It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble.
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
This is so true, and it's surprising how many people don't know what they are obligated to do when asked by an officer. It's even fuzzy for me at times.
It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].
All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.
> show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States]
Not what it establishes. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841
> your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)]
Not what Brendlin establishes (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120) nor Johnson (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122).
Passengers in a vehicle aren't even required to have a license. There's no requirement for citizens to carry papers in the US.
(They may be required to give their name, but not carry ID.)
> you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers)
Only because "officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing [a] bulge in his jacket" (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830)
> Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)]
Similarly, if the stop is legitimate. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268)
Don’t those cases establish that police may, within the bounds of the fourth amendment, detain both the driver and any passengers; which then triggers requirements under other state laws allowing police to compel detained people to identify themselves?
E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ?
As that link indicates, not every state has such a thing. States can; not every state does.
(And "identify" isn't necessarily the same as "show ID". It's legal to not have any form of ID in the US whatsoever - this comes up with voter ID discussion a lot - and those folks are still allowed to ride in a car.)
It gets even weirder because at least in same states it is ruled if a crime has an age component then once again you can't be forced to reveal ID (which would betray your age) and incriminate yourself even if driving. And then in some states you're required to answer questions unrelated to your identity like if you're carrying a weapon (unless you can't have weapons, in which case you'd be incriminating yourself and then again you don't have to answer).
Not legal advice.
I'm going to charitably guess that you do not mean "surprising" in the common way, as in "wow, I can't explain why people don't know this laundry list of requests you are or are not required to comply with"; but rather as in "it's surprising that we find ourselves in this hellish society where citizens need to memorize a bunch of shit or else live in fear of every police interaction where they might sacrifice a right they didn't need to or vice versa and get handcuffed."
Police should not be allowed to put you in that situation, period. Then you can teach everybody that one fact, instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
> instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
Looking at the comments, I will agree that there are different interpretations of the case law I cited. But the only thing that matters is can this case law be used against you to convict you for not complying with an officer, my understanding is it can, but I am not a lawyer.
I'd love to see civil rights lawyers tackle traffic stop etiquette head on and come up with clear guidance for drivers and passengers in common situations. "Keeping your mouth shut" is a good start.
Under what circumstances a passenger needs to identity themselves differs significantly from state to state. Also, neither Brendlin v. CA or AR v. Johnson talk about identification requirements, so I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Maybe you're confusing it with exiting the car?
And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
Yes. However: it's always safe to say, as you are complying: "I do not consent to this." It should also be safe to ask "Are you giving me a lawful order?", but situations will vary. Beware that they can be very good at giving answers that sound like "yes" but are not "yes". ("I need to see your drivers license." "Are you giving me a lawful order?" "I need to see your drivers license." That is not a yes.)
> For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
> The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
That case is about Terry stops, not about failure to identify when operating a motor vehicle.
A Terry stop includes detainments of pedestrians, who do not have an obligation to identify in most states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
> When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop.
They can't pull you over without reason in the first place.
Yeah you’re doing the thing I suggested people don’t do.
It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.
If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.
> It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.
Again:
> Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.
Again, this case is about Terry stops. Not traffic stops.
If you have been detained in a motor vehicle you are in control of, you must identify.
> Again, this case is about Terry stops. Not traffic stops.
A traffic stop is a Terry stop. It's within the circle on the Venn diagram.
Stop-and-frisk of a pedestrian is also a Terry stop.
That’s not the point. The point is that a traffic stop is a traffic stop. Traffic stops, while they are Terry stops, also have separate governing rules, such as the fact that there is a failure to identify while operating a motor vehicle statute in every state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
A state may require it. A state does not have to require it.
(To be clear, I'm handing over my license when asked regardless. There's just no apparent law applying universally to all 50 states that says I have to.)
And again, this is about stop and identify, which again covers both pedestrians and motor vehicle operators but does not preclude the requirement to identify oneself when operating a motor vehicle, which is covered by different statutes.
"Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists" implies that others do not, correct?
Correct. Some states have broad stop-and-identify laws. Some have limited stop-and-identify laws.
What we're talking about is more specific than that, and other statutes are implicated.
If you were operating a vehicle and cop pulls up next you and casually asks about your day, then you don't have to identify, because that's a consensual encounter. If he suggests that you rolled through the stop, even if you didn't, then you're subject to things like implied consent that are attached to vehicle operation.
If a state does not have a law regarding stop and identify, that does not mean they do not have a law about identifying when operating a motor vehicle.
But not all Terry stops are traffic stops. The case you're citing wasn't a traffic stop.
The Terry ruling establishes a test that applies to all Terry stops, not just some.
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
Hiible wasn't operating a vehicle; he was standing outside, near it. It was not a traffic stop.
And just for clarity, a Terry stop is any brief investigative detention, not just those that arise from traffic stops.
> Hiible wasn't operating a vehicle…
So? Some Terry stops are vehicle-based, others are not; the ruling applies to both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
Terry stops != traffic stop
You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
> You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
And the police are required to have probable cause to believe you are operating it without such a license to stop you for that. Thus making it… a Terry stop!