Questions About LEO's Asking For ID's When I'm Simply Passenger

[Abraham]

I watched an old (one year) "Live PD" and the officer absolutely insisted the passenger provide I.d., with the accompanying 'how can we know if you have a warrant if we can't identify you baloney?'

If he believes that, why not check everyone, everywhere....? Hey, police state, here we come, because we're all probably guilty of something...now line up, and whip out those id.s, now...

This garbage has to stop.

We do (I think) still live in America and I really don't want to think radical anti-L.E.O. forces have a leg to stand on, but this kind of crap has to stop.

[flechero]

That being said I would cooperate unless the officer was being obtuse, rude or otherwise fishing.

The interesting part is that I have been told by LEO (member here) that there is never a stop they don't fish... when you don't suspect it just means they are really good at it. This in response to a good report of a stop for a brake light that was out

found it:

Hate to break it to everyone, but he was fishing...

...Just not trying to catch CHL holders.

(Take it from a fellow "fisher")

He did it right though - nobody could tell.

If you watch good interdiction guys talk to people on a stop they are goofy, like able, and polite. Until they find the dope.

Nobody signed up to work "equipment light enforcement"

It's a way to get into bigger things.

It bums me out but I no longer engage in idle chatter or common pleasantries with LEO unless I approach them to chat.

[JakeTheSnake]

If a police officer knocks on the door to a house I can reply with "Dave's not here man!"

Wow, been a long time!!

[wil]

Mr Cotton can tell me if I'm wrong on these.

1. you are not legally required to carry ID when involved in any activity which does not require a license to engage in that activity.

2. you are not legally required to ID yourself by any means to LE unless you are being arrested or a bonafide witness to a crime. This includes being detained but not arrested by LE.

3. you are not legally required to answer the door when LE is at the door and wanting to speak to you. You are not legally required to consent to a conversation with LE on the street and that includes your home, your front door, and your property.

4. you are not legally required to ID yourself if you choose to answer the door. You are not engaged in an activity which requires a licence therefore you are not required to ID yourself.

5. you are not legally required to consent to a conversation with LE, you have the legal right to refuse to speak to a police officer regardless of location.

being a passenger in a car requires no licence of any sort, therefore you are not required to have ID on you.

At the front door "chasing a bad guy..." too bad, I'm not required to ID myself or consent to any conversations with LE under those circumstances. He wants to take me in because I Told him "no"? have at it, he gets to explain himself to someone like Mr Cotton.

Demanding ID from a passenger because 'check for warrants" Again, too bad, I'm not required to have ID on me or ID myself or consent to any conversations with LE under those circumstances. He want to take me in because I told him "no' Have at it, he gets to explain himself to someone like Mr Cotton.

on the side of the road and the officer wants to play '20 questions' "where are you going? What are you doing?" etc.
I have the right to remain silent, I am not legally required to answer any questions outside the reason he pulled me over for. An individual can be straightforward and assertive without being disrespectful to LE in stating this fact of the law.
it is entirely possible for an individual to simply state "officer, if you pulled me over for a traffic infraction and feel the need to issue me a citation you'll get no argument from me, that is your duty before the law. However I will not, nor am I legally obligated to, answer any questions outside the scope of that traffic citation. If you persist in these questions then I have the right to remain silent and I am choosing to excercise that right as of now."
it is not disrespectful, nor does it disturb the peace, it simply states my rights before the law in polite, straightforward, and assertive fashion.

what gets lost in these discussion is the real issue. Legitimate authority and the abuse of authority. Discussing one's rights and how they are subject to the abuse of authority is not "cop bashing" It is the legitimate discussion of a real issue and the things I wrote are legitimate abuses of authority. Usually done via LE taking advantage of peoples lack of knowledge on the law and their rights.
It is partly why Mr Cotton's career field exists, to defend people against these types of abuse of authority.

[Soccerdad1995]

I watched an old (one year) "Live PD" and the officer absolutely insisted the passenger provide I.d., with the accompanying 'how can we know if you have a warrant if we can't identify you baloney?'

If he believes that, why not check everyone, everywhere....? Hey, police state, here we come, because we're all probably guilty of something...now line up, and whip out those id.s, now...

This garbage has to stop.

We do (I think) still live in America and I really don't want to think radical anti-L.E.O. forces have a leg to stand on, but this kind of crap has to stop.

"Am I under arrest or am I free to go?" This simple question avoids a lot of potential problems.

How is the LEO supposed to know if I have a warrant when he can't identify me? I honestly don't know. But I guess I could speculate, if he wants my advice on how to do his job better. Surely must be other methods to track down people who have outstanding warrants. You know, methods that are actually constitutional. Like maybe going to their last known address and asking if anyone has seen them instead of hoping to randomly find them in the passenger's seat of cars that you pull over.

But that seems like an odd conversation to have when he has important business to attend to like investigating the possible crime of speeding or driving with a non-functioning tail light. I might instead ask for his cell number so I can text him some advice after I have had a chance to do some research.

[OlBill]

We discussed this here a while back. There was someone who said they are taught they have the authority to demand your ID in their training.

On a personal note my wife was stopped for, as near as I can tell, jogging while Latina. The cop told her she had to carry ID at all times and produce it on demand. It shook her up so bad she couldn't tell me even the color of his vehicle or the chief and I would have had a talk.

The problem with their little game is there is no ID requirement in this country. And it's not an accident. I am not required to carry identification. Ever. A drivers license or LTC is not an ID, they're are licenses for a specific activity. I don't have a plumbers license or a lawyers license because I am neither.

38.02 is not a bad law, but it doesn't take this fact into account.

I have lived in several countries with nation ID requirements. I didn't like it, but we're not far from it in practice.

[flechero]

Even if that's true, they will cite something else to make you think you need to produce ID.

[Jusme]

Unfortunately, there are LEO who believe everyone, everywhere,must provide ID upon demand. I was trained that, those not involved, in a criminal act (being a passenger, does not make them a witness to an offense) were not required to provide ID. I could ask for it, but if they refused, I had no legal grounds to demand it. With that in mind, and my usual, non-threatening demeanor, most people would show ID. If they were just peripheral to the situation, or had no witness statement to provide, their info did not go into any report. I understand that the police have a difficult job, but I also know my rights. If they are not demanding, I have no problem identifying myself. I have my DL # memorized, so even if I don't have it on my person, I can provide it. I have never been subjected to my ID being demanded for no reason, but I have heard of it happening to people. My advice is, provide under protest, and obtain the officers' name, and report them to their supervisors.

[RPBrown]

Along the same lines, and watching Live PD (one of my favorite shows), I often see they use the excuse I smell weed which gives them probable cause to search a vehicle. I have a couple of issues with this. (1) This means they could use this excuse whether they actually smell it or not (yes judge, the odor was there but we didn't find anything) and (2) back when I was smoking cigarettes, every now and then I would light one that had a strong smell of weed. This in itself would give them probable cause.

Now, as for the house, back when we first bought our home, we were at the house painting and laying floors when a LEO knocked real hard on the door. We answered and he asked if we were (sorry, don't remember the name) and I said no. I could see at least 2 other officers in tactical gear off to the sides of my porch. He asked me if I was sure I wasn't this person several more times then asked for my ID. I told him okay, it was in my wallet in another room but I would get it. He said he would need to come with me to get it and I asked him if he had a warrant. He showed me a paper and said he had an arrest warrant for this person. I said well, I as I told you before, I am not that person and I have agreed to get my ID for you. At that point his Sargent arrived and brought a picture of the guy they were looking for. Looked more like Charles Manson than me . The sargent asked why I didn't want them in my house and I explained that we had just closed and were painting and remodeling and I didn't want to have to repaint or clean up after they stepped in paint or floor glue and tracked it all over. He asked if I knew this guy as this was his last known address and I said no. During the course of the conversation, I was informed that he was a major drug dealer and they had been looking for him for a while. I explained that when we looked at the house and made an offer on it 6 weeks prior (this was before all of the fast closings and approvals they have now) that the house was empty and no one was living there. He thanked me and pulled his people. Over the course of the next 3 months, there were several times LEO's came to the door looking for this guy but none wanted to come in and search. They all did say that since this was the last known address, until he was caught, it would probably happen again. Come to find out, we bought the house from this guys mother and he had been living there about a year prior to her selling.

On a side note, after the first visit from LEO's we decided to take our remodel farther and remove walls in areas that could have been easy access hiding places and all of the ceiling sheet rock. When we pulled down the ceiling sheet rock, we found about a pound of weed hidden in the attic insulation that we called PD to come and get. This was when we decided to make our master closet a safe room with concrete walls and ceiling.

[Abraham]

Some here have proclaimed (what I'm about post is based on a citizen not being guilty of doing anything criminal, but yeah maybe was speeding or failing to use a turn signal) that if L.E. requests a search your car, you should respectfully, deny the search. What the heck is germane about searching your vehicle because you were speeding...?

If, as I've seen in some of the Live PD shows (and other of this type L.E.documentaries) the refusee, if you will, then has their vehicle towed away and impounded while the L.E.O. gets a search warrant. You are then left to walk home or call your spouse to come get you, a cab, a friend, etc. In my opinion this is an abuse of power.

You are subject to this sort of treatment (remember, I'm discussing a non-criminal citizen) when you simply don't care to put up with a search. Maybe you have a doctor's appointment, or again simply don't care to have your vehicle searched and say so. You can refuse in a friendly, respectful manner, but I've seen instances on these shows where the L.E.O. then starts asking 'why can't we search your vehicle' and I don't think you owe them an explanation.

Or, maybe some of you in L.E. can explain how this isn't an abuse of power. Also remember, I'm not talking about drivers they've stopped who have all the earmarks of lowlifes, like gang tats, pants halfway down their posteriors, etc, but well groomed, average citizens.

[Teamless]

.... the refusee, if you will, then has their vehicle towed away and impounded while the L.E.O. gets a search warrant. You are then left to walk home or call your spouse to come get you, a cab, a friend, etc. In my opinion this is an abuse of power.

Let them TOW my vehicle
My lawyer (I don't have one yet... ) will handle it and the City/State/County/Precinct will be sued and will pay over the abuse of power.

[Soccerdad1995]

Some here have proclaimed (what I'm about post is based on a citizen not being guilty of doing anything criminal, but yeah maybe was speeding or failing to use a turn signal) that if L.E. requests a search your car, you should respectfully, deny the search. What the heck is germane about searching your vehicle because you were speeding...?

If, as I've seen in some of the Live PD shows (and other of this type L.E.documentaries) the refusee, if you will, then has their vehicle towed away and impounded while the L.E.O. gets a search warrant. You are then left to walk home or call your spouse to come get you, a cab, a friend, etc. In my opinion this is an abuse of power.

You are subject to this sort of treatment (remember, I'm discussing a non-criminal citizen) when you simply don't care to put up with a search. Maybe you have a doctor's appointment, or again simply don't care to have your vehicle searched and say so. You can refuse in a friendly, respectful manner, but I've seen instances on these shows where the L.E.O. then starts asking 'why can't we search your vehicle' and I don't think you owe them an explanation.

Or, maybe some of you in L.E. can explain how this isn't an abuse of power. Also remember, I'm not talking about drivers they've stopped who have all the earmarks of lowlifes, like gang tats, pants halfway down their posteriors, etc, but well groomed, average citizens.

Hopefully a LEO or a Lawyer will chime in here. My non-lawyer opinion is that there is no way they can seize your car when they don't even have enough probable cause to search it absent your consent. LEO's can, and do, lie to people though. So I could easily see them making a baseless threat along these lines.

If a LEO asks to search my vehicle my response will be "no". If they start asking the question in reverse "do you mind if I search your car", then I will revert to "I do not consent to any searches". So far this has worked well for me. But then again, I am a white male in my late 40's, with no tattoos, short hair, and usually well dressed while driving a nice vehicle. But if a LEO was to ask me "why can't I search your car if you have nothing to hide", I might ask them if I can go to their house / apartment and search through their things. After all, if they have nothing to hide, then what are they worried about?

[cedarparkdad987]

.... the refusee, if you will, then has their vehicle towed away and impounded while the L.E.O. gets a search warrant. You are then left to walk home or call your spouse to come get you, a cab, a friend, etc. In my opinion this is an abuse of power.

Let them TOW my vehicle
My lawyer (I don't have one yet... ) will handle it and the City/State/County/Precinct will be sued and will pay over the abuse of power.

No they will not pay anything.

[Teamless]

.... the refusee, if you will, then has their vehicle towed away and impounded while the L.E.O. gets a search warrant. You are then left to walk home or call your spouse to come get you, a cab, a friend, etc. In my opinion this is an abuse of power.

Let them TOW my vehicle
My lawyer (I don't have one yet... ) will handle it and the City/State/County/Precinct will be sued and will pay over the abuse of power.

No they will not pay anything.

If they tow me for no (good) reason, they will pay - whether it be in courts costs or settlements....
(let me live in my bubble of what 'should be') lol