• 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

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Yeah, I think I'll just roll with -
"The USSC did not rule that a state could not require a suspect to disclose MORE Than his name.
The USSC did not rule that a state could ONLY require a suspect to disclose his name."

I'd like to be wrong, but just under half of the states in the Union seem to be of the same opinion.
 
Last edited:

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
Yes.

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...
Look at it from the LEO's point(which I am not one), you see a passenger drinking an open container , throwing trash/bottle out the window, flicking a lit cigarette out of the car in a high fire area, not wearing a seat belt, or there is 10 pounds of meth in the car , or the car is stolen,etc and the passenger does not want to give his name, because he was not driving....... The LEO has every right to demand ID to issue a citation (arrest with release for promise to appear) for the minor stuff, or investigate further . The passenger can go ahead and refuse to ID himself. That is his choice, the LEO having all the RAS he needs, can then arrest the passenger and bring him to a judge, where the passenger can tell the judge his name or not. If the passenger gets arrested after court hours on Friday, you can bet he will not be seeing a judge until sometime Monday.

Hope it was worth it to the passenger not to ID himself , he will get to meet all sorts of interesting people in county jail that weekend that also were put in the same cage/bedroom. No Thanks, I just think I will give my name, take my ticket for whatever the charge is, skip the weekend in "boys camp" , and tell my story to the judge in my street clothes at some later convenient date and not a county jumpsuit after a weekend of stale jail food and hostile roommates. Sometimes using little common sense prevails. If you are going to do illegal things as a passenger, I guess it is best to have some ID with you to stay out of jail. If Leo's already have RAS to ask you for id, like this law says must occur, a bad attitude will go along way to meeting a new set of friends at the county jail. You have to understand many people don't carry ID, because they have outstanding warrants and are used to giving LEO's false names . Passengers think because they are not driving, they can get away with this. If a LEO already has RAS, you are probably going to get "run in", so I don't see how this hurts the honest citizen who is a passenger and has not violated any law.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
It will take a LEO shooting and killing an innocent passenger before they pass this law that passengers must carry ID. Reason? Well if the passenger had ID he/she might not have been shot.

Don't laugh, that's the thinking going down now.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
Yes.

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...
Seatbelt and littering, just to name 2.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Seatbelt and littering, just to name 2.
ARS 28-1595 - Failure to stop or provide driver license or evidence of identity- is Chapter 5, Article 4 of the ARS.

ARS 28-909 - Vehicle restraints required; exceptions - is Chapter 3, Article 15.
ARS 28-7056- Dumping trash on highways or airports - is Chapter 20, Article 5.

One may wish to note that observing a front seat occupant not wearing a seat belt is not justification for a stop unless a further traffic violation is alleged in accordance with 28-909 C. If a citation is issued then IAW 28-909 C it goes to operator of the vehicle.

It might also be noted that if trash, refuse, rubbish, debris, filthy or odoriferous objects, substances or other trash is observed coming from a motor vehicle, the driver of the vehicle or pilot of the aircraft is presumed to be the offender IAW 28-7056 B.

For neither instance would a passenger need to provide any identification documents.
 
Last edited:
Top