Hacker News Reader

Comment by m348e912 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States]

Not what it establishes. 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) nor Johnson (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)

> Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)]

Similarly, if the stop is legitimate. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268)

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 ?

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.)

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.

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).

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com