legal question

[copperwindow]

If I'm driving and a cop pulls me over and asks me and everyone else in the car for ID, does everyone else in the car have to provide ID?

[silenus]

Yes.


IANAL, etc.

[Kat]

Actually, that cite doesn't say the guy needed to produce ID, just that he needed to identify himself. In fact, it specifically says he didn't need to produce ID.

the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

[Chronos]

If I'm reading that right, everyone is required to identify themselves, but they are not required to produce a driver's license or other documentation. So just "I'm John Smith" would suffice.

[Kat]

I won.

[gonzomax]

A friend of mine got pulled over for a LEGAL uturn. While they were checking his info his partner went up to my window and asked to see my license and registration. I explained I was not driving and was not going to show him anything. he ripped the door open and screamed telling me to get out. Then got in my face and threatened me. His partner grabbed me and pulled me to the side. Said do you have anything to hide. I said no I just do not like giving away my rights. He told me his partner would pound me on the head with a flashlight , do I want to show him my stuff. reluctantly I did. I just want to be left alone by the cops. Got a reason stop me. No reason ,leave me alone.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Kat

Actually, that cite doesn't say the guy needed to produce ID, just that he needed to identify himself. In fact, it specifically says he didn't need to produce ID.

However, while the Nevada statute in question didn't require production of identification, several states have now passed laws that do require you produce identification upon request, and the rationale of the Hiibel decision would not be inapplicable to such statutes.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

A friend of mine got pulled over for a LEGAL uturn. While they were checking his info his partner went up to my window and asked to see my license and registration. I explained I was not driving and was not going to show him anything. he ripped the door open and screamed telling me to get out. Then got in my face and threatened me. His partner grabbed me and pulled me to the side. Said do you have anything to hide. I said no I just do not like giving away my rights. He told me his partner would pound me on the head with a flashlight , do I want to show him my stuff. reluctantly I did. I just want to be left alone by the cops. Got a reason stop me. No reason ,leave me alone.

With respect, if he managed a legal Uturn, then he wasn't pulled over for that. He may have thought the Uturn was legal, and it wasn't, or he may have been stopped for some other reason.

I have my doubts about the rest of the story, though admittedly poor policing occurs (as witness the recent arrest of the woman who was trying to get to see her father in the hospital with the heart attack).

[Kat]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

However, while the Nevada statute in question didn't require production of identification, several states have now passed laws that do require you produce identification upon request, and the rationale of the Hiibel decision would not be inapplicable to such statutes.

But the rationale of other decisions would also be applicable, especially

The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations [...] in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. [...] This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name.

It specifically differentiates the Nevada statute from the previously invalidated California statute, because of the requirement to only state a name vs producing ID.

[DrDeth]

Well, perhaps legally you may not have to. But in reality, you really should, because if the police want to they can fuck you over very badly.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Kat

But the rationale of other decisions would also be applicable, especially



It specifically differentiates the Nevada statute from the previously invalidated California statute, because of the requirement to only state a name vs producing ID.

NO.

In Kolender, the Court determined that the law's requirement to provide "credible and reliable" identification was unconstitutionally vague. In otherwords, a person could not reasonably determine by looking at that phrase what would be expected of them to avoid criminality. It also allowed the police too much leeway in engaging in impermissible activity, by refusing to accept any particular type of identification, on the basis that it wasn't "credible and reliable."

So, if a statute was written to require that you provide a valid driver's license upon request, even if not driving, if you have one, then the rationale in Hiibel would establish this was constitutional. The initial Terry stop being valid, a request for a specific form of identification would not be vague, so broad and undefined as to allow an officer unfettered discretion on whether or not to charge someone with violation of the statute.

While the opinion in Hiibel did talk tangentially about the fact that Nevada hadn't interpreted the statute as requiring production of a specific form of identification, that mention was clearly obiter dicta, language unecessary to the holding and not part of the case being decided. It is, therefore, of very little importance, just as little importance as the language in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984), on which Hiibel based much of his arguments, stating that a person involved in a Terry stop did not have to answer any questions from the officer making the stop. The Court correctly noted that that language was dicta as well.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Well, perhaps legally you may not have to. But in reality, you really should, because if the police want to they can fuck you over very badly.

This sort of statement is beneath contempt. Police officers as a whole do not misbehave. There are occasional exceptions, but it is stupid to base your actions on the possibility that you are dealing with a "bad" officer. And acting like the police are inherently "bad" is doing our officers a disservice in the extreme.

If you have a constitutional right that the officer is asking you to waive, politely decline to do so, unless there is a very substantial reason to waive the right (such as, for example, talking when you don't have to in order to obtain a plea bargain). And even THEN, do so only with competent legal advice.

[A.R. Cane]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

This sort of statement is beneath contempt. Police officers as a whole do not misbehave. There are occasional exceptions, but it is stupid to base your actions on the possibility that you are dealing with a "bad" officer. And acting like the police are inherently "bad" is doing our officers a disservice in the extreme.

If you have a constitutional right that the officer is asking you to waive, politely decline to do so, unless there is a very substantial reason to waive the right (such as, for example, talking when you don't have to in order to obtain a plea bargain). And even THEN, do so only with competent legal advice.

I think the reality of the situation lies somewhere between your characterization and DrDeth's. Police officers are obviously trained to maintain control in all confrontations w/ the public during the course of their job. This training seems to have become somewhat standardized over the years and often includes certain psychological, and physical, tactics which may, and often do, come across as offensive and unwarranted to the average citizen not accustomed to dealing w/ the police. I'm a bit tired of these instances where the police use excessive physical, or even lethal, force and then justify it by saying they had to do it for their own protection.
I think it's a quite normal reaction to question why your being challenged and perhaps even being ordered forcfully to comply w/ an order that is unanticipated and, very possibly, unwarranted. Unfortunately this often becomes a reason, in the minds of police officers, to assume that you're uncooperative and possibly even resisting arrest, which then becomes an excuse to use physical tactics to "subdue" you.
When I was a young man, in the late 50's and 60's, police officers managed to command respect and do their jobs w/o being nearly as confrontational as they are today. I think this change in attitude began in the late 60's as a slow but steadily growing response to the Miranda decision and other judicial decrees that addressed individual civil rights. Kind of an, 'OK, you want us to follow the letter of the law? We'll show you just what that means.' I believe this thinking has become ingrained in police hierarchy and the attitude that it has fostered has only solidified the "Them against us" mentality that is prevalent in police organizations across this country. I think some political and police officials recognize this and have tried to ameliorate the situation w/ ideas such as 'community policing'. Unfortunately it seems to be too little, too late, in most cases. Certainly most officers are trying to do their job as professionally as possible and the ones who consistantly abuse their authority are the exception, but there is too big a gap between the average citizen and the typical officer and we must strive to narrow that gap, for the protection of both groups.

[samclem]

Moderator steps in.

If posters would remember that they are in General Questions, trying to answer the OP, that would be a good thing.

IF you have a problem with the way you perceive the police do their jobs today, start another thread in a different forum.

samclem GQ moderator

[A.R. Cane]

Originally Posted by samclem

Moderator steps in.

If posters would remember that they are in General Questions, trying to answer the OP, that would be a good thing.

IF you have a problem with the way you perceive the police do their jobs today, start another thread in a different forum.

samclem GQ moderator

Sorry, I did, in fact, forget that this was GQ.

[LinusK]

Originally Posted by copperwindow

If I'm driving and a cop pulls me over and asks me and everyone else in the car for ID, does everyone else in the car have to provide ID?

The circumstances under which it's a crime to refuse to identify yourself are defined under state - not federal law - and therefore depend on the laws of your state.

In my state (Texas) for example, it's a crime only if you've been lawfully arrested.

I don't believe it's a crime to refuse to ID in any state, under the circumstances you've described.

Having said that, it's retarded to refuse to tell the police who you are, if they ask. It's not private information, and it's not something to be ashamed of. (Plus, the police are likely to think you're refusing because you've got a warrant, and you'll spend a lot more time sitting on the side of the road than you had to.)

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

This sort of statement is beneath contempt. Police officers as a whole do not misbehave. There are occasional exceptions, but it is stupid to base your actions on the possibility that you are dealing with a "bad" officer. And acting like the police are inherently "bad" is doing our officers a disservice in the extreme.

If you have a constitutional right that the officer is asking you to waive, politely decline to do so, unless there is a very substantial reason to waive the right (such as, for example, talking when you don't have to in order to obtain a plea bargain). And even THEN, do so only with competent legal advice.

A Police Officer does not nessesarily have to be "bad" for this. The whole bit about refusing to ID yourself has been bandied about in the Courts. Perhaps the Officer really thinks you do have to ID yourself in this situation. Your refusal, plus then you getting angry as the officer arrests you, could lead to charges of Resisting Arrest. That is a night in Jail, plus bail, plus perhaps your car being impounded, and lawyers fees- even if you get off scot free. Could cost you several thousand dollars and a very uncomfortable experience. That is what I meant by "fuck you over very badly". And that is a decent cop who perhaps is just a tiny bit overzealous or badge-heavy, not a "bad" cop at all. Now, really BAD cops could beat you up a bit or plant evidence- both unlikely but not impossible. As you have proved right here.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

A Police Officer does not nessesarily have to be "bad" for this. The whole bit about refusing to ID yourself has been bandied about in the Courts. Perhaps the Officer really thinks you do have to ID yourself in this situation. Your refusal, plus then you getting angry as the officer arrests you, could lead to charges of Resisting Arrest. That is a night in Jail, plus bail, plus perhaps your car being impounded, and lawyers fees- even if you get off scot free. Could cost you several thousand dollars and a very uncomfortable experience. That is what I meant by "fuck you over very badly". And that is a decent cop who perhaps is just a tiny bit overzealous or badge-heavy, not a "bad" cop at all. Now, really BAD cops could beat you up a bit or plant evidence- both unlikely but not impossible. As you have proved right here.

I've bolded the part of this statement that makes it clear it isn't the officer wanting to do anything at all to you that gets you in trouble.

If you live in a state with a law requiring production of identification, the correct behavior is to produce identification, or be willing to submit to the consequences of a refusal. In any case, you should do so politely. But you should not do something you are not legally required to do merely on the worry that the police officer will "fuck you over badly." And let's let that be the last word on that, per the post from samclem above, ok? (yours and mine are at least tangentially related to the question asked, but from now on, it would be a debate about police procedures)