passenger in a vehicle ? leo only please

[bones srt-4]

my friend was riding with his dad when he got pulled over one day. the leo came up to the window and asked for the drivers license and reg. then asked for my friends id. he asked "why do you need to see mine?" and the leo responded with "because i said so!" my friend just stared at him and the leo asked if my friend had a problem. my friend gave him his id. they were pulled over for not having a front plate.
my question is this. do you have to show your id when you are a passenger in a vehicle that is being pulled over ?

thanks

ps he's not some kid either, he is 45.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

depends on the jurisdiction.

Nevada, for instance, only requires the driver of a vehicle stopped for a violation to show a valid driver's license. A passenger can only be compelled if the officer has RS to believe the passenger committed a crime of violation. And then the passenger would only be required to identify him/herself to the officer.

The officer can ask for identification from anyone inside the vehicle.

 

[bones srt-4]

this happened in joplin ,mo.

 

[Iceman II]

depends on the jurisdiction.

Nevada, for instance, only requires the driver of a vehicle stopped for a violation to show a valid driver's license. A passenger can only be compelled if the officer has RS to believe the passenger committed a crime of violation. And then the passenger would only be required to identify him/herself to the officer.

The officer can ask for identification from anyone inside the vehicle.

This is the case here in Texas

 

[Lawfficer]

Depends on Jurisdiction. Here in WI;


a passenger does NOT have to identify themselves unless there is a reason to force the identification. For example, if the passenger is unbelted, or throws a cigarette butt out the window, etc.

Further, you do not have to identify yourself with Gov't ID. The supreme court has said numerous times via rulings (or refusing to take case) that they don't want us to have to present "papers" like Nazi Germany if we are doing nothing wrong. If you are driving a car, you need to have ID when stopped as you are using a privilage given to you by the state. A passenger, with or without violation, can simply give name and date of birth.


No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or
her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey,
194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

 

[bones srt-4]

thank you, lawfficer.

 

[Gravik]

So if you're the passenger, don't have your ID on you, and officer asks for it, do you as the passenger get a ticket or something?

 

[EvergreenSVT]

OP please open this up for non LE so I can post the case I sent you in PMs.

 

[bones srt-4]

opened up for all to discuss.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Missouri has a stop and identify law that is only valid in KC and STL. A person detained on RS of a crime may be compelled to give identifying information but does not have to give documentation. In Joplin there is no stop and identify law. It is possible that the passenger may have been compelled to identify himself as a witness in an investigation but I don't know to what extent documents must be presented in that case.

There is a case (OP it's in the IM I sent you but I can't find a sent messages box) from the 8th circuit of a similar case where a passenger was compelled to provide ID and was subsequently arrested. The court ruled that the compulsion was unlawful and suppressed the evidence/testimony.

I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice but it looks to me like this was unlawful.

 

[bones srt-4]

thank you, evergreensvt.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

The linked USSC Decision is also very relevant to the OP's question.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty. - 03-5554 (2004) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Hiibel is distinguishable from this case because the passenger in the OP was not detained. Also, even in Hiibel the identification could have been verbal rather than via documentation.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Hiibel is distinguishable from this case because the passenger in the OP was not detained. Also, even in Hiibel the identification could have been verbal rather than via documentation.

In Hiibel, verbal identification is sufficient based on the specific wording of the particular Nevada Revised Statute. Other states may be different, depending on their individual laws. Hiibel does define the limitations placed on law enforcement though in regards to when an individual can be compelled to identify his/her self to authorities. So there is relevance here.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

You know normally Im one of those that dont want the cops to have too much power or them to over enforce but I dont see a problem with providing an ID. Hell it should be manditory for all US citizens to carry an ID that way we can start catching the illegals and criminals and deport/arrest them.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

In Hiibel, verbal identification is sufficient based on the specific wording of the particular Nevada Revised Statute. Other states may be different, depending on their individual laws. Hiibel does define the limitations placed on law enforcement though in regards to when an individual can be compelled to identify his/her self to authorities. So there is relevance here.

A quick review on google and I couldn't find any state that required documentation for someone who wasn't detained while sound something that required a license. The issue of course hasn't been addressed by the court. in any case unless the passenger in question was detained for an investigation and we weren't told in the OP, I don't see how it could be allowable.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

A quick review on google and I couldn't find any state that required documentation for someone who wasn't detained while sound something that required a license. The issue of course hasn't been addressed by the court. in any case unless the passenger in question was detained for an investigation and we weren't told in the OP, I don't see how it could be allowable.

Im pretty sure there is a federal law that states you have to give your indentity.

 

[Shepp1691]

In Ohio you only have to produce id if you have done something wrong, like no seat belt.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Im pretty sure there is a federal law that states you have to give your indentity.

None which I am aware of.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

None which I am aware of.

Oh ok, well maybe not then. I cant remember the source, it may have been a state law.