Argument "O" da day!

[iamacop]

After working overtime with my day shift homies today, we had a general discussion, to include the argument "O" da day. One of my bonehead homies said that passengers in a vehicle during a traffic stop are obligated to identify themselves if required. He said they are legally detained, so they are required to.

Obviously I objected and said, "No way Jose!" Yes, they are detained to where they cannot take off, but they are not required to identify themselves to an officer during a regular traffic stop. A suspicious vehicle or any other circumstance, yah, I could understand, but not on a regular stop. Another dayshift homie said the case law originated from California requiring passengers to identify themselves. He could not provide the case though.

Anybody have a side, and if so, any Supreme Court rulings?

P.S. Do not get this mixed up with the Texas Fail to I.D. law. I know a detained person is not required to identify themself until they are under arrest, but if you falsify the information while detained, you are headed to da klink! I'm just talking about the requirement to identify as a passenger if requested by a Police Officer..

[fencipede]

I'm with you. On a regular stop, passengers are not required to identify themselves unless they are in violation of some law (no seatbelt, etc.).

[Raidergx]

Terry v. Ohio SCOUS says : In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.

He or she looked like the person you saw that was wanted?

The passenger was acting suspiciously?


If you ask for ID from someone you suspect nothing of and find narcotics, its up to the officer to show reasonable suspicion for the intrusion.

[Crimy]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1122.pdf

Not exactly what you were looking for but a more recent ruling that expands more of the terry frisk of passengers of a vehicle.

[iamacop]

Terry v. Ohio SCOUS says : In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.

He or she looked like the person you saw that was wanted?

The passenger was acting suspiciously?


If you ask for ID from someone you suspect nothing of and find narcotics, its up to the officer to show reasonable suspicion for the intrusion.

Terry deals with conducting a pat-down of an individual, not making passengers identify themselves. I can ASK anybody for identification for no reason at all. Whether they give it to me or not is a whole different story... I don't need to have reasonable suspicioun if I find narcotics and I had no reason to stop them. I can do consensual contacts all day and ask for identification, search, etc; I just can't demand unless I have atleast reasonable suspicioun to detain them....

[janego10]

A little off topic, but how do you all get the real identifying information from a person that failed to ID? We dont have any computerized fingerprint machines at our department so we go to the nearest Border Patrol station and run their prints through their database. I was just wondering how officers up in north Texas get that info.

[iamacop]

A little off topic, but how do you all get the real identifying information from a person that failed to ID? We dont have any computerized fingerprint machines at our department so we go to the nearest Border Patrol station and run their prints through their database. I was just wondering how officers up in north Texas get that info.

My department has AFIS, so it's just a matter of minutes after scanning their fingerprints. Our General Orders tells us if we can't confirm their identity, to take them em' and book them on whatever charge you stopped them for...

[TexasAggieOfc]

You can ID a witness. If it's a traffic stop, they were a witness to an offense

[iamacop]

You can ID a witness. If it's a traffic stop, they were a witness to an offense

Talking about pushing it. I'm sure there would be issues brought up if you identified one car full of thugs, and not every car with passengers.... Any thoughts?

[K9krazy21]

I don't know about you guys, but I would feel really really bad if I let someone slip through the cracks that had a warrant out for a violent offense and because I did not check his status.

Courts have upheld this over and over again, an officer can request identification of a passenger of a vehicle legally stopped, so long as it does not measurably extend the traffic stop..

I don't know about you guys, but I like being a police officer and I like using that little gut feeling I have on traffic stops. I have removed several several criminals from traffic stops in which they were passengers and had valid warrants.

Remember our training guys, we can have conversations with anyone we want too! I use my observations and training to the best of my ability and that includes talking to passengers in cars and watching there behavior.

We can have our disagreements sure, but lets remember what we do and that everyone we come into contact with is a potential cop killer and must be handled with a certain level of skepticism until they prove otherwise..

http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article28446.html..

[fencipede]

I don't know about you guys, but I would feel really really bad if I let someone slip through the cracks that had a warrant out for a violent offense and because I did not check his status.

He's not saying "Don't check passengers."

He's asking if passengers are required to ID themselves on a "regular" stop, i.e. a typical traffic violation with no other reason to suspect anything otherwise. (Yes, officer safety. Yes watch the hands. Yes, don't treat things as routine. Etc, etc, etc.) I ask passengers for ID all the time, but lots of times it's me asking because nothing stops me from asking, not because I have something on them.

[duckXD]

This is new stuff... I'm new at this, so this is definitely helping me learn.

Arizona v. Johnson
U.S. SC (2009)
For the duration of the traffic stop, we recently confirmed, a policer officer effectively seizes "everyone in the vehicle" the driver and all passengers (Brendin v. California, 551)

Accordingly, we hold that , in a traffic stop setting, the first Terry condition-- a lawful investigative stop-- is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity.

[K9krazy21]

duckXD, good find.. As I said in my post... This has been beat to death in almost every state.. A officer can request identification from any occupant in a vehicle..

Fencipede, If I ask someone for there I.D. and they reufse, this gives me reason to investigate further.. If they continue to refuse to identify themselves, it is a crime!!!!!

If passengers were't required to I.D. themselves when asked by a police officer on a traffic stop, all the criminals who have warrants would ride around all day long with no worries..

[K9krazy21]

Sir, I beg to differ!! It is a crime in Texas if your a passenger in a vehicle which has been legally stopped and you fail to identify yourself.. Remember, the driver, and all the occupants have been legally detained!!!

CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

[iamacop]

Sir, I beg to differ!! It is a crime in Texas if your a passenger in a vehicle which has been legally stopped and you fail to identify yourself.. Remember, the driver, and all the occupants have been legally detained!!!

CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

You're wrong dude, sorry to tell you that. The law specifically states that if they are legally detained and if they FALSIFY their information, then they take a ride. You can only arrest them for failure to identify if they refuse AFTER they are under ARREST. Example. You stop a guy for expired MVI. He says he isn't going to give you a license or identify himself. You then arrest him for either the original charge, or failure to display his license. After he is under arrest, then you can charge him for failure to identify (Refusal) if he continues to refuse...