Jan 22 2019

9th Circuit: Passengers in a car don’t have to identify themselves

Passengers in a car stopped by police don’t have to identify themselves, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That holds even in a state with a “stop and identify” law, and even if the initial stop of the car (for a traffic violation committed by the driver) was legal.

The opinion by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit earlier this month in US v. Landeros is one of the most significant decisions to date interpreting and applying the widely-misunderstood 2004 US Supreme Court decision in Hiibel v. Nevada.

Many police think that the Hiibel decision upheld the Constitutionality of requiring anyone stopped by police to show ID. But that’s not what the Supreme Court actually said.

The 9th Circuit panel that decided US v. Landeros read the Hiibel decision carefully and correctly, and gave important and explicit guidance on the narrowness of its findings and what it actually means for people who are stopped and asked for ID by police.

What does this mean for you, especially when or if you are in the 9th Circuit or want to raise the 9th Circuit’s latest decision as persuasive authority in another circuit?

The facts in US v. Landeros (for purposes of the opinion) were that Mr. Landeros was one of the passengers in a car stopped by police for speeding on a road in Arizona. The stop was legal,  as was the demand for the driver’s license to drive, but what happened next was not:

Officer Baker, in his own words, “commanded” Landeros to provide identification. Later, Officer Baker explained it was “standard for [law enforcement] to identify everybody in the vehicle.” Landeros refused to identify himself, and informed Officer Baker — correctly, as we shall explain — that he was not required to do so. Officer Baker then repeated his “demand[] to see [Landeros’s] ID.” Landeros again refused. As a result, Officer Baker called for back-up, prolonging the stop. Officer Frank Romero then arrived, and he too asked for Landeros’s identification. The two officers also repeatedly “commanded” Landeros to exit the car because he was not being “compliant.”

When Mr. Landeros stood on his rights (sat, to be more precise):

Landeros was arrested … for “failure to provide his true full name and refusal to comply with directions of police officers.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13- 2412(A) (“It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person’s refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person’s true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.”); id. § 28- 622(A) (“A person shall not willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.”).

These Arizona laws are similar, as the 9th Circuit panel noted, to the Nevada laws at issue in Hiibel.

After concluding that, “A demand for a passenger’s identification is not part of the mission of a traffic stop…. The identity of a passenger… will ordinarily have no relation to a driver’s safe operation of a vehicle,” the 9th Circuit panel proceeded to the government’s other rationales for demanding that passengers identify themselves, and for arresting them if they decline to do so:

Arizona Law provides that “[a] person shall not willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-622(A). The question that remains, then, is whether law enforcement could lawfully order Landeros to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offense.

To answer this question, the 9th Circuit looked at both the Supreme Court’s decision in Hiibel and at earlier Supreme Court precedents left unaffected by the Hiibel decision:

In its opinion, the Court distinguished the circumstances of Hiibel’s arrest from those of an earlier case, Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47 (1979). Brown overturned a conviction under a Texas “stop and identify” law similar to that at issue in Hiibel . Id . at 49–50. Unlike Hiibel, Brown was stopped, detained, and interrogated about his identity even though there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed any offense. Id . at 51–52; see also Hiibel , 542 U.S. at 184 (discussing Brown ). Brown held squarely that law enforcement may not require a person to furnish identification if not reasonably suspected of any criminal conduct. Brown , 443 U.S. at 52–53. In short, Brown holds that an officer may not lawfully order a person to identify herself absent particularized suspicion that she has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal activity, and Hiibel does not hold to the contrary.

Since the demand for identification was illegal, so was the continued detention:

As explained above, the officers insisted several times that Landeros identify himself after he initially refused, and detained him while making those demands. At the time they did so, the officers had no reasonable suspicion that Landeros had committed an offense. Accordingly, the police could not lawfully order him to identify himself. His repeated refusal to do so thus did not, as the government claims, constitute a failure to comply with an officer’s lawful order, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28- 622(A). There was therefore no justification for the extension of the detention to allow the officers to press Landeros further for his identity.

The court explicitly distinguished a “request” for ID from a “demand”, and rejected the government’s invitation to infer approval for demands (or sanctions for saying “No” or standing mute in response to them) from precedents upholding consensual searches:

The government repeatedly notes that this court’s precedent permits police to “ask people [including passengers in cars] who have legitimately been stopped for identification without conducting a Fourth Amendment search or seizure.” United States v. Diaz-Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). But we need not resolve whether that precedent remains valid…. Regardless of whether the first request for Landeros’s identification was lawful, law enforcement’s refusal to take “no” for an answer was not. Diaz-Castaneda does not suggest otherwise.

The court also rejected the circular reasoning in the government’s effort to “bootstrap” refusal to comply with a demand for ID into a violation justifying that demand for ID :

The government also contends that Landeros’s refusal to identify himself “provided reasonable suspicion of the additional offenses of failure to provide identification and failure to comply with law enforcement orders.” Arizona law provides: “It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person’s refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person’s true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13 -2412(A). By the plain text of the statute, Landeros could not have violated Section 13- 2412 because, as already explained, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion, at the time they initially insisted he identify himself, that Landeros had committed, was committing, or was about to commit any crimes.

Where does this leave the law in the 9th Circuit with respect to a demand for ID made by police to a person who isn’t operating a motor vehicle that requires a driver’s license?

If, and only if:

  1. You are in a state such as Arizona or Nevada that has a “stop and identify” law (California, the largest state in in the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, has no such law); and
  2. You have been legally stopped on reasonable suspicion of some crime other than failure to identify yourself or show ID; and
  3. The demand for ID is either “(1) part of the stop’s ‘mission’ or (2) supported by independent reasonable suspicion” of the commission of some other crime;

Then you can be required to verbally identify yourself to police (“My name is Jane Doe”).

It’s important to note that neither the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada, nor the 9th Circuit in US v.  Landeros, reached the question of when, if ever, a pedestrian or passenger in a car, as distinct from a driver required to have a license to operate a motor vehicle, can be required to show ID, even if they happen to have an ID card or other evidence of identity on their person or in their possession.
As the 9th Circuit noted of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hiibel:
The Court did not mention that the officer’s request for “identification,” which it understood as “a request to produce a driver’s license or some other form of written identification,” id. at 181, demanded more than state law required Hiibel to provide.
We supported Dudley Hiibel, and we continue to think that Hiibel v. Nevada was wrongly decided. But we welcome the 9th Circuit’s recognition of the Hiibel decision’s limits.
[Update: This post has proven popular, and we’ve been asked about the law on this issue in other circuits. We think the law is clearly established nationwide by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hiibel v. Nevada. But for a similar decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals with a similar outcome, see Johnson v. Thibodaux City, 887 F.3d 726 (5th Cir. 2018). If readers come across cases on this issue in other circuits, please post them in the comments.]

52 thoughts on “9th Circuit: Passengers in a car don’t have to identify themselves

  1. Pingback: Black California Man Awarded $60K Settlement Following Arrest for Refusing to Give His Name During Police Traffic Stop

  2. Pingback: Black California Man Awarded $60K Settlement Following Arrest for Refusing to Give His Name During Police Traffic Stop – CONTEXT19.COM

  3. You do not have to provide ID to an officer just because he requests it when you are just a passenger in a car that is stopped for a traffic violation.

  4. My concern is if you are a passenger and,refuse, you are giving the officer more,reason to search or continue to ask questions..it is not right for an officer to get upset and want to make his position known by making a small situation bigger…

  5. There are big problems here. When people know their rights and refuse unlawful orders many police officers let their emotions decide their next actions. Everything that happens after that unlawful order and the pursuant situation is the fault of no one but the officer. The escalation happens because of an officer that cannot separate their emotions from the oath they have sworn and in many cases, the officer will blame the individual that is only standing up for their personal rights and liberty. It is unfortunate that this is such a big problem, but video record every interaction with police officers. They can tell any lie to get information from you to try and find a crime to charge you with which means you cannot trust any of them. They are fully protected by the government in lying to citizens to extract any information that supports building a case against you. Politely decline unlawful orders and do not talk beyond that. Officers have, will, and do let their emotions run unchecked when someone defies their unlawful orders and they will intentionally look for more charges to give you even if those charges are that officers’ word only and nothing else. Be careful out there and I hope more people are understanding the police state that has taken hold of law enforcement in this country.

    Be respectful to those that respect you. Wish no ill will on others. Do your best to be polite. The training these officers are given has direct conflicts with individual rights and liberties. A lot of officers are probably good people, but when training takes over they are like robots. They believe they are doing what’s right and making the world a better place. Until they start questioning their own behaviors and training this will not change. Until they realize that stacking charges on a person for standing up for their individual rights, people that are trying to put food on the table for their families and keep a roof over their head, that this is not only wrong but can severely hurt innocent people and rises to the level of terrorism by its very definition. Wives, husbands, and God forbid children. Police officers that do this to people and don’t question what they’re doing have become everything they claim to stand against.

  6. The internet is FULL of videos of cops abusing their authority. People do not sue as often as they should fir two reasons:
    1- it’s often difficult to find an attorney, in the area, who will take their case. You have to go outside, sometimes to another state, to find an attorney to take the case. Lawyers are afriad to “bite the hand that feeds them”, AND don’t want to piss off their judge friends.
    2- it ALWAYS costs $$$ to file lawsuits. A person living paycheck to paycheck more than likely cannot “find” the $$$ it takes to file a lawsuit. So, most citizenry take it up the wazoo and keep on moving with a huge amount of justified anger for the crminal justice system in their hearts.

  7. Marie ruiz: Your thinking is precisely the reason why the Constitutional rights of people can be usurped and degraded. No “officer” should be upset about a person’s legitimate expression of their lawful rights. If the officer feels that way, he or she needs more training.

  8. These officers put their lives on the line every minute of every day they work. Although there are a few bad apples, they are few and far in between…a vast majority of cops are genuinely good people that want the best and safest environments for all. With that said, a vast majority (not all) of people who refuse to comply with simple requests to identify themselves, whether they are passengers or not, are simply instigators and looking to prove some point. Those that don’t comply for this simple request usually have something to hide.

  9. JohnD You need to be able to separate the law from your emotion and bias. The point is that you don’t have to provide ID as a passenger unless there’s reasonable suspicion you have committed, are committing or are about to commit a crime. Imagine you’re in an Uber as a passenger and the driver gets pulled over for speeding. Do you think that an officer has the right to ask or have you produce an ID? What does the officer pulling the Uber driver have anything to do with you as the passenger? You’ve done nothing wrong. What crime have you committed that would require you to do so? Officers have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution; part of which guarantees you the right from them conducting unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment). The point is that an officer even broaching on the subject of demanding your ID to begin with, a subject they have absolutely no right to broach in the first place if you’ve committed no crime, is illegal. One begets the other.

  10. Lot of pro’s and con’s here. Comply and forgo you rights or stand up for your rights and take the chance of being arrested which will cost money and time. I can’t tell who is the good cop and who is not. They all dress alike.

  11. In response to “J” you are completely wrong in your narrative written above. Completely wrong. It’s not “unlawful” of any Police a officer to ask a passenger(s) for ID. It’s a question not a demand. More times than not and for reasons you will never understand because you aren’t a Police Officer, criminals hide behind those very exact situations. And my question is this, why not provide the ID? If you did nothing wrong what is the harm with giving the Officer ID? There are reasons behind why the Officers attempt to ID people in the car on traffic stops…if they say no, then they say no that’s it. End of traffic stop.

  12. “If you have nothing to hide, why not produce ID?” If you have nothing to hide, why not let the police search your house? If you have nothing to hide, why not let the police put cameras in your house? If you have nothing to hide, why not allow the State to inject a tracking chip under your skin?

    No. Just no. I don’t have to have a “reason” to assert my rights. Perhaps before you post or speak, police should run a background check, to make sure you’re not likely to say something illegal. You don’t have anything to hide, do you?

  13. Scott W. That’s ridiculous. Regardless of whether or not you have something to hide it’s not the point the point is is that you have rights you either use them or you lose them simple as that saying yes to Cops on the time we’re going to forget how to say no. Generally all the police do is escalate situations anyway.

  14. Simply if you give up one’s rights & liberties…..we make it acceptable for cops to break law themselves and with no accountability. The uniform doesnt change one’s constitutional rights. An honorable cop does his job to the oath taken the day he/she was awarded the badge of authority to uphold and enforce the laws of the land. True Leader Respectable person and a daily Hero is a cop who knows the laws believes in his committment to legally enforce others using his service from training and applying laws we have living in this beautiful country/U.S.A. A badge doesnt give power authority or disrespectful rights upholding the constitutional laws of the land we call. ‘ United States of America. “

  15. OK..lets just just ‘chip’ our children as we do our dogs (neuter/spade as well?)..I do agree w/9th circuit..Privacy!…

  16. I think we all know it is our right to refuse to show ID and as S stated it is not unlawful to ask BUT not demand. Most times I show mine and be on my way. Although I have refused to show ID, this all depends on the officials behavior.
    Scott W. I also have the right to vote against other more dramatic laws as you claim what is next… We are talking about having the right to be civil and say Hi i’m Ole Country. How are you Officer Tomkins? If you are so weak minded to eventually “Just say yes because you always have” then that is your right too.
    The last time I was in this situation, My friend got pulled over and ticketed for running a stop sign. The officer was acting like a the stubborn law man HE was. The Officer asked for my ID and I said no and he went on his way. Thank God because I was sitting on 3 bags of cocaine a few MJ joints and an illegal pistol (not all mine) but I was in the process of collecting this stuff and putting it away when the stop occurred. But thank God He walked off because I unknowingly had a warrant out on me for failure to appear in court when I was called out of the states for 2 months. I found out when I got home and went through my 2 months mail that evening. That was all taken care of the following Monday.
    Anyway. You have the RIGHT to either give them your ID or not. That is what makes America Great!!

    Also the 9th Circuit consists of the west coast states, so be careful using this as an argument in just any state.

  17. JohnD, what’s that thing people say about “a few bad apples”? Oh, right, it’s “a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.” Unless all police are morally good, any specific police officer could be a malicious armed thug with the support of the State. And if the officer I’m dealing with wants to worsen my life for no good reason, I’m certainly not going to make that unnecessarily easy for them.

  18. Just because someone exercises their rights doesn’t mean they have something to hide. I’m a retired police officer with no criminal history and I’m a law abiding citizen. As a matter of principle, I wouldn’t give my ID to an officer just because he or she asked and I would exercise my Constitutional Rights because I’m an American and I have these rights that no other country in the world has. Every officer I know would do the same. The government doesn’t get a “pass” just because I have nothing to hide. That is a false argument that is used to guilt people into compliance. Predators use the same types of arguments to gain compliance from victims.

    You’ll know a good cop when you encounter one because when you exercise your Constitutional Rights (upholding these rights is the only oath a police officer takes), they will respect them or be able to cite criminal or case law to the contrary and explain their reasonable suspicion for asking. No officer should allow their emotions to interfere with their decision making. Contempt of Cop is not a law.

    Observing peoples rights also serves the officer best. I loved being a police officer and I did my job right. I actually conducted investigations and gathered evidence and didn’t take the lazy approach because I knew if someone was breaking the law, I, or another officer, would catch them eventually. Then, when the case was adjudicated, I wouldn’t be in some appellate court explaining why I violated someone’s rights and getting the department and city sued because I couldn’t control my emotions.

    This narrative of “obey my authority” just because I have it and I’m insecure about being told “no”, has to end. We live in United States of America, we have rights.

  19. This is undoubtedly the best conversation about vehicle stops! The ultimate goal is realizing your individual rights while staying a law abiding citizen.

  20. This is violated routinely in Kern county Ca. The sherriffs office here believes they can do anything they please during traffic stop, believe they can just walk into your home anytime they please, I was once arrested in my living room because on of my neighbor’s heard my wife and I arguing and called 911, No violance involved, just bickering and I was taken to jail and charged with domestic violance and even when my wife tried to explain to the DAs office it was just an argument the DA still filed charges against me. And the cop lied his ass off when I went trial, even my wife testified the cop was lying. I ended up spending 60 days in jail fined 900+ dollars and losing my job.
    So it truly does depend on the cops integrity in any case now days.

  21. I think the cops needs to go back to school because they don’t know the people’s rights there’s too many bad cops out there that want to rough you up for nothing The same one up in a bunch of the other day on YouTube or whatever and the kids was not doing anything wrong throw a handcuffed and throw him on the ground and then he went after two more and handcuffed them and told them on the ground it’s not right The cops needs to go back to school and learn the first to the 5th amendment

  22. For all those who say “what do you have to hide? “, you are missing the point. This is about the rights of the citizen, not the rights of the police or law enforcement agencies. When you give up those rights the line gets moved further and further to the government’s side. I served in the military and fought for the very rights that get violated by those who say they are doing this for their protection. The citizen’s rights supersedes the safety of law enforcement. The constitution is the basis for how any law is enforced. If it violates the constitution, the request is unlawful. Don’t play games with wording. It’s black and white. You have rights, stand up for them and use them. If you don’t, you will wake up one day without any rights.

  23. The next time your stopped by an officer or deputy and they request to search your vehicle respond that your willing to permit the search IF they are willing to let you search their vehicle first…..if they demand ID….YOU demand to see their GOV issued ID and do NOT accept agency credentials or badges…..demand their personal ID….force them to surrender their address and personal info when they demand that from you…..they will assert THEY aren’t required and you in turn use that as YOUR pre text to deny.

    Also remember ANY time your dealing with a law enforcement officer YOU are in a confrontation with an armed person who is likely recording every word and action YOU and yours make.

  24. Most people who agree that citizens should cooperate with police by giving up their rights not identify themselves or allow police to search their property/person have never been victims of police abuse and will naturally agree but I was born in Los Angels in 1969 and my birth certificate identifies me and parents as “Negros”. I have been subjected to unlawful police stops, detentions and arrests since I was 6 years old. Mostly because government officials such a California Governor /President Ronald Regan devised plans to suppress people of color in my home state. What is so crazy is that I it has taken 50 years since I was born for a court to rule that I now have the right as passenger in a vehicle that is being stop for a traffic infraction to refuse to identify myself if a police officer asks or demands for identification. Straight up, if I am stopped as a passenger I will not be providing any of my identification because I am an American and I will be asserting any right that is proscribed by the United States Constitution that I am entitled to

  25. I just witnessed an officer on Live PD in Pomona, CA say on national tv that he had a right to identify every passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop. This makes me question the training of these police officers in the 9th District. Let’s hope the Supreme Court will make a similar ruling in the near future and make this the law of the land!

  26. This situation just happened on Live PD 1/4/2020. The officers refused to take no as an answer. Then tried to justify his refusal to identify as reason to suspect him of a crime

  27. I was a passenger with co-workers recently. My co-worker hit a deer and we called the police. We were all asked to hand over our driver’s licences. I wasn’t driving and didn’t have mine and wouldn’t even if I did. There is no such thing as a passenger’s licence. In another instance, I was at a business after closing and walking to my car with a co-worker. We were both asked for our driver’s licences by an officer who came out of the shadows. We live in Michigan. This is unacceptable.

  28. Had this just yesterday in Defiance, Ohio. I was the passenger. Driver committed a staying in marked lanes violation. Before he even got his things to her, she looks at me and says “you have ID”. I wasn’t real sure if she was asking or telling, or demanding. I gave it to her. Why? Because regardless of your “rights”, they are rights you don’t really have. I had an attorney tell me long ago, it’s your word against someone with a badge, it’s not going to matter what you say. If I had refused I’d probably be in a cell somewhere waiting for a court date for doing something I supposedly have a “right” to do. Up against a badge, you’re just a minnow in an ocean…..youre ass is gonna get eaten. Enough said. ‘Murica.

  29. my question was, if a person is in a business after it is closed ( say 1:00 am business closed at 5:pm) can law enforcement ask for ID to check against the list provided by the business as to who can be in that business after closing time. especially in states like Calif.

  30. You can say “most cops are good” until you are blue in the face but where are those ‘good cops’ when reports are being falsified, or defendants railroaded, or bad cops jobs protected? I’ll tell you where – Nowhere.

  31. When I see a video of a cop trying to get name and other information of a person who has done nothing wrong, I question what they will write in a report. Because most assuredly, most of them excuse their desire for the information as “I can’t close my report without that information.” Many, I know, would be fine, but it only takes one with a poor attitude to louse things up for someone innocent. My question is, just who might in the future read those reports, and what was said in them? It’s not like they forward a copy to you so you can correct anything you find in them.

  32. KB you say you are a retired officer and your response is so reasonable yet I can’t help thinking that you should know a police officer would never find themselves in an appellate court explaining their actions because that’s not how appellate oral arguments work. Makes me doubt you’re a retired cop.

  33. Think about this its totally legal for cops to lie to you, yet illegal for you to lie to them.the only reason a cop wants to “talk to you” is to build their case, .if they want to “just talk , they can talk to each other. They get paid to, are trained to , and take personel joy in violateing your rights ,the questions they ask are by design to escalate the situation. Do you know you know how fast you were going? Either you admit to being so recklass that you jave no idea the speed you were going, or you admitt you were willfully violateing the speed limit. You see? Cops are famous for saying things like i have no way of knowing if its a simple traffic stop or of the guy is a murder suspect.well we have no way of knowing if your a decent professional officer , or a typical insecure badge heavy mr.big man acting cop. The only difference cops think is we should see every cop out there ass the best most honorable person in the world , why they error on the side of caution and treat every citizen they stop as a violent felon”for their safety” but the real difference is they have the choice to stop us , and if they are too scared then get another job, we on the other hand dont have a choice. So record every interaction with a cop. If it goes any way other than desired,file a formal complaint, in the complaint state he inferred he would get you later, if he ever stops you again go to either a state of federal level over his head , and press charges .if you have the paper trail on your side in the beginning instead of waiting till hr harrasses you five or six times by then giving him the paper trail on you he looks exactly like what he os a walking liability to hos department ,ie ex cop.

  34. Pingback: Georgia Sheriff placed on leave after showing excessive physical force on Roderick Walker - A Progressive Voice

  35. Pingback: 10th Circuit: No qualified immunity for police who demand ID – Papers, Please!

  36. How many cops does it take to change a lightbulb ? Answer… 100.
    1 to change the lightbulb and 99 for officer safety.

  37. Pingback: Expanding travel policing beyond no-fly lists (and the Fourth Amendment) – Papers, Please!

  38. i am a law abiding veteran with no police record, i take full offense to police officers asking for my ID simply because its a new thing they have started doing in the past decade. ive been married for quite a few years and my husband drives the family. whenever he was stopped in the past for whatever infraction usually a headlight or something small, he was the only one dealing with the cop, i was never asked or bothered nor did i have to sit with my hands on a dashboard.
    this has become a police state period and its disgusting insulting and humiliating to have a cop pull u over for something they can address with highway and road cameras, as in other countries and mail u a ticket for the infraction, and begin treating you like a criminal and asking questions like ur a criminal. question where u are going and where u came from sounds like some hitleresk type garbage. we let them get away with this offense each time we put ppl in office who write laws allowing these ppl to continually syphon off our civil rights.

  39. 99% of the people got nothing to hide but either way dont want Police especially with an attitude or a chip on their shoulder all in their face. I dont have nothing to hide and still dont want an officer all in my face asking me questions, who am I, where am I going, where did i just coke from just now. I’m not in Nazi Germany, “Just leave me the F alone.” If you feel they should question you and identify you any time they like, your in the wrong crountry and need to move to Cuba China or Russia.

  40. So in Arkansas (it is a stop & ID state ) so I’m asking do you have to show your ID to a cop if you are the passenger in a car being pulled over for expired tags / or at a road block / or the driver has warrants?? Because the officer pulled over the driver and now has asked you for your ID because it is a stop & ID state and now that he has asked you ???

  41. Pingback: “Sobriety checks” of motorists as pretext for ID checks – Papers, Please!

  42. Also, if u give a cop ur ID and he “runs ur name, ur name can wind up on a watch list or u can be placed on a no-fly list either by mistake or b/c the officer entered false/incorrect info.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *