Can the State Require You to Carry ID Even When Not Driving

[kist]

Analysis of an LAPD report documenting traffic stop data between July 1, 2002, and November 30, 2002 reveals that 99% of drivers stopped by police in Los Angeles consented to officers' search requests. The report shows that 7.4% of African American drivers and 5.3% of Hispanic drivers were asked to consent to a search, while only 1.5% of white drivers were asked for consent to search.
Source: "POSTING MOTOR VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN STOP DATA" Los Angeles Police Department, 2002

The following statistics come from the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics report, Contacts between Police and the Public (February, 2001):

An estimated 43.8 million people 16 years or older—or about 21 percent of the population that age—had at least one face-to-face contact with the police during 1999. About 52 percent of these interactions were during traffic stops (page 2).

About 19.3 million drivers, or about 10.3 percent of licensed drivers, were pulled over by police. Among those pulled over, about 1.3 million motorists said they or their vehicle had been searched. And in almost 90% of those searches, police found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing (page 2).

Of the 1.3 million searches of motorist, the likelihood of police finding criminal evidence was not significantly different between the 845,000 searches without consent (12.9%) and the 427,000 searches with consent (14.2%) (page 21).

During a traffic stop, police were nearly twice as likely to carry out some type of search on an African-American (11.0%) or Hispanic (11.3%) than a white motorist (5.4%) (page 20).

Searches of white drivers of their vehicles were twice as likely to find criminal evidence (17%) than searches of black drivers (8%) (page 22).


Persons age 18 to 19 had a per capita rate of contact arising from a motor vehicle stop of 225 per 1,000, which is more than 4 times the rate of traffic stops experienced by those ages 50 or older (page 1).

http://www.flexyourrights.org/contac...ice_and_public

[BOR]

ok BOR, you got to explain this to me:

Hiibel required the detainee to provide name as he was a suspect, not merely a party to an investigation. That was the law Hiibel was charges with anyway. Even as such, there was no support for the requirement to carry ID on the person.

Correct. The ruling permitted either ID OR a NAME to satisfy the officer's demand.

as I see it, unless a person in the vehicle is a suspect for whatever reason, there can be no required disclosure of identification. Am I wrong here or is this simply a case needing to go to the SCOTUS? Hour of the day itself, should have ne bearing on the action.

So now, we go to Kolender v. Lawson. SCOTUS opined that an individual could not be required to carry ID unless engaged in an activity that would require such (driving or the like)

So, what could RI or Mass enact that would allow such a requirement that abides by the SCOTUS decision in Kolender?

In the syllabus of Hiibel:

(a)

Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. 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 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. Pp. 3—6.


Kolender was struck down due to the fact an officer could still arrest, due the fact they could claim the ID given was not "credible and reliable". The ruling itself explains it in detail.

The MA statute I posted is not "facially" void as it's elements are clear. However, I suspect it has been struck down already if challenged, as we saw in Ashman's WA law where Prouse was cited, remember that one!

It appears, this would seem to be a "stop and identify" statute of a similar import, however, even if a court determined it to be one as we saw in Hiibel, the passenger must be under investigation to force a comply.

The statute itself states nothing to the sort.

Here is a list from Wiki concerning current stop and identify stautes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

If we read the precise language of some, they have no facial wording as the MA law, to wit:

AZ:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

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. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

The bold is basically a TERRY stop.

IN:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

A clear probable cause stop.


KS:

22-2402. Stopping of suspect. (1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect's actions.


MA's law I posted has no such Probable cause OR suspicion attached.

Concerning the RI case, the original poster, yes, we can assume, even under DICTA in Kolender, the mandate to carry a DL at ALL times and to criminalize such, so the officer "claims", is unconstitutional.

If we strictly read Hiibel, even if the passenger was under investigation, they do not have to provide ID just a valid name.

So between Hiibel, Brown v. Texas, as also cited in Hiibel, and Kolender, I would say, the RI law, if it does exist, and if challenged, would be struck down.

In my concerted opinion, the officer was blowing smoke and lied. This is unprofessional to tell a citizen an act is unlawful.

Not unlawful, per se, but "unbecoming" as the term relates.

[MorningCoffee]

LOL, it sounds like its 200 years old with the sunrise and sunset language, This may have been what I had heard.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...nger_id_stops/

Hmm, interesting. You say this has only been in effect for a few years, huh!

[MorningCoffee]

The police in Providence (I assumed thats where this took place as soon as I read it) will pull over a white person in several neighborhoods under the Providence police law of 'you don't belong here'. Even worse to them is a mixed race vehicle makeup.

The problem is there is a lot of integration going on in those areas these days so this 'policy' is really wrong regardless.

Rhode Island has been under the gun for stops based on racial profiling. The study didn't look at the situation I describe but as you can imagine it works both ways for the police.

Concerning the RI case, the original poster, yes, we can assume, even under DICTA in Kolender, the mandate to carry a DL at ALL times and to criminalize such, so the officer "claims", is unconstitutional.

[zedex]

interesting thread.

I was stopped by a cop about 25 years ago while walking on a downtown street in a small southern town. The cop sid he just wanted to know who I was and asked for ID. I told him I did not have ID on me because I was walking.

He did not take a liking to that and threatened to arrest me for failure to show proof of ID and that federal law provides that every male over the age of 18 MUST carry ID at all times because of the draft and martial law, if ever implemented.

He ended up taking me to my brother's place {where I was headed anyway} and had him and his family ID me, then he left.

I've wondered about that incident many times.

[BOR]

LOL, it sounds like its 200 years old with the sunrise and sunset language, This may have been what I had heard.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...nger_id_stops/

This potential law is more in line with potential terrorist activity, etc.

I went down to the law library yesterday and looked up the law you quoted, it has been ruled unconstitutional as far as the passenger having to show ID.


I copied it, but also found it online:

Here are a few pertinent passages:

Syllabus:

In the circumstances of a lawful stop of a motor vehicle for speeding, the State Troopers had no objective basis for requiring the passenger to produce identification papers, and where that unlawful interrogation led to a search that produced a cache of cocaine secreted in the vehicle, the defendants, the passenger and driver, were entitled to suppression of the fruits of the search. [534-536]


Page 532:

We decide that under the line of cases culminating in Commonwealth v. Torres, 424 Mass. 153 (1997), asking the passenger for identification, in the circumstances, violated art. 14 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution, i.e., the request amounted to an unlawful seizure. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the Superior Court denying the defendants' motions to suppress evidence, and we reverse the convictions of both defendants.

page 535:

In a careful memorandum of decision, the Superior Court judge who acted on the suppression motion (he was not the trial judge), relied in part on G. L. c. 85, s. 16, to justify interrogation of Crespo. That statute, whose source is St. 1911, c. 578, s. 3, provides:


"Every person shall while driving or in charge of or occupying a vehicle during the period from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise, when requested by a police officer, give his true name and address."

Desuetude characterizes the history of the statute in case law. We have not found a single reference to it. Until 1989, s. 16 did not apply to motor vehicles. See G. L. c. 85, s. 17, prior to amendment by St. 1989, c. 341, s. 60. Were s. 16 read to permit dragnet interrogation of the sort we have described as prohibited, questions about the constitutionality of that statute would necessarily arise.

Summation:

The passenger can only be asked to produce ID, and or be interrogated, only if they are under suspicion of wrongdoing, this is in the case also.



http://masscases.com/cases/app/44/44massappct531.html


Even if the section were alive, Hiibel controls.

[BOR]

interesting thread.

I was stopped by a cop about 25 years ago while walking on a downtown street in a small southern town. The cop sid he just wanted to know who I was and asked for ID. I told him I did not have ID on me because I was walking.

He did not take a liking to that and threatened to arrest me for failure to show proof of ID and that federal law provides that every male over the age of 18 MUST carry ID at all times because of the draft and martial law, if ever implemented.

He ended up taking me to my brother's place {where I was headed anyway} and had him and his family ID me, then he left.

I've wondered about that incident many times.

The Cop was an airhead and on a power trip. The draft was not even in effect 25 years ago. Even if there was federal law that required an ACTIVE duty person to carry thier military ID at all times, the officer had NO authority to "seize" your person. The UCMJ would address such matters, not local law.

I can guarantee no such law existed for a civilian. If there were, most homeless men would be subjected to federal prosecution. Not to many homeless men carry ID's?

[MorningCoffee]

BOR, I'd be curious for your opinion on how Moore plays into this type of thing, for instance a bad stop or an illegal id check under Moore wouldn't negate any evidence found as a result of those which under Moore seem to become technicalities.

Would Hiibel over ride Moore or ??

Thanks.

[BOR]

MC, what is the Moore case you are refering to??

[MorningCoffee]

Virginia v Moore, seems to give them an end around on anything they do, the end justifies the means.

You will love this BOR, here is how RI treats the constitutional law, this was a big issue in the state which has adopted e-verify and some other mandates that were found illegal elsewhere.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a...sting-illegals