Replies

As a side this you must identify yourself to police trend is out of control. Needs better definition of terms and what constitutes “identify” and who is obligated to do so. Sadly this stems from a case in my state.Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name. The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[1] 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.

But note that there is a difference btwn "requiring suspects to disclose their names" and requiring to show an I.D, which in effect would be requiring everyone to carry an I.D.

I read from "Christopher Hawk, Retired after 30+ years police/EMS experience"

In the US, the officer absolutely has “the right to ask your passenger for ID.”

Your passenger absolutely has the right to not provide it.

The officer also has the right to ask you or your passenger to do the hokey pokey on the side of the road. Again, you have the right to refuse.

Now, perhaps you're actually wondering what authority the officer has in that situation?

If that's the case, the SCOTUS has ruled that officers absolutely have the authority to ask passengers to identify themselves. However, while the passenger must provide his/her name, s/he is not required to provide a hard-copy ID. Why not? Because there is no statutory requirement that a person must possess or carry an ID card in the US.

So… an ID is not required for a passenger, but the passenger must provide accurate identifying information, if asked.

Yet a passenger must show his/her driver's license if the driver is using a learner's permit. Any requirement that if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.