School Me on ID

[Mstrty]

There are many violations of the vehicle code that apply to passengers.

Is not providing ID from a non VC violating passenger illegal? That my question.
Driver complies but passenger does not want to surrender his 4th. Does he still posses his 4th and 5th amendment rights? Or am I still off on my assumption?

[Ron-Solo]

Bombmaster,

Simple failure to provide ID is not "illegal" in any traffic stop, driver or passenger, which the exception of the driver failing to present a drivers license. A temporary drivers license is valid for driving, but is not considered ID. 40302(a)CVC comes into play when getting cited for a violation and you can not adequately identify yourself for completion of the 'promise to appear' aka ticket. When you can't ID yourself, you are subject to arrest.

There is a separate violation for a driver to refuse to show his drivers license. I used it once when I stopped a guy for a moving violation. I could see his license in his wallet when he opened it up, but then he decided he wasn't going to show it to me to prove 'his point' or something. He wanted to 'show me' that I couldn't puss him around. I ended up arresting him, booking him, and got his ID during the booking search. His bail was only $250 but he couldn't raise it and spent the weekend in the pokey, going to court on Monday morning. I got off on time on a Friday night swing shift because I was in booking and didn't get assigned any more calls to hold me over. I guess he showed me.

There are too many variables in this type of situation to give you an answer that is going to hold up 100% of the time. That is what makes LE a difficult job and requires the amount of training that is required.

Nice avitar photo by the way....................makes me think...........ouch

[Mstrty]

Bombmaster,

Simple failure to provide ID is not "illegal" in any traffic stop, driver or passenger, which the exception of the driver failing to present a drivers license. A temporary drivers license is valid for driving, but is not considered ID. 40302(a)CVC comes into play when getting cited for a violation and you can not adequately identify yourself for completion of the 'promise to appear' aka ticket. When you can't ID yourself, you are subject to arrest.

I will put this one to rest and concur with you that it is in the best interest of the questioning citizen to provide ID.

That is what makes LE a difficult job and requires the amount of training that is required.

I thank you and your family for your service and sacrifices.

Bombmaster,
Nice avitar photo by the way....................makes me think...........ouch

Yea we did a similar photo the year before and it was published in Dirt Wheels. however no one believed it was me.

So went back to the same location the following year. we all stopped and took off our helmets for the photo. Everything went as planned until the front bumper hit the sand. Front brake quickly became ineffective at releasing the forward momentum. The bike hung there until I could no longer hold on and I slithered down the front of the bike.
Here is a video from the year prior of myself and by brother-in Law. He is the one crashing this time.
Stoppie Crash

[Samuelx]

In addition to 40302(a) CVC, I also use 853.6(i)(5) PC...

[Sniper3142]

One more time for clarification...

Unless you are operating a motor vehicle or any other vehicle that is subject to the CVC, you are not required to carry ID nor present any ID upon request or demand from any LEO.

Now we've had several LEOs mention that you need to identify yourself if you are suspected of committing a crime. They've also said that there are many violations a person can commit and not be aware of.

These are basically scare tactics.

If I'm alking down the street, haven't committed a crime, and a cop asks to see some ID, I do not need to provide any!

PERIOD!!

[Samuelx]

One more time for clarification...

Unless you are operating a motor vehicle or any other vehicle that is subject to the CVC, you are not required to carry ID nor present any ID upon request or demand from any LEO.

Now we've had several LEOs mention that you need to identify yourself if you are suspected of committing a crime. They've also said that there are many violations a person can commit and not be aware of.

These are basically scare tactics.

If I'm alking down the street, haven't committed a crime, and a cop asks to see some ID, I do not need to provide any!

PERIOD!!

whatever ::click::

[Ron-Solo]

One more time for clarification...

Unless you are operating a motor vehicle or any other vehicle that is subject to the CVC, you are not required to carry ID nor present any ID upon request or demand from any LEO.

Not 100% accurate

Now we've had several LEOs mention that you need to identify yourself if you are suspected of committing a crime. They've also said that there are many violations a person can commit and not be aware of.

These are basically scare tactics.

These are not scare tactics. For example, if you are a passenger in a car and are not wearing a seatbelt as required by California law, you are subject to being issued a citation. If you can not satisfactorily identify yourself at that time, you can be taken into custody per 40302(a)CVC.

If I'm alking down the street, haven't committed a crime, and a cop asks to see some ID, I do not need to provide any!

You may not know what you are being suspected of and may have committed a violation without realizing it. A little cooperation will always make the contact go smoother. While you may not be required to show ID, it will make the contact go smoother.

PERIOD!!

PERIOD??????? If you're going to give the "definitive answer" you might want to have your facts correct. Your 'advice' could result in someone taking an unnecessary trip to the pokey if they followed it.

[Falstaff]

Two California cases on point:

1) In Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) passengers are free to leave the stopped vehicle once the driver pulls over. But once the passenger begins to obey a cop's directives, he has given consent.

Ummm, How many cops are gonna stand idle after they pull someone over and the passenger just decides to get up and start walkin'? They are gonna say "GET BACK IN THE VEHICLE NOW"! How can that possibly be case law?

[SoCalDep]

Ummm, How many cops are gonna stand idle after they pull someone over and the passenger just decides to get up and start walkin'? They are gonna say "GET BACK IN THE VEHICLE NOW"! How can that possibly be case law?

It's not case law...The quote in your post is a misinterpretation of the ruling.

Per Brendlin, the passengers are seized (detained) and are not free to leave. If they try they are subject to arrest under 148PC. What this does mean, however, is since the passenger is detained and not free to leave, they have standing to argue the constitutionality of the stop under the exclusionary rule/fruit of the poisonous tree, etc...

[Triad]

I wish some of you guys were my beat partners.

[masameet]

It's not case law...The quote in your post is a misinterpretation of the ruling.

Per Brendlin, the passengers are seized (detained) and are not free to leave. If they try they are subject to arrest under 148PC. What this does mean, however, is since the passenger is detained and not free to leave, they have standing to argue the constitutionality of the stop under the exclusionary rule/fruit of the poisonous tree, etc...

Actually the SCOTUS wrote this in Brendlin (pp. 2-3):

[SoCalDep]

The court has also ruled that those big flashing lights would make a reasonable person feel they are not free to leave, thus constituting a detention upon the stop. Further, while there is no detention without submission (ie: there is no detention until the person running from you either gives up or is caught) that doesn't mean that 148PC doesn't apply. The passengers in a vehicle are NOT free to leave. If they try, they may be ordered to remain as part of the detention during the traffic stop. If they do in fact leave or try to leave after being told to stay they are arrestable.

Your original post stated:

"Two California cases on point:

1) In Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), the SCOTUS held that "[w]hen police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes." Because of the seizure, the passenger may challenge the stop’s constitutionality.

In short, supposedly passengers are free to leave the stopped vehicle once the driver pulls over. But once the passenger begins to obey a cop's directives, he has given consent to seizure and must comply, including providing identification. Nevertheless the passenger has not extinguished his right to contest legally the seizure."

This statement is the same as saying a driver in a vehicle may run from police causing a pursuit, because he isn't detained until he complies with the officer's orders. While he is indeed not detained during the pursuit, his failure to comply may result in criminal charges because his disobedience is a violation of law. The simple fact is passengers are subject to administrative detention during a traffic stop. They are not free to leave but cannot be compelled to provide identifications absent independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If they fail to obey orders to stay in the vehicle (or get out and remain) they are subject to arrest.

[meangreen46]

Here's one final thought for this ID issue. If you don't want to give up your ID and the officer has reason to ask for it, you can be held for up to 72 hours while they figure out who you are. If they find your ID on your person while being booked, guess what...Obstuction charges. The bottom line is....What's the big deal if you give up you identification? (please no amendment and rights speeches)

BTW - The officer doesn't have to tell you ahead of time why he is asking for your ID.

[AAShooter]

Magic words for you and your passengers if pulled over in a traffic stop:

"Am I being detained or am I free to leave?"

[IrishJoe3]

Magic words for you and your passengers if pulled over in a traffic stop:

"Am I being detained or am I free to leave?"

What's so magical about that?