School Me on ID

[meangreen46]

Despite the fact you didn't answer my question, let me try to address you scenerio.

First, my time (like yours) is valuable and I seldom don't have places to go so asking if I can go is reasonable. Next, if I ask the question and the officer tells me I am being detained, then I am yours. I will try to cooperate with a reasonable investigation. Third, I suspect you would retain my license as a minimum and maybe all my documentation until you were satisfied . . . just a guess.

I would be a lot more understanding if you explained the situation a bit.

I answered your question indirectly. The only question I saw in your post was, "Am I free to go at that point". My indirect answer was No.

When you are pulled over...You are DETAINED. The officer doesn't have to tell you you are being detained when he pulls you over. Wait until he says you're good to go. If you feel like asking after you have our stuff back...then ask.

(Sorry IrishJoe for hijakcing your question)

[AAShooter]

I answered your question indirectly. The only question I saw in your post was, "Am I free to go at that point". My indirect answer was No.

When you are pulled over...You are DETAINED. The officer doesn't have to tell you you are being detained when he pulls you over. Wait until he says you're good to go. If you feel like asking after you have our stuff back...then ask.

(Sorry IrishJoe for hijakcing your question)

I'd be happy to have an LEO's perspective on the scenerio. Thanks for the comments.

[meangreen46]

I'd be happy to have an LEO's perspective on the scenerio. Thanks for the comments.

You just got one..... Do you mean "another"?

[AAShooter]

You just got one..... Do you mean "another"?

Sure, be glad to get anyone's perspective--it is an open discussion. The intent of the post to say your response is great . . . although I wrote the scenario for IrishJoe, any LEO's (your) perspective is appreciated.

[biochembruin]

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

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

Make sure you state "I know my rights!" or "I know the law!" somewhere during the stop. Also, asking "Do you have a warrant?" helps.

If you have to ask if you're free to go, chances are you are not. The officer will make it abundantly clear when the detention is over.

[AAShooter]

Make sure you state "I know my rights!" or "I know the law!" somewhere during the stop. Also, asking "Do you have a warrant?" helps.

If you have to ask if you're free to go, chances are you are not. The officer will make it abundantly clear when the detention is over.

If I knew all that stuff I wouldn't be asking if I can go. It is pretty clear (although not always) with a traffic stop but in other encounters (accident investigations, neighborhood encounters, etc) when it is not always so clear.

[AAShooter]

Not sure this is of much interest to the LEO's but this article touches on some of the issues discussed:

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/DETENTIONS.pdf

And another:

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/detaining_witnesses.pdf

I find the Point of View is a pretty good read in general.

[Mstrty]

This discussion went from a non-CVC violating passenger to a driver with something to hide. I dont believe the driver carries the same rights while in the course of operating a vehicle. The passenger on the other hand has all sorts of right that are not surrendered just because it put a LEO at ease. This can make a cops job difficult, equally as difficult is living in a free society governed by laws in which a citizen must decide if riding in a car is worth waiving his rights, as some members have explained.

To any cop that pulls over a driver to a car im riding in. I will comply, I will wave my 4th Amendment right and comply. Sucks but Ill do it just for you.

Thank you for the work that you do, that I can not. Sincerely

[Samuelx]

Point of View is an excellent resource. I subscribe to it and forward much of that info to other LEOs.

[IrishJoe3]

Okay IrishJoe. I understand your point. If a respectfully asked question for information is "word games", I think you need to reconsider your perspective. Officers seldom make it explicit when you are detained and when you are not and use that to their advantage..

However

I am not suggesting you start off with that question as the officer approaches your vehicle but at some point, the question may be appropriate.

Make sure you state "I know my rights!" or "I know the law!" somewhere during the stop. Also, asking "Do you have a warrant?" helps.

LOL! Yeah, that always helps...

Bottom line is this....

If you go ask this question on the other side of this forum (Non Leo), you're gonna get a completely different answer. You'll get people telling you that the officer is robbing you of your childhood or something.

[masameet]

I was only answering the question narrowly.

As to my use of "supposedly," the qualifier was meant to encompass the various courts (including appeals court) that said passengers are essentially not guilty by association with a scofflaw driver.

Your use then of the analogy that a driver may not to stop after a LEO lights him up and instead opt for leading a chase is not fair (to use a word lol). Because on the one hand a LEO pulling over a driver assumes a violation has been made by the driver; a passenger, on the other hand, bears no guilt usually in the driver's moving violation but only in his association with the driver.

Obviously and from a historical perspective, LEOs tend to view passengers as they do scofflaw drivers -- with suspicion. Because passengers are just as likely to be the aggressors with firearms.

[masameet]

Here's an example of a passenger getting in trouble for being with a scofflaw driver:

A few months ago I saw on Hulu.com a recent COP! episode. Meant to link it to some other thread, I think, in the 2d Amendment forum, in a thread about stopped drivers being asked about carrying a loaded firearm.

This COPS! episode took place in Maricopa County, AZ. The LEO was a mid-20s deputy sheriff with an Hispanic surname. The video showed him pulling over a 1980s Chevy model vehicle, usually associated with gang bangers (like a Caprice), for failure to heed a stop sign. The driver's license came back as restricted. The driver acknowledged he was only supposed to drive to and from work and the local junior college. The deputy asked: Well, it's kinda late, isn't it? Like 11 p.m. So you're telling me you guys just came from the junior college?

Then he asked: You have a firearm in your car?

(In fact he asked this question several times.)

Both the driver and the passenger, his cousin, said: No.

They both wore tattoos and the passenger sported some around his neck. The driver and his cousin were both Americans with Hispanic surnames.

The deputy had the driver step out of the car and talked to him so more. Then when his backup arrived, he had the passenger step out of the car. He talked with him briefly and then went back to the driver, telling him he was arresting him for not adhering to the restrictions on his license. Then one of the backup deputies called the first deputy's attention.

The passenger had consented to a search and during the pat-down a Buck Mark .22LR semi-automatic was pulled from the front pocket of his shorts.

It's not mine! he said. It's the driver's. He asked me to hold it for him (after you pulled us over).

Needless to say, both men were arrested.

Now my memory of this video is admittedly most likely missing some details. But that's the gist of the video: The deputy stopped a violator, who turned out to be on a restricted license. And was lying. And his friend was lying too. And then they had a loaded handgun between them.

I think this was a good stop. Most likely the loaded handgun will survive suppression. The passenger never questioned the deputy's seizure of his person and consented to a search. But IANAL or LEO and am merely guessing.

[Sniper3142]

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.

That might fly for a driver during vehicle stop (and maybe even any passengers) but it DOES NOT apply to someone stopped while walking anywhere!

If I'm just walking along (and not committing any crime) and a cop attempts to stop me and demand ID, I do not have to have nor provide any. Nor would I be violating any PC by not having or presenting ID (so I would not be held for 72 minutes, let alone 72 hours).

And don't try that "you may have commited a crime you're not aware of" stuff. That seems to be the classic response in this thread and I find it offensive. It like saying a cop can "find something to arrest anyone for if they want"; which is a clear abuse of power IMHO.

[jtmkinsd]

And how often does LE just wander up to somebody walking down the street and ask for ID??? lol

[Ron-Solo]

That might fly for a driver during vehicle stop (and maybe even any passengers) but it DOES NOT apply to someone stopped while walking anywhere!

If I'm just walking along (and not committing any crime) and a cop attempts to stop me and demand ID, I do not have to have nor provide any. Nor would I be violating any PC by not having or presenting ID (so I would not be held for 72 minutes, let alone 72 hours).

And don't try that "you may have commited a crime you're not aware of" stuff. That seems to be the classic response in this thread and I find it offensive. It like saying a cop can "find something to arrest anyone for if they want"; which is a clear abuse of power IMHO.

Sorry, but you are misinformed, making you only partially correct. If you are walking and commit a violation of the law, I'll use jaywalking as a example, and you do not have ID, you CAN be arrested.

A pedestrain who has not committed a violation, does not need ID. If you are suspected of a more serious crime, you can be held for 72 hours before charges must be filed. The news commonly refers to it as being arrested for "suspicion" of something. In LE, we refer to it as a 'reasonable cause' arrest pursuant to 836 PC. This can go for matching the description of someone wanted in connection to a crime. In that case, providing identification may clear you on the spot and you would be on your way without further delay.

It's your call. Show me ID or not. I don't really care. It's not personal, but don't get upset when the cuffs come out because I'm doing what the law allows and sometimes requires.

And your last paragraph, in my opinion, is inappropriate.