(s) from big government while keeping an officer from being embarrassment over getting hung up citizen rights violations.

        There are cases of officers losing their jobs over “rights” issues because their agencies hung them out to dry. Don’t freak yourself out however…in most cases, and also being a more realistic outcome, almost every judge would likely just call an officer into their office to proceed with an *** chewing prior to tossing a case.

        There are NO statutes to back up a request for ID from a passenger without a Probable Cause arrest. So, let’s look at what rights do protect the passenger –and– what case law is available for an officer to vest their actions on…

        FOURTH AMENDMENT
        "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

        CASE LAW | United States v Henderson (1st 2006)
        Read docket: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/...ON=03-1888.01A
        Synopsis: Officer Kominsky stops a vehicle for a moving violation. During the stop, Kominsky demands ID from Henderson (passenger). After running Henderson, the officer learns Henderson has a warrant. Kominsky places Henderson under arrest and conducts a search incident to arrest. During the search, a gun was recovered from Henderson’s person and he was charged with “felon in possession of a firearm.” Henderson was convicted but appealed citing that the officer had no basis to identify Henderson since he wasn’t the operator of the motor vehicle and identifying Henderson didn’t fall within the scope of the stop. During the appeal process of this case […] the government offers "officer safety" as an alternative basis for investigating Henderson. However, Officer Kominsky testified under oath that he did not have any particularized reason to suspect Henderson of dangerousness or wrongdoing, nor any specific basis apart from a purported seatbelt violation for prolonging the stop in order to investigate Henderson. On these facts, the courts rejected the government's alternative argument and vacated the conviction of Henderson and he walked free.

        Follow-up: Probable Cause for the arrest is where Officer Kominsky got tripped up. Without having the ability to articulate any illegal conduct (remember, seatbelt is petty, you can cit the driver for it), Officer Kominsky had no authority to request ID and therefore lost his grounds to run Henderson and conduct a search of his person incident to arrest. Hence, the gun was a non-factor and now there remains no evidence to convict Henderson for the possession charge.

        Ultimately, why was the conviction overturned: same concept as the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine. i.e. evidence recovered during an illegal and unreasonable search and seizure.


        CASE LAW | People v Harris (Illinois 2003).
        Read docket: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/.../Ill/92783.htm
        Synopsis: defendant was not technically seized during the course of the traffic stop and defendant was free to decline Officer Reed's request for identification. However, the defendant felt compelled to supply identification to the officer based on Officer Reed’s request for ID. Therefore, the conviction of the defendant was overturned since the request for ID simply compelled a belief that the officer had the authority to ID the defendant.

        CASE LAW | People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill. 2d 220 (2003)
        Read docket: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/.../Ill/92783.htm
        Synopsis: During the course of a routine traffic stop, a police officer's request for identification from a passenger violated the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against unlawful seizures.


        Hope this helps?!
        -M5:9

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Matthew5:9 View Post
          There is no statute even remotely close to this on the books in Minnesota. I tutor students for the POST exam so I most certainly invite anyone to please correct me if I’m wrong and I’d be happy to admit that I’m the most ill-prepared teacher on the face of the earth.

          So the real question here is: “can an officer demand ID from a passenger” when the passenger has not committed a crime. The answer is “NO”….not without a Probable Cause arrest

          I’ll be straight on the issue….please read it because this information protects both the citizen(s) from big government while keeping an officer from being embarrassment over getting hung up citizen rights violations.

          There are cases of officers losing their jobs over “rights” issues because their agencies hung them out to dry. Don’t freak yourself out however…in most cases, and also being a more realistic outcome, almost every judge would likely just call an officer into their office to proceed with an *** chewing prior to tossing a case.

          There are NO statutes to back up a request for ID from a passenger without a Probable Cause arrest. So, let’s look at what rights do protect the passenger –and– what case law is available for an officer to vest their actions on…

          FOURTH AMENDMENT
          "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

          CASE LAW | United States v Henderson (1st 2006)
          Read docket: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/...ON=03-1888.01A
          Synopsis: Officer Kominsky stops a vehicle for a moving violation. During the stop, Kominsky demands ID from Henderson (passenger). After running Henderson, the officer learns Henderson has a warrant. Kominsky places Henderson under arrest and conducts a search incident to arrest. During the search, a gun was recovered from Henderson’s person and he was charged with “felon in possession of a firearm.” Henderson was convicted but appealed citing that the officer had no basis to identify Henderson since he wasn’t the operator of the motor vehicle and identifying Henderson didn’t fall within the scope of the stop. During the appeal process of this case […] the government offers "officer safety" as an alternative basis for investigating Henderson. However, Officer Kominsky testified under oath that he did not have any particularized reason to suspect Henderson of dangerousness or wrongdoing, nor any specific basis apart from a purported seatbelt violation for prolonging the stop in order to investigate Henderson. On these facts, the courts rejected the government's alternative argument and vacated the conviction of Henderson and he walked free.

          Follow-up: Probable Cause for the arrest is where Officer Kominsky got tripped up. Without having the ability to articulate any illegal conduct (remember, seatbelt is petty, you can cit the driver for it), Officer Kominsky had no authority to request ID and therefore lost his grounds to run Henderson and conduct a search of his person incident to arrest. Hence, the gun was a non-factor and now there remains no evidence to convict Henderson for the possession charge.

          Ultimately, why was the conviction overturned: same concept as the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine. i.e. evidence recovered during an illegal and unreasonable search and seizure.


          CASE LAW | People v Harris (Illinois 2003).
          Read docket: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/.../Ill/92783.htm
          Synopsis: defendant was not technically seized during the course of the traffic stop and defendant was free to decline Officer Reed's request for identification. However, the defendant felt compelled to supply identification to the officer based on Officer Reed’s request for ID. Therefore, the conviction of the defendant was overturned since the request for ID simply compelled a belief that the officer had the authority to ID the defendant.

          CASE LAW | People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill. 2d 220 (2003)
          Read docket: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/.../Ill/92783.htm
          Synopsis: During the course of a routine traffic stop, a police officer's request for identification from a passenger violated the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against unlawful seizures.


          Hope this helps?!

          Great case cites, thank you for the information and clarification on this matter!

          Seth

          by the way excellent verse.

          Comment


          • #6
            ........................
            Last edited by jeeper; 04-10-2010, 03:08 AM.
            Nobody ever wants to have to fight, but its a darn good idea for someone to know how.

            Comment


            • #7
              the guy that was arrested was the back seat passenger and didn't have the beer. Did the guy that was arrested have his seatbelt on?

              Comment


              • #8
                Matthew 5:9 ; Great cites for case law. The cases you cited however refer to a normal traffic stop where there is no crime being committed by any person in the vehicle other than the driver who committed the driving violation for the moving violation for which s/he was stopped originally and the officer conducting the traffic stop cannot articulate that there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed by any occupants of the vehicle.

                (sounds of inhaling)

                Pursuant to MSS 169A.35 Open Bottle Law: Subd. 3.Possession; crime described.
                It is a crime for a person to have in possession, while in a private motor vehicle upon a street or highway, any bottle or receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage, distilled spirit, or 3.2 percent malt liquor that has been opened, or the seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed.

                Therefore, any person in the vehicle with an open container of alcohol which is in plain view of the officer who conducted a lawful traffic stop qualifies for a violation under this offense. Since the person possessing the open container of suspected alcohol is now in the process of committing a misdemeanor level crime, failure to provide a law enforcement officer information pertinent to a legal investigation constitutes Obstructing Legal Process (MSS 609.50 s1 p2)

                There are many ways to skin a cat – you just have to learn to crawl before you can walk. When I FTO new coppers, they know that something is wrong and that they should do something. I have to reign them in sometimes and remind them “A”, then “B” then “C” – not “B” then “C” then “A”.

                Establish PC to stop the vehicle, once the vehicle is stopped, if you can see something inside the vehicle through the windows that you as a reasonable officer can articulate is illegal, you have a right under the “Plain View” exception to investigate things that you observe where you have a legal right to be. If you can tie an illegal item to a person or persons in the vehicle and they could reasonably have reached the item, you have a right to interview them and gather pertinent information.
                "In Valor There Is Hope" - Tacitus

                "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" - George Orwell

                Comment


                • #9
                  Matthew 5:9-
                  I need to clarify a few things. I observed the open bottle at his right foot. I was looking for his identification as I clearly needed a name to put on the citation. I asked at least 15-20 times for name and dob. He refused. I finally told him to stand up, and he reufsed this on 5-6 times. During this time I was extrmely, polite and patient. He friends also began riding him to just give me his name and dob as I was being "a nice guy" and to "not make his job any harder". He finally just put his hands on his head and interlocked his fingers. I told him one last time to stand up or he was under arrest and he did not. I then told him he was under arrest and had him place his hands behind his back. I then placed him in the rear of my squad.
                  At this point I agian asked 10 times for his name and date of birth, and he refused. At the jail we asked another ten times and he refused.

                  Also my other question I have is this----I understand you need a reason to ask ID for a passenger. However, during any other crime I would ask for ID of any and all witnesses. Why can't I explain (not in this current situation, a hypothetical case) that the reason I asked fo rthe ID of a passenger was he was a witness to the offense I observed, or depending on level, the crime I observed.
                  I don't want to go into court one day after writing a guy for...Open Bottle and during the actual stop there were 2 passengers, but during court he brings 4 people that say they were a passenger...
                  Also this way I also have more witnesses, to the crime/offense and also my actions during the stop, to show that I didn't act a certain way or in fact that I did act a certain way.....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    EDJ –

                    In response to:

                    "Also my other question I have is this----I understand you need a reason to ask ID for a passenger. However, during any other crime I would ask for ID of any and all witnesses. Why can't I explain (not in this current situation, a hypothetical case) that the reason I asked for the ID of a passenger was he was a witness to the offense I observed, or depending on level, the crime I observed. "

                    A witness to a crime does not have a legal obligation to provide you with information. You need a court order to compel people’s information if they have not committed a crime and are unwilling to voluntarily provide it. That being said, I will sometimes ask passengers of vehicle I stop for ID. If they tell me “no”, unless I can articulate something about the vehicle or the passengers, there’s nothing I can do to legally force information out of them.

                    That being said, I wouldn’t start doing that all the time as it is a bad habit to get into. It’s very similar to making empty threats to skels and not having any legal means to follow through on your threat. Main message: don’t threaten something if you can’t follow through with it. When I ask people, it is in a very friendly tone and yes, I have had people tell me “no” when I asked them for ID. I simply tell them that’s fine and let them be on their way.
                    "In Valor There Is Hope" - Tacitus

                    "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" - George Orwell

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Response to Topace44-
                      A witness to a crime does not have a legal obligation to provide you with information. You need a court order to compel people’s information if they have not committed a crime and are unwilling to voluntarily provide it.

                      I understand the prinicpal of what it is you are saying. However, CAN I ask them for ID, as a witness? Certainly, if they say no, I'm fine with this, and always have been fine with this. But can I simply ask?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Legally, you can ask anyone you want for ID (now referance dept. policy and common sense about this). If they haven't done anything wrong, they have no legal obligation to provide it.
                        "In Valor There Is Hope" - Tacitus

                        "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" - George Orwell

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Matthew5:9 View Post
                          I tutor students for the POST exam so I most certainly invite anyone to please correct me if I’m wrong and I’d be happy to admit that I’m the most ill-prepared teacher on the face of the earth.
                          Well, you know what they say. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
                          sigpic

                          The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.-Ulysses S. Grant

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No longer available.
                            Last edited by Matthew5:9; 01-28-2011, 02:10 AM.
                            -M5:9

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No longer available.
                              Last edited by Matthew5:9; 01-28-2011, 02:09 AM.
                              -M5:9

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6105 users online. 329 members and 5776 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X