Refusal to provide ID - is it a fundamental right for US citizens only? Or any person?
Producing ID is not required by Ohio, only stating your name, address, or birth date, .
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29
Why not? The Supreme court has ruled that passengers do not have to provide ID even when asked....... How did this guy know the cop was telling the truth.....just because you look like somebody...that's a poor excuse.....especially when you are not that person...
Your tax dollars hard at work....
Plus Cops are legally allowed to lie to you........yet you cannot lie to cops..interesting...huh..
Lol.. I guess white people are the only ones that should be allowed to have rights. Lol.
Yes, the Supreme Court's decision might have caused the original case to be overturned. However, the Supreme Court was not deciding on the validity of the stop itself. They were only deciding on whether the passenger can argue that they have standing in arguing the validity of the stop. In that case, they did rule that the passenger can argue the validity of the stop and when viewed in that light, the evidence against him would be thrown out.
So, with respect to this case, while the passenger can argue that he was detained without just cause by saying the stop was illegal, he would still need to prove that the stop was illegal.
In this case, the officer did find out that the driver was licensed after stopping her and checking her license status. However, the officer at that same time also confirmed that the subject the passenger looks like was still wanted. At that time, he can continue to hold the passenger there on a detention while he continues his investigation.
- Merg
Nope, the prosecutor would need to prove that the stop was legal.
The SCOTUS disagrees with your assessment.
Merg,
Her is correct about this.
The situation is as follows. The police believe they have a right to stop the vehicle in this case. That thought is valid. The cop pulls over the vehicle and asks for proof that the person driving the vehicle is legal to do so. Proof is provided. The stop is OVER once that proof is provided. Unless the people in the vehicle are demonstrating more criminal activity at that very moment then the police have no valid reason to continue to detain the occupants of the vehicle.
The cops may ask the person legally who they are, per a Terry stop, but the person has no legal need to identify them self to the officer either. Cop can ask, are you so and so? (in this case so and so being a criminal with warrants). All that is required by the person is to state Yes or No to the question. Stating No removes all probable cause at that point. The police have no further legal means by which to detain the person in most states. There are a few states that have laws that allow cops to legally compel people to provide further identification beyond their word. The story from the OP was not from such a state.
Hmmm, maybe it's different in other states, so this may not apply, but in NY, the stop wouldn't be over. The tags would be invalid. As far as I'm aware, a lot of other states are like that as well. Once you move, you have 10 or 14 or 30 days (whatever it is) to register your vehicle in your new state and get a license in the new state.
If she's still living in Ohio, but sought an out of state license, potentially, that's a case of fraud. If she's no longer residing in Ohio, but is instead residing in another state and has been for 10 or 30 days or whatever it is, then she failed to register her vehicle as required. Since she physically had the license, I think we can presume sufficient time in the other state had elapsed.
I agree completely. I haven't watched the video, but I'm wondering a little bit why this whole thing is an issue? It was a legal stop. During that stop, the officer thought he identified the passenger as someone who is wanted. He was able to articulate who he thought the passenger was, and there is admittedly a striking resemblance.The Supreme Court case was solely to determine whether the passenger can argue the validity of the stop. In the original case, the Appeals Court ruled that the passenger does have standing to argue the validity. Since the lower court had ruled that there was no reasonable suspicion to hold the vehicle after the tags were determined to be valid, the Appeals' Court decision meant that the passenger could challenge his detention. With no reasonable suspicion to continue to hold the vehicle, his detention was improper and any evidence obtained was not admissable.
In that case from what I can find, the court stated that the officer did not have a reason to stop the vehicle in the first place as the tags were not actually expired. Thus, there was no reason that the passenger should have been detained to begin with (as part of a traffic stop).
In this case, the officer did have a valid reason to stop the vehicle. The driver's license was listed as being expired. As the officer confirmed whether she was licensed or not (as she apparently now had an out of state license), the officer also confirmed that the subject the passenger was looking like was still wanted. At that point, the officer can turn the stop into a detention of the passenger for investigatory purposes.
When told to exit the vehicle, the passenger refused. The Supreme Court stated that if you are told to exit the vehicle that you have to. By refusing, he is now committing obstruction. At that point it does not matter if he is providing ID or not, he can be placed under arrest.
With regard to ID'ing himself, you are correct in that you don't need to provide a physical ID, but the officer can continue to detain you until he can prove that you are who you say you are or also that you are not the person that is the target of the detention. This can be as simple as the subject providing a name and date of birth and the officer confirms that information is valid or even that they can pull up a DMV photo and see that it is the same subject.
And if asked if you are a wanted person and responding "No" does not remove probable cause. All an officer needs to detain you is Reasonable Suspicion. In this case, is it reasonable to believe that the person in passenger seat was the wanted subject? If so, the officer can detain the passenger while they investigate that. Just responding that I am not that person does not mean that reasonable suspicion is gone.
- Merg
The Supreme Court case was solely to determine whether the passenger can argue the validity of the stop. In the original case, the Appeals Court ruled that the passenger does have standing to argue the validity. Since the lower court had ruled that there was no reasonable suspicion to hold the vehicle after the tags were determined to be valid, the Appeals' Court decision meant that the passenger could challenge his detention. With no reasonable suspicion to continue to hold the vehicle, his detention was improper and any evidence obtained was not admissable.
In that case from what I can find, the court stated that the officer did not have a reason to stop the vehicle in the first place as the tags were not actually expired. Thus, there was no reason that the passenger should have been detained to begin with (as part of a traffic stop).
In this case, the officer did have a valid reason to stop the vehicle. The driver's license was listed as being expired. As the officer confirmed whether she was licensed or not (as she apparently now had an out of state license), the officer also confirmed that the subject the passenger was looking like was still wanted. At that point, the officer can turn the stop into a detention of the passenger for investigatory purposes.
When told to exit the vehicle, the passenger refused. The Supreme Court stated that if you are told to exit the vehicle that you have to. By refusing, he is now committing obstruction. At that point it does not matter if he is providing ID or not, he can be placed under arrest.
With regard to ID'ing himself, you are correct in that you don't need to provide a physical ID, but the officer can continue to detain you until he can prove that you are who you say you are or also that you are not the person that is the target of the detention. This can be as simple as the subject providing a name and date of birth and the officer confirms that information is valid or even that they can pull up a DMV photo and see that it is the same subject.
And if asked if you are a wanted person and responding "No" does not remove probable cause. All an officer needs to detain you is Reasonable Suspicion. In this case, is it reasonable to believe that the person in passenger seat was the wanted subject? If so, the officer can detain the passenger while they investigate that. Just responding that I am not that person does not mean that reasonable suspicion is gone.
- Merg
Ah, I didn't think of the military exemption.It depends on the state and also on certain circumstances regarding residency requirements.
For example, I stayed 4 years in Colorado with Texas tags. I could have done the same thing in NY if I wanted to and been completely legal.
How? Military. That's just one example.
To the bolded, ONLY when the stop if valid as the stipulation. Once the detention and reason for the stop was no longer valid, because the driver provided proof that was required by the stop, the officer has no legal right to ask occupants to exit their vehicle unless there is a emergency or safety concern.
Ah, I didn't think of the military exemption.
However, could you have gotten a NY driver's license and re-registered your tags in Texas? I still don't think so.
Hmmm, maybe it's different in other states, so this may not apply, but in NY, the stop wouldn't be over. The tags would be invalid. As far as I'm aware, a lot of other states are like that as well. Once you move, you have 10 or 14 or 30 days (whatever it is) to register your vehicle in your new state and get a license in the new state.
If she's still living in Ohio, but sought an out of state license, potentially, that's a case of fraud. If she's no longer residing in Ohio, but is instead residing in another state and has been for 10 or 30 days or whatever it is, then she failed to register her vehicle as required. Since she physically had the license, I think we can presume sufficient time in the other state had elapsed.
I think we are splitting hairs here. Yes, I agree that the officer determined that she was licensed. However, by finding out that the wanted subject was still wanted, he can now detain the passenger. The difference between this case and the one that went to the Supreme Court is that in the previous case, the car should never have been stopped in the first place. In this case, the officer had a valid reason to stop the vehicle.
With regard to telling someone to get out of the vehicle, while the general consensus is that it is for emergency or safety reasons, the Supreme Court has stated that it can be for any reason.
- Merg
No, just looking similar to someone else is reasonable suspicion and NOT probable cause. The officer pulled people over to check for their license due to out of state tags. They were licensed and waiting on the tags, which around here can take up to 45 days to get. Once that was determined, the probable cause for the original traffic stop is over and done with. The cop then sees a person in the car, as there is no reasonable expectation to privacy in that regard, who matches a description of a person with warrants. The cop has reasonable suspicion but not probable cause at this point. Which means the officer can ask the person to identify their self. The person is NOT required to provide proof of identification on a reasonable suspicion on a traffic stop. The person can legally state their name. If the name given is that of someone different than what the officer thinks they are, then there is no longer a reasonable suspicion cause allowed to the police. Unless of course if more evidence in plain sight presents itself to the officer that either the person is lying.
So no, the officer in the OP has no legal right to continue to detain the person once they stated they were not who the officer thought they were.
I'd think the state she resides in now has a case. Ohio doesnt have a case. The tags are for vehicle registration. Why does Ohio care if Michigan isn't getting their license fee?
That's where I think you are off here. All that is needed to detain someone is reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. The officer determined that the subject was still wanted while checking on the status of her license. That allows him to continue the stop for that investigation. Just the person responding that they are not the wanted person does not cease reasonable suspicion. You state that unless there is something else there, the stop needs to end. Well, the fact that the subject looks like the wanted subject would be enough to extend the stop.
- Merg
Merg,
Her is correct about this.
The situation is as follows. The police believe they have a right to stop the vehicle in this case. That thought is valid. The cop pulls over the vehicle and asks for proof that the person driving the vehicle is legal to do so. Proof is provided. The stop is OVER once that proof is provided. Unless the people in the vehicle are demonstrating more criminal activity at that very moment then the police have no valid reason to continue to detain the occupants of the vehicle.
The cops may ask the person legally who they are, per a Terry stop, but the person has no legal need to identify them self to the officer either. Cop can ask, are you so and so? (in this case so and so being a criminal with warrants). All that is required by the person is to state Yes or No to the question. Stating No removes all probable cause at that point. The police have no further legal means by which to detain the person in most states. There are a few states that have laws that allow cops to legally compel people to provide further identification beyond their word. The story from the OP was not from such a state.
Reasonable suspicion allows you to detain, but it is not probable cause. It does not allow for indefinite detention at all. The cop in the case had reasonable suspicion to ask the guy who he was. Once that was met, reasonable suspicion is OVER. There are only 5 states where that is not the case, and even in those 5 that only applies in very narrow circumstances.
I agree completely. I haven't watched the video, but I'm wondering a little bit why this whole thing is an issue? It was a legal stop. During that stop, the officer thought he identified the passenger as someone who is wanted. He was able to articulate who he thought the passenger was, and there is admittedly a striking resemblance.
So, the passenger's choices are, go to jail while they attempt to figure out that he isn't the wanted person, or simply provide ID.
All that said, why not just provide the ID? Why make a big case out of it and now have to deal with the hassle?
If he would have provided the ID, then that would be the end of it.