School Me on ID

[trendar5]

The way it was explained to me, though I'm not sure I agree, and it will probably be tested in the courts at some point, is that passengers in a vehicle are detained during a traffic stop (Brendlin) and are therefore not free to leave. They are not, however, detained due to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but for officer safety purposes during the stop. Therefore you cannot compel a passenger (though you may ask) to provide identification without independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by the passenger.

This is right. The passengers can even give you a fake name and date of birth, because they do not legally have to ID themselves until they are under arrest for a crime. Thus, 148.9 PC does not apply, and you really can't arrest somebody for 148.9 alone. But it happens.

[meangreen46]

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.

I won't go into why you are wrong because Ron-Solo has already answered that. However, just because you're mad that LEOs can do certain things, don't come on here spewing lies. If you don't know, don't answer. Next time, I'll be a little more clear so people such as yourself will understand.(everybody else did....no idea why you didnt). I never said an LEO could approach you for no reason and take you in.

[SoCalDep]

This is right. The passengers can even give you a fake name and date of birth, because they do not legally have to ID themselves until they are under arrest for a crime. Thus, 148.9 PC does not apply, and you really can't arrest somebody for 148.9 alone. But it happens.

I don't know about that...Might make a good court case. The passenger is in fact legally detained, though administratively, and if his ID isn't compelled, then by providing false identification, particularly if there is court process (ie: a warrant in his real name, etc.) I'd hook him. Brendlin said he is seized (detained) but can argue the constitutionality of the stop. So the main two issues then would be is the stop constitutional and is the identification compelled outside the scope of Brendlin.

Interesting.

[Triad]

I am curious as to why you believe you can't arrest for 148.9 on its own merit, trenden?

[trendar5]

I am curious as to why you believe you can't arrest for 148.9 on its own merit, trenden?

Because, if you have a passenger detained because they are a passenger in a car during a car stop, they can't be compelled to identify themselves. They can be detained, i.e. movement controlled for officer safety, but not to identify them.

If I pull over a car, and a passenger refuses to identify himself, what can I arrest him for (so far)? Nothing. The same is true for 148.9 PC. You have to have the person detained for a crime, not for custodial reasons such as a car stop passenger, before they are attempting to avoid the jeopardy of prosecution by giving a false name. They are essentially like a consent contact that is not free to leave.

[trendar5]

I don't know about that...Might make a good court case. The passenger is in fact legally detained, though administratively, and if his ID isn't compelled, then by providing false identification, particularly if there is court process (ie: a warrant in his real name, etc.) I'd hook him. Brendlin said he is seized (detained) but can argue the constitutionality of the stop. So the main two issues then would be is the stop constitutional and is the identification compelled outside the scope of Brendlin.

Interesting.

Of course you wouldn't lose the warrant arrest, but you might poison some other discovery such as a gun or drugs on that person. If they are a passenger in a car, they are not compelled to give you any name, nor a real name, unless you have a fresh charge, and they try to avoid prosecution of that fresh charge by giving a false name. Even if they are trying to avoid prosecution for a warrant etc., your detention of that person as a passenger in a car stop does not compel them to I.D. Do I agree with it? Hell no! It is certainly some 9th circuit garbage, or very similar to 9th circuit.

If you knew the guy gave you a different name a month ago, and might have a warrant, but you can't remember his real name, then you might be in business.

[Samuelx]

I would think that, IF you knew (or found out) that the passenger was lying to you, you could go with 31 CVC...

[SoCalDep]

Of course you wouldn't lose the warrant arrest, but you might poison some other discovery such as a gun or drugs on that person. If they are a passenger in a car, they are not compelled to give you any name, nor a real name, unless you have a fresh charge, and they try to avoid prosecution of that fresh charge by giving a false name. Even if they are trying to avoid prosecution for a warrant etc., your detention of that person as a passenger in a car stop does not compel them to I.D. Do I agree with it? Hell no! It is certainly some 9th circuit garbage, or very similar to 9th circuit.

If you knew the guy gave you a different name a month ago, and might have a warrant, but you can't remember his real name, then you might be in business.

Do you happen to have the court case regarding this issue...I'm curious since I would think that as long as the ID isn't compelled, providing false ID to avoid court process or lawful identification fits the penal code. The court in Brendlin ruled they are detained (administratively, but legally...), so I see no issue. Of course, a court decision ruling otherwise would leave my opinion moot.

[Triad]

Because, if you have a passenger detained because they are a passenger in a car during a car stop, they can't be compelled to identify themselves. They can be detained, i.e. movement controlled for officer safety, but not to identify them.

If I pull over a car, and a passenger refuses to identify himself, what can I arrest him for (so far)? Nothing. The same is true for 148.9 PC. You have to have the person detained for a crime, not for custodial reasons such as a car stop passenger, before they are attempting to avoid the jeopardy of prosecution by giving a false name. They are essentially like a consent contact that is not free to leave.

Your original post read as if you meant it applied across the board, not when dealing with passengers. Which is why I asked.

[rdsr]

I call BS

The only time you are free to leave after that statement is after we have gone through the questioning. If you start off with that statement, it might change things a bit. Like I said before....you're better off just answering the questions and waiting (reasonable wait) until they say, "Have a nice day".

I'm no lawyer( I have stayed at a Holiday Inn though) But once your Papers are handed back to you, You are indead Free to go . You do not have to answer any of the officers questions.



Roy

[meangreen46]

I'm no lawyer( I have stayed at a Holiday Inn though) But once your Papers are handed back to you, You are indead Free to go . You do not have to answer any of the officers questions.



Roy

Negative....Just because the officer hands papers back to you is not an implied "You can go now." For some it may be their way of telling you you can go...for some the words, "You can go now" are good. For others, "See you later..drive safe." is the end all. I was simply saying that you're better off not being a prick to the cop and just waiting for one of the above statements to be said.

Ever heard of the phrase, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar".

[rdsr]

mg46, Thank you. What I was saying is after the return of the papers If the officer starts to question the driver, It is not inappropiate to Ask if you are free to leave and refuse to answer any further questions.







Roy

[meangreen46]

mg46, Thank you. What I was saying is after the return of the papers If the officer starts to question the driver, It is not inappropiate to Ask if you are free to leave and refuse to answer any further questions.

Roy

You did not. You said: "You are indead Free to go . You do not have to answer any of the officers questions." You are giving people wrong information. You are telling people that it's okay to go and refuse to answer more questions.

[Sniper3142]

Negative....Just because the officer hands papers back to you is not an implied "You can go now." For some it may be their way of telling you you can go...for some the words, "You can go now" are good. For others, "See you later..drive safe." is the end all. I was simply saying that you're better off not being a prick to the cop and just waiting for one of the above statements to be said.

Ever heard of the phrase, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar".

How does a person asking if they are free to leave equal being a prick to a cop?!?

[meangreen46]

How does a person asking if they are free to leave equal being a prick to a cop?!?

Look back at my previous posts and you'll find out. It's not about asking the question ....it's about WHEN people ask the question. My overall satement was to just let the cops do their jobs and you will be fine.