CA not a must ID

[Gymtech]

I really have a lot of respect for people who know the law and stand there ground refusing to ID if they haven't broken any laws...
I watch a lot of videos that shows people doing government audits.
A lot of time the police are called.
I bet none of them must be CCW holders...As CCW holders we are required to report any formal contract with law enforcement..
Can we refuse to ID when carrying as a passenger or haven't broken any law... I seem to many videos of cops handcuffing people because they don't understand the the ID law
Cops always ask if any one is carrying a weapon during a traffic stop... That's why I always drive. Not every one knows I carry....
Is refusing to ID worth the risk of losing our CCW...Even if you win in court it may be used against you

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

If a cop pulls a person over for a moving violation it is between the officer and the driver. So no, they can't ID the passenger. BUT there are many reasons they can ID the passenger so don't just assume you are immune during a traffic stop.

[G-forceJunkie]

BUT there are many reasons they can ID the passenger so don't just assume you are immune during a traffic stop.

Please list all of those reasons.

[Preston-CLB]

If an LEO asks if there are weapons in the vehicle, I take that to mean by any person in the vehicle whether concealed or locked in a container.

The occupants have two choices as to how to answer...

Lie, and say 'No'.
Be truthful and say 'Yes'.

If you are a CCW, whether passenger or not and your IA requires you to say so and you lie, you will likely lose your permit.

In my opinion, it's best to just say, "Yes", and follow any subsequent commands. You don't want things to go sideways.
-P

[FreshTapCoke]

My IA says you have to disclose CCW license (even when unarmed) whenever you have contact with an officer.

It’s easy to argue I don’t have to show them my CCW ID when I say hello to an officer at the coffee shop, but if one directly asks to see my ID, it’d be hard to argue that’s not contact.

[M1NM]

If a cop stops you and you have a CCW & a gun tell him. The consequences of him seeing an armed person in a car he just stopped would probably turn it into a felony stop with you spread eagle in the middle of the street.

[RickD427]

If a cop stops you and you have a CCW & a gun tell him. The consequences of him seeing an armed person in a car he just stopped would probably turn it into a felony stop with you spread eagle in the middle of the street.

Also, please see Post #15 in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=817002

[riderr]

How does the driver know if the passenger carries concealed? The driver is not responsible for the actions of another adult in the car.
At the same time, the passenger is basically a bystander, not detained, free to go, should not be questioned by the officer, if it's a simple traffic stop. Yet, the officer can ask the passenger to ID him/herself. In this situation, if the IA put a provision on LTC (like Orange County), the passenger's choices are limited. It either yes, or a potential problem with IA. However, if there is no provision on LTC, the passenger is NOT obligated to verbally identify himself, then refuse to answer questions.

No?

Upd. Checked the lawyers' opinions. Apparently, even verbal identification is not legally required. The response is updated.

[CSACANNONEER]

I really have a lot of respect for people who know the law and stand there ground refusing to ID if they haven't broken any laws...
I watch a lot of videos that shows people doing government audits.
A lot of time the police are called.
I bet none of them must be CCW holders...As CCW holders we are required to report any formal contract with law enforcement..
Can we refuse to ID when carrying as a passenger or haven't broken any law... I seem to many videos of cops handcuffing people because they don't understand the the ID law
Cops always ask if any one is carrying a weapon during a traffic stop... That's why I always drive. Not every one knows I carry....
Is refusing to ID worth the risk of losing our CCW...Even if you win in court it may be used against you

Huh? Sorry, you're wrong. YOU may be required to do so by your IA but, there is no law or blanket policy in CA which requires all of us to do so.

You do NOT give up your 4th amendment right when you have a CA LTC so, unless certain conditions are met, you have no legal obligation to give LE (or anyone else) your ID if you're not the driver in a traffic stop. Each situation is different, only YOU will be able to decide what is best for you at that moment. Personally, I normally inform LE that I'm carrying but, I do reserve the right to not tell them if I feel it's prudent and I'm not violating my IA's policies.

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

Please list all of those reasons.

Too many to list. About anything they can make up.

"We smell weed in the car"

"Our canine got a hit on your car"

"We saw you throw something out the window"

"You fit the description of someone we are looking for"

I'm not saying it is legal or right. I'm just saying they do it.

[Quiet]

Can we refuse to ID when carrying as a passenger or haven't broken any law... I seem to many videos of cops handcuffing people because they don't understand the the ID law

AFAIK...
Due to SCOTUS rulings [Pennsylvania v Mimms (1977) and Terry v Ohio (1968)], it is legal for a LEO to demand identification from a passenger of a vehicle and demand that the passenger exit the vehicle for search/identification purposes, failure to comply can result in a legal arrest for obstruction of justice.

[CSACANNONEER]

AFAIK...
Due to SCOTUS rulings [Pennsylvania v Mimms (1977) and Terry v Ohio (1968)], it is legal for a LEO to demand identification from a passenger of a vehicle and demand that the passenger exit the vehicle for search/identification purposes, failure to comply can result in a legal arrest for obstruction of justice.

I could be wrong but, I don't think either Mimms or Terry rulings support the idea that a LEO can ID passengers simply because they are riding in a vehicle. Yes, they can do a Terry search (outside clothing) but not demand ID without cause. If I am wrong, PLEASE correct me.

[RickD427]

I could be wrong but, I don't think either Mimms or Terry rulings support the idea that a LEO can ID passengers simply because they are riding in a vehicle. Yes, they can do a Terry search (outside clothing) but not demand ID without cause. If I am wrong, PLEASE correct me.

I don't think that you're wrong. Terry set standards for investigative detentions, but did not address a demand for ID. Mimms addressed the ability of LEOs to extract a vehicle's driver from the vehicle during a routine stop. The duty of a driver to ID themselves was well established at the time of Mimms and was not addressed in that case.

The closest case on the point that I'm aware of was the California Court of Appeals decision in People v Vibanco. In that case the court held that the passenger in a vehicle that has been lawfully stopped is lawfully detained as a consequence of the stop. The court upheld the authority of the LEOs to request identification. The decision "waffles" a bit on whether the passenger was required to provide ID. In that case Vibanco voluntarily provided a phony ID and was subsequently arrested and charged.

[pacrat]

https://youtu.be/0HIe-vnBsO0

Earlier this year. An Alameda Ca. County Deputy agreed with Mr Quiet. It cost Alameda Cnty taxpayers $8.25 million dollars.

Deputy used [refusal to id] as the probable cause for the arrest.

[DolphinFan]

In California you have the Inalienable Right of PRIVACY.
What is superior?
Your inalienable Right in Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution is superior to ANY state law and/or municipal policy.
And you don?t require government permission to exercise ANY right.