• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

About needing ID to even ride in a car

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This bill sounds like a car version of (combination of Brown v Texas and Kolender v Lawson).

First, Brown v Texas makes it clear police must first have reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime before they can demand identity. Texas previously had a law requiring everybody to identify themselves whenever a cop demanded it. SCOTUS said, in effect: nope, the statute is invalid because it empowers police to just up and seize someone by demanding their identity. Total violation of the Fourth Amdment (search and seizure).

Later, California had a statute requiring a person to provide evidence of identity on demand by police, who by that time needed RAS. The problem was that California was too vague about what sort of evidence satisfied the statutory demand for identity evidence. Meaning, it left the cop too much discretion about who to arrest for violating the identity statute. In effect, the statute was so vague, the cop was the one who got to decide whether the identity evidence was "sufficient". So, SCOTUS invalidated that state law in Kolender v Lawson.

And, here we are today. The AZ bill seems to address RAS by mentioning the cop has to have reasonable cause to believe the passenger has committed a violation of the title.* So, RAS is covered.

Kolender v Lawson is covered by specifying which information has to be on the identity documentation.

The problem I see for AZ isn't vagueness--this time. As I see it, it is the lack of an option for people who have no identity paperwork on them. It is necessarily, as Nightmare points out, an implied requirement that everybody in the car carries identity documentation. Totally silly, of course. I've already come across at least one, perhaps two states with stop-and-identify laws that had a provision making it an offense to refuse to provide identity documentation--if the person had identity documentation on him at the time the cop demanded it. That is to say, those state statute(s) only penalized refusing to provide identity documents if you were carrying it at the time a cop who had RAS was demanding the identity document. If you didn't have an identity document--specified as driver's license or state ID card--then you were not in violation of the statute requiring you to provide an identity document.

So, no, I don't think this statute will get past SCOTUS. Plenty of people will incur legal bills in the meantime. And, probably the police union will give the legislator their stamp of approval at the next election. Freedom will suffer. But, I don't think SCOTUS will let this one slide, not without a safety hatch for people who don't have an identity document on them at the time.


*I have no idea how a passenger can violate the title. I guess the passenger can throw some litter from the car window or something. It would be interesting to see the whole title to figure out which violations could be committed by a passenger. Wouldn't it be grand if they were very few? "Really? This legislator is promoting this bill to barricade passenger litterbugs into appearing in court? Really? And, thereby creating the necessity for every passenger in the state to first obtain and then carry identity documentation? Really? Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahhaa?"

Heh, heh, heh. How about this one. "Your honor, my passenger kept twisting the switch on my wipers. That's why I didn't have my headlights on in the rain. It was all the passenger's fault. You know the statute, judge--the one that says I must turn on my headlights if my wipers are on full time. Well, since my passenger kept turning off my wipers, they were not on full time. So, I couldn't possibly turn on my headlights."
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,396
Location
White Oak Plantation
Then again...

[FONT=&quot]Every good street cop knows that a traffic stop must be based on at least reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Officers know that the driver is “seized” by the traffic stop, and has the protection of Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure. [/FONT]

https://www.policeone.com/legal/art...ing-a-traffic-stop-The-Supreme-Court-answers/
Idiot judges! Citizen is correct, many a dollar will be spent to defend against this law. Open your trap as prescribed by law. When a passenger carry sterile.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
They can't get around Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177.
Give name only. No ID required.
Before anyone goes all ******* about "Remember HIIBEL!!" they might to do well to remember that Hiibel LOST that particular case.

Hiibel LOST because he refused to give his name or any identifying documents

The ruling in Hiibel is that "Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment."

Hiibel does not limit a state's authority to demanding ONLY a name where such state's criminal code demands more.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
PAPERS, YOU HAVE NOW ENTERED NAZI GERMANY..

However the 9th amendment if argued properly should defeat any Nazi de facto ordinances..

Was this some BS law started by that outed tyrant ex sheriff Joe Arpaio?...

My .02

Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Before anyone goes all ******* about "Remember HIIBEL!!" they might to do well to remember that Hiibel LOST that particular case.

Hiibel LOST because he refused to give his name or any identifying documents

The ruling in Hiibel is that "Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment."

Hiibel does not limit a state's authority to demanding ONLY a name where such state's criminal code demands more.
So is everyone a suspect? And is the states criminal code constitutional?..

Regards
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
So is everyone a suspect? And is the states criminal code constitutional?
No, only those who have been stopped with a reasonable, articulable suspicion of illegality should ever need to identify themselves; it's not our job to make law enforcement's job easier.

Which state's; Nevada's?
NRS 171.123  Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

1.  Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
2.  Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of the person’s parole or probation.
3.  The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the person’s identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4.  A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172; 1995, 2068)​
It seems to have passed judicial muster (Hiibel, remember. wasn't convicted of not providing sufficient identification but of refusing to provide any information at all. The Supreme Court affirmed the Nevada Supreme Court affirmation of the Sixth Judicial District Court's affirmation of the Justice Court for Union Township's conviction of Hiibel. Hiibel could have saved himself if he had provided at the very least his name.) His he not been so stubborn, he would have prevailed in his civil suit.


I don't see the current bill passing judicial review; no state in the Union demands it's citizens carry identification just to walk out the door, only a license when performing a licensed activity*.





*Which in a small minority of states such license must be accompanied by a driving license or other state issued identification.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I notice two things right off the bat about the proposed legislation -
1) It doesn't say anything about who issued the "EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY",:shocker: as such it might be argued that one's library card, school ID or Mom's handwritten note might be sufficient.

2) It would seem that if an officer does issue a citation or make an arrest and you show up to court with an ID valid at the time of the incident, you get to walk away scot-free while costing the county lots of money to pay Officer Friendly to show up and read a magazine until the case is called before a judge.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,341
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Before anyone goes all ******* about "Remember HIIBEL!!" they might to do well to remember that Hiibel LOST that particular case.

Hiibel LOST because he refused to give his name or any identifying documents

The ruling in Hiibel is that "Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment."

Hiibel does not limit a state's authority to demanding ONLY a name where such state's criminal code demands more.
The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose their name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.

I suggest you reread Hiibel. And let me just say I was involved in a case in Ohio where the guy only gave his name. Ohio requires name, address and date of birth. The cop charged him for refusing to give his address and date of birth. He (Pro Se) filed a motion to dismiss based on Hiibel. The court dismissed the case.

If you are right then why have lower courts ruled that Heller only allowed firearms in your home and not in the public?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose their name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.
Probably because that principle wasn't a matter before the court. The court answered the question put before it, "Was Mr Hiibel guilty of not identifying himself when he absolutely refused to give his name?" And the ruling was 'yes', he was and that NEVADA had the authority to demand it. If you would be so kind, please direct me to where in Hiibel the Supreme Court held that a state other than Nevada had the authority to ONLY demand a name and not further information. I'll happily change my opinion in light of new evidence.


I suggest you reread Hiibel. And let me just say I was involved in a case in Ohio where the guy only gave his name. Ohio requires name, address and date of birth. The cop charged him for refusing to give his address and date of birth. He (Pro Se) filed a motion to dismiss based on Hiibel. The court dismissed the case.

If you are right then why have lower courts ruled that Heller only allowed firearms in your home and not in the public?
I hope you'll forgive me for any unwillingness to discuss 'some case' brought in 'some Ohio court' where 'some guy' was charged by 'some cop'. I will note however that in my Very limited knowledge of what passes for jurisprudence that a dismissal isn't the same as an acquittal, and may be for a variety of reasons. Put us on an even footing where I have the same case to refer to and I'll happily entertain a discussion.
 
Last edited:

The Trickster

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
216
Location
Arizona
Meh, what's the big deal? I mean, we as "free people" already need permission slips (licenses, permits, etc.) to do just about everything anyway, so why not make it a law to require passengers to possess and provide identification upon demand for any or no reason at all?

I think I may contact Rep. Kern and discuss my idea for requiring a permit to breathe and a license to excrete feces.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP No, only those who have been stopped with a reasonable, articulable suspicion of illegality should ever need to identify themselves; it's not our job to make law enforcement's job easier.
I disagree with the first bold.

And, totally agree with the second.

I'll start with the second. I agree!!! <shouting> Rights are rights are rights are rights. A lot of people paid a very high price indeed to wrest from government recognition of various rights. And, just for perspective, nobody should have needed to lift a finger. Rights are just decency. Government should have been recognizing them all along. So, as to the second point, if government wants to weasel and worm their way through self-created loopholes in rights, we are certainly under no obligation to make it easier for them to refuse to recognize rights we shouldn't have to be asking for in the first place.

Now for the first point. When I first heard about Terry Stops, I was indignant. "Why, how dare they?" Then I read Terry v Ohio (the granddaddy of detention cases) which involves the beginnings of reasonable, articulable suspicion. Oh, snap! That makes sense. Dang it. Now I gotta let go my indignation.

But, then something changed. I happened to be reading Terry v Ohio for something like the twenty-seventh time and several years later when I noticed an internal contradiction in the court opinion. "Wait! Whaaat? Hang on just a second."

You see, Terry v Ohio invented out of thin air the power for police to detain someone. "What!!! Citizen, you're crazy! What have you been smoking?" I'll get to that in a moment. Want I want to call to your attention, reader, is the subtlety. I didn't even notice it, not only at first but after, oh, at least a dozen readings of the court opinion. It was for me an object lesson in how government can sound oh-so reasonable while knocking a giant hole in rights.

Out of thin air, I said. Out of thin air, I meant. It is very simple, you see. You can look this up for yourself. There are two points devastating to the government's position.

First, early in the opinion, Terry v Ohio, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) quotes an earlier opinion--Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford. SCOTUS quotes (this is not meant to be verbatim, but very substantially correct), "...No right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of their own person, free from all interference and restraint, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Meaning, unless government has received delegated authority to interfere or restrain someone, that person has a most sacred and carefully guarded right to not only not be restrained, but not even interfered with.

So, problem. If Detective McFadden had clear and unquestionable authority of law to detain Mr. Terry, how the devil did the case make it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States? The whole reason the case made it to SCOTUS was because it was open to question. The plain fact is Detective McFadden did not have "clear and unquestionable authority of law" to detain Mr. Terry. The authority of law did not exist prior to Terry!!

I mentioned two points. Here is the second. It is in the dissenting opinion. The dissenting justice points out that the majority are handing police more power to seize someone than a magistrate. Focus on the present tense. The dissenting justice did not argue that police already had this power and SCOTUS should curb it. Oh, no. The dissenting justice said the majority (present tense) is handing more power to police than magistrates. Oh, my, my. If SCOTUS "is handing" that power to police, then Detective McFadden could not possibly have had that power prior to seizing Mr. Terry.

So, back to the identity question. If SCOTUS invented out of thin air the power of police to seize someone on reasonable, articulable suspicion (detain them), then there is no possible way someone seized on RAS should have to identify themselves. Government just made up the power to seize (detain) out of thin air. When government later comes along and tells cops "you can only demand identity if you have RAS", they are full of it. The latter rests on a false premise that they themselves invented out of thin air.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,396
Location
White Oak Plantation
What the terry court did is permit a cop to not need any objective facts at that time to detain you at that time, the cop need only articulate "his facts" at a later date to a judge.

I tell cops my name and follow with "I'm in the phone book." The argument that I could have been on my way if I had cooperated is nullified by the below statute.

Arrest. 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
There is no detainment in the state of Missouri.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,341
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Probably because that principle wasn't a matter before the court. The court answered the question put before it, "Was Mr Hiibel guilty of not identifying himself when he absolutely refused to give his name?" And the ruling was 'yes', he was and that NEVADA had the authority to demand it. If you would be so kind, please direct me to where in Hiibel the Supreme Court held that a state other than Nevada had the authority to ONLY demand a name and not further information. I'll happily change my opinion in light of new evidence.
Hiibel Syllabus
The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.
Hiibel Opinion
The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.
If you read the case you would have noticed they said STATE, they didn't say NEVADA.

I hope you'll forgive me for any unwillingness to discuss 'some case' brought in 'some Ohio court' where 'some guy' was charged by 'some cop'. I will note however that in my Very limited knowledge of what passes for jurisprudence that a dismissal isn't the same as an acquittal, and may be for a variety of reasons. Put us on an even footing where I have the same case to refer to and I'll happily entertain a discussion.
Discuss what? It's quit presumptuous of you to insinuate I requested any input from you or requested your engagement in any discussion with you in regards to my statement. My statement was just that, a statement.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Hiibel Syllabus
Hiibel Opinion
If you read the case you would have noticed they said STATE, they didn't say NEVADA.
Indeed they did say a state could, and states DO. I don't see anywhere in the Syllabus or Opinion that a state may Only require a name or that a state may not require More than that.

Nevada did not, and does not require any specific disclosures it merely says "identify". My Hiibel refused to provide ANY information, not even his name. The USSC said in Hiibel that had he provided the minimum of information (his name) then the Nevada statute could have been satisfied.
Mr Hiibel did not reveal his name because he thought the Nevada code was unconstitutionally vague, he refused to give his name because he thought it 'was none of the officer's business.'
Mr Hiibel was asked multiple times to produce any identification at all, even a vocalized name which the Nevada Supreme Court said would have satisfied the Nevada Code.
Mr Hiibel chose not to reveal his name.
Mr Hiibel was convicted.

From the same source mentioned by Color of Law
"The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in
the course of a Terry stop."
The NRS did not specify what had to be disclosed.

The USSC did rule that in the case of Nevada (which did not have any specificity as to what identification must be disclosed) a simple oral statement of a suspects name would have satisfied the NV statute.

The USSC did not rule that a state COULD NOT require a suspect to disclose more.
The USSC did not rule that a state COULD ONLY require a suspect to disclose his name.

I suspect that IF they had there would be a veritable slew of law suits against just under half of the states in the nation... but they seem ... well, they seem not to be any.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,341
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Indeed they did say a state could, and states DO. I don't see anywhere in the Syllabus or Opinion that a state may Only require a name or that a state may not require More than that.
snip
The USSC did not rule that a state COULD NOT require a suspect to disclose more.
The USSC did not rule that a state COULD ONLY require a suspect to disclose his name.

I suspect that IF they had there would be a veritable slew of law suits against just under half of the states in the nation... but they seem ... well, they seem not to be any.
The word “only” being an adjective is added to or grammatically relates to a noun to modify or describe it. Adding the word “only” to the sentence to modify or describe the word “name” would be superfluous. A name is a name.

Please name one lawsuit, let alone successful, where someone sued over the wording of a statute.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The word “only” being an adjective is added to or grammatically relates to a noun to modify or describe it. Adding the word “only” to the sentence to modify or describe the word “name” would be superfluous. A name is a name.

Please name one lawsuit, let alone successful, where someone sued over the wording of a statute.
They can't get around Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177.
Give name only. No ID required.
Welcome to the world of superfluity. I used 'only' because that's the word you used.

Again, where in Hiibel, its decision, summary, or its syllabus, does it say a state may demand only a name?
Where in Hiibel does it say a state may not demand more?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,396
Location
White Oak Plantation
Is it true, what I am hearing about AZ about to pass a law making it a 'crime' to not have ID while riding in a car with a friend?
Yes.

[FONT=&quot]C. A person other than the driver of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to provide [/FONT][FONT=&quot]evidence of[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the person's [/FONT][FONT=&quot]EVIDENCE OF [/FONT][FONT=&quot]identity to a peace officer or a duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency on request, when such officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a violation of this title, is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.[/FONT]
How on earth can a passenger violate this title?

A violation is not stopping (not the passenger's responsibility). Not identifying yourself after you did not stop the driver from driving?...oh-kayee...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,341
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Welcome to the world of superfluity. I used 'only' because that's the word you used.

Again, where in Hiibel, its decision, summary, or its syllabus, does it say a state may demand only a name?
Where in Hiibel does it say a state may not demand more?
I used “only” as an adverb meaning Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others").

End of story. However, you are free to carry on whatever conversation you wish to have with yourself.
 
Top