5 ms·

It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble. For example, you a

It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble. For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon. Resisting at any point of this is very risky. Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.

m348e912 4mo ago
This is so true, and it's surprising how many people don't know what they are obligated to do when asked by an officer. It's even fuzzy for me at times. It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)]. All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.
- happytoexplain 4mo ago
  I'm going to charitably guess that you do not mean "surprising" in the common way, as in "wow, I can't explain why people don't know this laundry list of requests you are or are not required to comply with"; but rather as in "it's surprising that we find ourselves in this hellish society where citizens need to memorize a bunch of shit or else live in fear of every police interaction where they might sacrifice a right they didn't need to or vice versa and get handcuffed." Police should not be allowed to put you in that situation, period. Then you can teach everybody that one fact, instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
  - m348e912 4mo ago
    > instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment). Looking at the comments, I will agree that there are different interpretations of the case law I cited. But the only thing that matters is can this case law be used against you to convict you for not complying with an officer, my understanding is it can, but I am not a lawyer. I'd love to see civil rights lawyers tackle traffic stop etiquette head on and come up with clear guidance for drivers and passengers in common situations. "Keeping your mouth shut" is a good start.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  > show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States] Not what it establishes. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841 > your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] Not what Brendlin establishes (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120) nor Johnson (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122). Passengers in a vehicle aren't even required to have a license. There's no requirement for citizens to carry papers in the US. (They may be required to give their name, but not carry ID.) > you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) Only because "officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing [a] bulge in his jacket" (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830) > Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)] Similarly, if the stop is legitimate. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268)
  - alwa 4mo ago
    Don’t those cases establish that police may, within the bounds of the fourth amendment, detain both the driver and any passengers; which then triggers requirements under other state laws allowing police to compel detained people to identify themselves? E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ?
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      As that link indicates, not every state has such a thing. States can; not every state does. (And "identify" isn't necessarily the same as "show ID". It's legal to not have any form of ID in the US whatsoever - this comes up with voter ID discussion a lot - and those folks are still allowed to ride in a car.)
    - mothballed 4mo ago
      It gets even weirder because at least in same states it is ruled if a crime has an age component then once again you can't be forced to reveal ID (which would betray your age) and incriminate yourself even if driving. And then in some states you're required to answer questions unrelated to your identity like if you're carrying a weapon (unless you can't have weapons, in which case you'd be incriminating yourself and then again you don't have to answer). Not legal advice.
- DavidWoof 4mo ago
  Under what circumstances a passenger needs to identity themselves differs significantly from state to state. Also, neither Brendlin v. CA or AR v. Johnson talk about identification requirements, so I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Maybe you're confusing it with exiting the car? And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
ceejayoz 4mo ago
> For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr... > The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
- lwansbrough 4mo ago
  That case is about Terry stops, not about failure to identify when operating a motor vehicle. A Terry stop includes detainments of pedestrians, who do not have an obligation to identify in most states.
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop > When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. They can't pull you over without reason in the first place.
    - lwansbrough 4mo ago
      Yeah you’re doing the thing I suggested people don’t do. It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify. If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify. Again: > Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop. It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.
linsomniac 4mo ago
Yes. However: it's always safe to say, as you are complying: "I do not consent to this." It should also be safe to ask "Are you giving me a lawful order?", but situations will vary. Beware that they can be very good at giving answers that sound like "yes" but are not "yes". ("I need to see your drivers license." "Are you giving me a lawful order?" "I need to see your drivers license." That is not a yes.)
itbeho 4mo ago
I live in a small central California town. My wife and I enjoy a local band that plays occasionally at the local pub. I couldn't make it last weekend but my wife went with a friend and I picked her up after at about 10:00pm. Neither of us had anything to drink. Cop lights me up and pulls me over and claims I didn't stop at a stop sign, was weaving on the road and that my license plate light is out. All complete and utter lies. Cop said "Are you willing to take a sobriety test right now?" and I thought about it. My stubborn side wanted to say "hell yes, I'll take the test" but I've heard enough stories about cops fucking people over here that I just calmly said "No." He said "I can haul you in for that.." and I replied "And you'll look really bad in front of a judge if you force it and you find out I'm completely sober. I'll fight it the whole way." I was polite. Gave him my license and registration and cooperated as asked otherwise. He made us sit there on the main street for about 20 minutes while he sat in his car with his spotlight on us and didn't appear to do anything else. Then came back and tossed my license and registration at me and said he was giving me a verbal warning. Fuck these guys. I hear these stories all the time locally and I don't really see how anyone that experiences the petty lies can "back the blue".
- lwansbrough 4mo ago
  No you got the order mixed up, you back the blue first, then this stops happening. Just don't forget to apply your bumper sticker.

m348e912 4mo ago

This is so true, and it's surprising how many people don't know what they are obligated to do when asked by an officer. It's even fuzzy for me at times. It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)]. All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.

happytoexplain 4mo ago
I'm going to charitably guess that you do not mean "surprising" in the common way, as in "wow, I can't explain why people don't know this laundry list of requests you are or are not required to comply with"; but rather as in "it's surprising that we find ourselves in this hellish society where citizens need to memorize a bunch of shit or else live in fear of every police interaction where they might sacrifice a right they didn't need to or vice versa and get handcuffed." Police should not be allowed to put you in that situation, period. Then you can teach everybody that one fact, instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
- m348e912 4mo ago
  > instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment). Looking at the comments, I will agree that there are different interpretations of the case law I cited. But the only thing that matters is can this case law be used against you to convict you for not complying with an officer, my understanding is it can, but I am not a lawyer. I'd love to see civil rights lawyers tackle traffic stop etiquette head on and come up with clear guidance for drivers and passengers in common situations. "Keeping your mouth shut" is a good start.
ceejayoz 4mo ago
> show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States] Not what it establishes. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841 > your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] Not what Brendlin establishes (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120) nor Johnson (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122). Passengers in a vehicle aren't even required to have a license. There's no requirement for citizens to carry papers in the US. (They may be required to give their name, but not carry ID.) > you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) Only because "officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing [a] bulge in his jacket" (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830) > Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)] Similarly, if the stop is legitimate. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268)
- alwa 4mo ago
  Don’t those cases establish that police may, within the bounds of the fourth amendment, detain both the driver and any passengers; which then triggers requirements under other state laws allowing police to compel detained people to identify themselves? E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ?
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    As that link indicates, not every state has such a thing. States can; not every state does. (And "identify" isn't necessarily the same as "show ID". It's legal to not have any form of ID in the US whatsoever - this comes up with voter ID discussion a lot - and those folks are still allowed to ride in a car.)
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    It gets even weirder because at least in same states it is ruled if a crime has an age component then once again you can't be forced to reveal ID (which would betray your age) and incriminate yourself even if driving. And then in some states you're required to answer questions unrelated to your identity like if you're carrying a weapon (unless you can't have weapons, in which case you'd be incriminating yourself and then again you don't have to answer). Not legal advice.
DavidWoof 4mo ago
Under what circumstances a passenger needs to identity themselves differs significantly from state to state. Also, neither Brendlin v. CA or AR v. Johnson talk about identification requirements, so I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Maybe you're confusing it with exiting the car? And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

ceejayoz 4mo ago

> For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr... > The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.

lwansbrough 4mo ago
That case is about Terry stops, not about failure to identify when operating a motor vehicle. A Terry stop includes detainments of pedestrians, who do not have an obligation to identify in most states.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop > When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. They can't pull you over without reason in the first place.
  - lwansbrough 4mo ago
    Yeah you’re doing the thing I suggested people don’t do. It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify. If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      > It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify. Again: > Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop. It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.

linsomniac 4mo ago

Yes. However: it's always safe to say, as you are complying: "I do not consent to this." It should also be safe to ask "Are you giving me a lawful order?", but situations will vary. Beware that they can be very good at giving answers that sound like "yes" but are not "yes". ("I need to see your drivers license." "Are you giving me a lawful order?" "I need to see your drivers license." That is not a yes.)

itbeho 4mo ago

I live in a small central California town. My wife and I enjoy a local band that plays occasionally at the local pub. I couldn't make it last weekend but my wife went with a friend and I picked her up after at about 10:00pm. Neither of us had anything to drink. Cop lights me up and pulls me over and claims I didn't stop at a stop sign, was weaving on the road and that my license plate light is out. All complete and utter lies. Cop said "Are you willing to take a sobriety test right now?" and I thought about it. My stubborn side wanted to say "hell yes, I'll take the test" but I've heard enough stories about cops fucking people over here that I just calmly said "No." He said "I can haul you in for that.." and I replied "And you'll look really bad in front of a judge if you force it and you find out I'm completely sober. I'll fight it the whole way." I was polite. Gave him my license and registration and cooperated as asked otherwise. He made us sit there on the main street for about 20 minutes while he sat in his car with his spotlight on us and didn't appear to do anything else. Then came back and tossed my license and registration at me and said he was giving me a verbal warning. Fuck these guys. I hear these stories all the time locally and I don't really see how anyone that experiences the petty lies can "back the blue".

lwansbrough 4mo ago
No you got the order mixed up, you back the blue first, then this stops happening. Just don't forget to apply your bumper sticker.