Qustion for LEOS in MA

[nate]

I live in ma and the other day my friend and I were pulled over. When the officer came to the drivers window he asked for the drivers license and registration as well as my license. I was curious as to if im obligated to produce my license as a passenger.

 

[Ma$$hole]

An officer can ask for your ID if you interact with him during the traffic stop or if he feels you are acting suspiciously/ uncooperative. He can also ask for your ID if both of you happen to be tresspassing meaning you would both be breaking tresspass laws then he has every right to know who you are. Outside of that if you get pulled over on a regular traffic stop and you sit still with your hands visibly on the dash you shouldn't need to be asked to hand over your license.

 

[glockguy17]

Were you wearing your seatbelt? If not you are also subject to a citation.

 

[Kevlar]

IANALEO (or a lawyer), but my understanding is that, as a passenger, the only two instances where a individual is required to present identification are a seat belt violation (M.G.L. c.90 s.13A) or any "...person...occupying a vehicle during the period from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise..." (M.G.L. c.85 s.16).

 

[Jose]

You do not have to carry ID with you. If you do not have it, it is not a crime, no matter what some dickhead with a badge tells you. You do have to ID yourself (full name, maybe address) so that police can do a reasonable attempt to find out who they are dealing with in an official encounter.

 

[abomb60]

In short no. A pullover due to a chapter 89/90 violation is between the officer and driver. They have no legal right to ask you for ID in that case as you were not the operator.

 

[Tater]

if you are over 16 and not wearing a seatbelt you are responsible for yourself not the driver so he could id you to write a citation.

 

[economist]

In this instance, the officer likely was a good guy doing his job.

Having said that, while you may have rights in theory, in practice out in the real world you have no rights. If the officer asks for ID, you can comply or suffer the consequences. Whether he has the right to ask just doesn't matter.

It's really no different than getting mugged and thinking to yourself that the mugger just broke the law and violated your rights. He did, but that fact won't get your wallet back.

The point here is that the officer then and there decides what happens to you. Only later do abstractions like the law mean anything, and even then there are no guarantees. People imagine some magical protection they get from being U.S. citizens with constitutionally defined liberties. That's nonsense. In the moment, your liberties are defined by what you are given and what you are willing to take. Only later, if you live, can you engage in an arduous and expensive legal process to define and claim any legal rights you, in theory, had during some event many months or years ago.

 

[Leadfarmer]

If you are a passenger in a motor vehicle being operated on a public way and you are not the scope of an investigation (like a seat belt or tresspassing) you have zero obligation to provide any identification to an officer. Even if he is a "good guy" "doing his job".

What that "good guy" is doing is violating the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the name of "just doing his job."

Every once in a while, a "good guy" "just doing his job" pulls over the wrong car and goes on a fishing expedition and his agency pays out to settle it.

 

[economist]

If you are a passenger in a motor vehicle being operated on a public way and you are not the scope of an investigation (like a seat belt or tresspassing) you have zero obligation to provide any identification to an officer. Even if he is a "good guy" "doing his job".

What that "good guy" is doing is violating the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the name of "just doing his job."

People's rights get violated all of the time. And the people doing the violating don't give a damn. So, you can take it or you can resist. In that moment the constitution is irrelevant to a conflict between a couple of people on the side of the road.

Every once in a while, a "good guy" "just doing his job" pulls over the wrong car and goes on a fishing expedition and his agency pays out to settle it.

Yes, that's true. A few years later, after legal fees, being deposed, being accused, and being stonewalled, somebody might get a few bucks in exchange for his rights being violated on that roadside. Of course, that's the best outcome. There are plenty worse.

 

[Leadfarmer]

People's rights get violated all of the time. And the people doing the violating don't give a damn. So, you can take it or you can resist. In that moment the constitution is irrelevant to a conflict between a couple of people on the side of the road.

Yes, that's true. A few years later, after legal fees, being deposed, being accused, and being stonewalled, somebody might get a few bucks in exchange for his rights being violated on that roadside. Of course, that's the best outcome. There are plenty worse.

The question was, is he obligated to provide his ID.

The answer is no.

There is no criminal statute that he is violating.

There are plenty of cases where this has been a big issue and the charges went south, so there is recourse in the courts for police misconduct(intentional or inadvertant).

Look up the recent case in the Worcester Federal court. Multi-million dollar payout. Hardly what you characterize as "a few bucks in exchange for his rights being violated on that roadside."

I don't share your overly negative veiw and generalization of the conduct of police.

There are hard working men and women out there doing a great job day in and day out, and just like every other profession, there are a few bad apples.

But that was not the question.

 

[economist]

I don't share your overly negative veiw and generalization of the conduct of police.

There are hard working men and women out there doing a great job day in and day out, and just like every other profession, there are a few bad apples.

But that was not the question.

I don't have an "overly negative view". I am saying that it is unlikely that an officer would be interested in hearing one's perspective on civil liberties during a traffic stop. And, therefore, whatever your rights might be in theory, in practice your rights are whatever the officer says they are. That's all. If the officer gets it right, then all is well.

 

[abomb60]

I don't have an "overly negative view". I am saying that it is unlikely that an officer would be interested in hearing one's perspective on civil liberties during a traffic stop. And, therefore, whatever your rights might be in theory, in practice your rights are whatever the officer says they are. That's all. If the officer gets it right, then all is well.

I will both agree and disagree here. You are correct in that the officer normally won't care what the persons perspective is but that only applies if they (the officer) are legally right. If I pull someone over and want to ID the passenger without probable cause that they did anything wrong then I can certainly ask. If they say no I can try to intimidate them in some fashion or keep asking. However if they do not comply and are legally correct in doing so I cannot force them to comply without breaking the law myself.

Also a drivers license is for operating a motor vehicle not for walking around outside. If I ask for ID and they don't have any on them I really have no legal reason to keep talking to them unless they are operating the vehicle or I have probable cause of a crime.

Now if 2 people are sitting in a car at night and are trespassing (non-chapter 89/90 violation) then the passenger is fair game and will provide me an ID or give me their information.

Anyway just my $0.02. Take it or leave it

 

[Leadfarmer]

I don't have an "overly negative view". I am saying that it is unlikely that an officer would be interested in hearing one's perspective on civil liberties during a traffic stop. And, therefore, whatever your rights might be in theory, in practice your rights are whatever the officer says they are. That's all. If the officer gets it right, then all is well.

I agree.

They are out there.

I guess it is just up to the individual how far they are willing to go with it.

 

[Leadfarmer]

I would certainly refrain from "intimidation".

The passenger is detained as a result of the stop, however, "free to leave" in most circumstances.

"Intimidating" them would functionally turn the encounter into a seizure of the person and in direct contradiction with the 4th Amendment and police powers in general.

When asking for ID in a consensual encounter, you are asking "consent" to examine their ID. Coersion or duress invalidates that consent.

 

[abomb60]

I would certainly refrain from "intimidation".

The passenger is detained as a result of the stop, however, "free to leave" in most circumstances.

"Intimidating" them would functionally turn the encounter into a seizure of the person and in direct contradiction with the 4th Amendment and police powers in general.

When asking for ID in a consensual encounter, you are asking "consent" to examine their ID. Coersion or duress invalidates that consent.

Agreed. However some LEO's get it wrong.

 

[nate]

In this instance, the officer likely was a good guy doing his job.

yea thats why he made us wait for 45 min in our car while he ran our licenses because we told him we were going to a certain place and he mentioned that they closed in a half an hour. nice guy

 

[Leadfarmer]

yea thats why he made us wait for 45 min in our car while he ran our licenses because we told him we were going to a certain place and he mentioned that they closed in a half an hour. nice guy

Well, there's three sides to every story...

 

[nate]

just the time it took him for a routine traffic stop is a little absurd

 

[GSG]

yea thats why he made us wait for 45 min in our car while he ran our licenses because we told him we were going to a certain place and he mentioned that they closed in a half an hour. nice guy

Passenger seat Johnny Cochran issues aside, this part is interesting.

 

[glockguy17]

Passenger seat Johnny Cochran issues aside, this part is interesting.

+2

Long story short. You can't make one blanket stament that LEOs cannot ask a passenger for ID. There are so many circumstances where they can that you have to evaluate them on case by case basis.

 

[Half Cocked]

I live in ma and the other day my friend and I were pulled over. When the officer came to the drivers window he asked for the drivers license and registration as well as my license. I was curious as to if im obligated to produce my license as a passenger.

There are many legitimate and legal reasons why it would be OK. This question cannot be answered without knowing the reason and circumstances surrounding the stop.

The question was, is he obligated to provide his ID.

The answer is no.

There is no criminal statute that he is violating.

Soooo..... you know the reason and circumstances surrounding the stop to make such a bold statement?

But that was not the question.

You right.........The question was directed to LEO's ...........

Passenger seat Johnny Cochran issues aside, this part is interesting.

Agreed!

Long story short. You can't make one blanket stament that LEOs cannot ask a passenger for ID. There are so many circumstances where they can that you have to evaluate them on case by case basis.

Yup!

 

[Leadfarmer]

Didn't say I knew the circumstances of the stop.

I re-read my posts and didn't see where you got that from either, but...whatever.

I thought I was pretty clear.

However, to reiterate, if a motor vehicle is stopped for a m/v infraction and a passenger is not the scope of an investigation, they are under zero obligation to provide identification.

That's all I said, but feel free to provide anything of substance to the contrary. (Don't bother looking, you won't find it.)

Our friend could give us more info to go on, but he didn't, so me/you/us can infer all we want. I agree that there are many legit reasons to ask for ID, however, in the limited facts presented, none were provided.

Along those lines, if the passenger is the scope of an investigation, of many we can all imagine, the encounter is now a threshold inquiry that is taking place in or around a motor vehicle, and he must now comply with the resonable demands of the Officer.

Pretty basic police academy Con Law 101 if you ask me.

 

[Half Cocked]

Didn't say I knew the circumstances of the stop.

I re-read my posts and didn't see where you got that from either, but...whatever.

I thought I was pretty clear.

However, to reiterate, if a motor vehicle is stopped for a m/v infraction and a passenger is not the scope of an investigation, they are under zero obligation to provide identification.

That's all I said, but feel free to provide anything of substance to the contrary. (Don't bother looking, you won't find it.)

This is your response to the OP.........

The question was, is he obligated to provide his ID.

The answer is no.

There is no criminal statute that he is violating.

The OP never said the circumstances surrounding the stop so how do you know there was "no criminal statute that he is violating" ............. you are assuming that it is a simple motor vehicle infraction but that has not been determined.

 

[Leadfarmer]

This is your response to the OP.........



The OP never said the circumstances surrounding the stop so how do you know there was "no criminal statute that he is violating" ............. you are assuming that it is a simple motor vehicle infraction but that has not been determined.

Spinning my words.

I have clearly stated that if the passenger is not the scope of an investigation, he is under no obligation to provide his ID.

That refusal to provide ID does not trigger a criminal violation.

Perhaps I should have wrote "There is no criminal statute that he is violatingby refusing to provide ID"

That would possibly clear up your misunderstanding of what I wrote.

 

[06LemansC6]

There are many legitimate and legal reasons why it would be OK. This question cannot be answered without knowing the reason and circumstances surrounding the stop.

Soooo..... you know the reason and circumstances surrounding the stop to make such a bold statement?

I would like to see/know the MGL or any other US law that requires a US citizen to provide ID aside from operating a vehicle. You may have the right to ask questions such as name, address etc. to try and identify someone suspected of a crime, but I have yet to find any law that indicates you must provide ID. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, and provide a source to the law.

The OP asked if he was required to provide ID. He did not ask if he was required to identify himself.

 

[GSG]

I have clearly stated that if the passenger is not the scope of an investigation, he is under no obligation to provide his ID.

That refusal to provide ID does not trigger a criminal violation.

But requesting it is not illegal, and is justified in many circumstances.

I would like to see/know the MGL or any other US law that requires a US citizen to provide ID aside from operating a vehicle. You may have the right to ask questions such as name, address etc. to try and identify someone suspected of a crime, but I have yet to find any law that indicates you must provide ID. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, and provide a source to the law.

See the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada where SCOTUS upheld Nevada's law requiring one to identify themselves to the police.

The OP asked if he was required to provide ID. He did not ask if he was required to identify himself.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke, it appears that the OP is being economical with the truth. I have this nagging feeling that there's a lot more to the story.

 

[06LemansC6]

See the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada where SCOTUS upheld Nevada's law requiring one to identify themselves to the police.

I will look this up later, but there is a difference between requiring one to show ID and one to identify themselves. I was commenting on a requirement to show ID and I know of no such requirement, and so far no one has produced one.

 

[nate]

it was just a bar

 

[Leadfarmer]

But requesting it is not illegal, and is justified in many circumstances.

Agreed, as a matter of style however, consider the following:

The mere act of requesting and then receiving and possesing the ID to run the person through the computer can turn the consentual encounter into a detention, because while you posses the ID, they are not free to leave. It is not reasonable to leave while the officer posseses one's identification. I would suggest them providing their name etc..you write it down, and you then run it. This way, during a consentual encounter, a detention does not take place and they are free to leave during the encounter. By not triggering any custodial event, you leave the door open for other things.

"See the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada where SCOTUS upheld Nevada's law requiring one to identify themselves to the police.

However, not on the books in Mass. Maybe someday, but not currently.

"To paraphrase Edmund Burke, it appears that the OP is being economical with the truth. I have this nagging feeling that there's a lot more to the story.

Ha!!! I agree but didn't want to say it!!!