Qustion for LEOS in MA

[Half Cocked]

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.

Agreed!

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

It appears that I had misunderstood the OP. He had stated that he had been "asked" for his license (which is always fine) and then asked if he was "required to provide ID" meaning to actually produce the license. It was solely my confusion.

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

I agree. I had misread the OP. It was my bad. I saw where he was "asked" for his license and did not fully comprehend the semantics further.

 

[Half Cocked]

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.

Yup

 

[Boghog1]

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.

Yes required to Identify themselves not provide ID

” The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.

 

[GSG]

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.

Yes required to Identify themselves not provide ID

That's the distinction that I missed. +1 to you both

 

[Leadfarmer]

Just to stur it up further...

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada requires those suspected of commiting a crime to identify themselves. It uses the phrase: "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" which has long been the standard for reasonable suspicions of "unlawful design." Nothing new in this decision, just a reaffirmation of the requirement, under Nevada Law, to identify yourself when detatined by police, where you are the scope of a criminal investigation, where all the legal standards are met for a lawful detention. Again, nothing earth shaking in this decision.

Back to the m/v stop, where the passenger is not the scope of any investigation or wrongdoing, not only are they not required to "provide an ID" but they don't have to identify themselves at all.

If they are not the scope of an investigation, quite frankly, they can completely ignore the Officers demands.

You will not find a law on the books in Mass that requires citizens to randomly identify themselves to police at the random discretion of the officer.

So semantics or not, there is no legal requirement to even speak to or look at the officer.

As aggravating as it may be...

 

[maxdogk911]

There are few reasons why most cops would ask for a passengers license or to ID themselves. A few have been mentioned here and covered well. Being in an area at a certain time of day or night where there has been a number of breaks,either vehicle or homes. The smell of burning marijuana or drugs in plainview. The vehicle or occupants matches the discription of one used in some type of illeagal activity that was passed along to other officers (bolo) There are a number of reasons to ask for a passengers ID.

Normally during a routine traffic stop, there is no real reason to ask for it, unless they are adult aged and not wearing a seat belt. But I don't think I saw in any of the posts the complete senario of what happened and I don't remember if the passenger ever asked the cop why he wanted it ?????? If they had we would probably know all the questions in the post ! I know if it were me, I would ask why, but thats just me.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Two questions:

1. Who owned the car? If it was YOU, you are required to ID yourself if you are the registered owner. Even if you are sitting in the passenger seat.

2. What time was it? I assume it was after dark? There is some obscure c90 MGL that allows police to require name and address of anyone in a motor vehicle on a traffic stop (After Sunset). I don't believe that is says it has to be an ID, but I don't have the law text in front of me.

 

[GSG]

Back to the m/v stop, where the passenger is not the scope of any investigation or wrongdoing, not only are they not required to "provide an ID" but they don't have to identify themselves at all.

If they are not the scope of an investigation, quite frankly, they can completely ignore the Officers demands.

You will not find a law on the books in Mass that requires citizens to randomly identify themselves to police at the random discretion of the officer.

So semantics or not, there is no legal requirement to even speak to or look at the officer.

That is incorrect. See below.

2. What time was it? I assume it was after dark? There is some obscure c90 MGL that allows police to require name and address of anyone in a motor vehicle on a traffic stop (After Sunset). I don't believe that is says it has to be an ID, but I don't have the law text in front of me.

Good find!

That's MGL 85-16, which requires anyone in those circumstances to give their true name and address. The penalty is a whopping $5 fine , but MGL 85-17 seems a little fuzzy about whether or not the fine can be applied to the passenger. The only caselaw on it is Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 531, which has some very harsh words for cops who use it for anything more than exactly what it says. They also pointed out that it's very obscure and almost never enforced.

 

[Leadfarmer]

85 s16...nice find.

My hat is off to you Sir.

A non-arrestible-misdemeaner-catch-all-BS-charge, $5 dollar fine to boot.

Now what do you put down on the ticket for a name if they still tell you to f-off? Ha-ha!!!

Concurring with your assesment of Alvarez, I would take it a little further.

The Motion to Supress in Alvarez was allowed and the way I read it judge says-without-saying that 85-16 is unconstituional. Kind of sidestepped around it.

With 85-16 as the authority for the inquiry, the judge still deems the interaction: "The unlawful interrogation of Crespo", allowing the MTS and throws out the "fruits of the poisenous tree." IMHO, this case throws out any water 85-16 once held because anything beyond the mere documentation of name and address would be covered by this decision and not allowed.

My personal take is this was probably the statute replaced by 90-25 and was never taken off the books. Just a quess.

 

[GSG]

Concurring with your assesment of Alvarez, I would take it a little further.

The Motion to Supress in Alvarez was allowed and the way I read it judge says-without-saying that 85-16 is unconstituional. Kind of sidestepped around it.

With 85-16 as the authority for the inquiry, the judge still deems the interaction: "The unlawful interrogation of Crespo", allowing the MTS and throws out the "fruits of the poisenous tree." IMHO, this case throws out any water 85-16 once held because anything beyond the mere documentation of name and address would be covered by this decision and not allowed.

The law is very likely unconstitutional (although remember, the SJC went on record saying they don't always follow the Constitution, see post #47 in this thread ), but 85-16 didn't rise to any consideration in this case because the Trooper didn't stay within it's boundaries. The crux of the matter is the Trooper's testimony; he stated that he requested ID from Crespo, and that he routinely requested ID from the passengers of cars that he stopped, both because of 85-16.

The issue is that 85-16 doesn't require them to produce an identifying document, it simply requires them to give their true name and address. Trooper Brooks was stepping outside of the protection of this law by requesting Crespo's ID as opposed to requesting his name and address. He needs PC for ID, but it only needs to be dark outside to get the passenger's name and address. Make sense?

This is very similar to LTC's. In Mass., MGL 140-129C requires an LTC or FID holder to produce their license on the demand of a police officer when in public or when their property is under lawful search. In Couture and several other cases it's been held that the carrying of a firearm is a lawful activity, and is not on it's own enough PC for a stop. So if a cop in Mass. sees some thug with a HiPoint hanging out of his pants in Dorchester, he can say at any time "Show me your LTC." However, he needs PC to ask "Do you have an LTC?" One is protected by law, the other is getting into 4A/5A issues.

Based on what I read in the Alvarez case, I believe that Trooper Brooks was a good cop who made a good stop which resulted in a good bust. IMO he honestly believed he was following the law, but he missed the little nuance between name/address and ID, and his statements were a broken link in the PC chain. Because of that tiny error the whole case was thrown out. You could contrast his behavior with the actions of Trooper Cohen in Commonwealth Vs. Brown, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 528, who was very clearly jacking passengers up at random to see what he could find, then trying to talk his way out of it after.

If 85-16 had been followed to the letter, the Alvarez case would have run a different course. Chances are it would have still been thrown out for constitutional reasons, but the issue with the case as it stands wasn't anything huge or evil IMO.

My personal take is this was probably the statute replaced by 90-25 and was never taken off the books. Just a quess.

I believe it was an old law written for carts and horses. I have no idea the reasoning behind it though, probably a panic bill drafted to combat some type crime at night.

 

[Tim L]

If I'm not the operator,I will tell them my name and town of residence,period.NO d.o.b or anything else .F##k them.

 

[GSG]

As far as your legal duty goes, "address" seems to be more specific than which town you reside in, although interestingly it doesn't specify that the passenger provide their home address, although it is implied.

 

[Tim L]

Dave Ridley has demonstrated Name and town of residence.Thats all.

 

[GSG]

Dave Ridley has demonstrated Name and town of residence.Thats all.

That nutcase lives in NH where that's all that's required. This is a law specific to Mass., that's why I replied that way. I missed your location until now.

 

[Tim L]

I admire Ridley for putting himself in hot water repeatedly to preserve our rights. The Constitution applies everywhere,even in Mass.

 

[Leadfarmer]

GSG,

That's a solid "roger" on that.

Great breakdown.