Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are driving, yes, you must provide your license which is an id, but Can You Refuse to Identify Yourself to Police Officers? - FindLaw Blotter
Some 24 states have statutes requiring you to give your full name, but others do not unless you are driving. If you are a passenger in the car, you can refuse to id yourself. Police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity. The officer can ASK, but no, the passengers don’t have to give him identification unless there is probable cause to suspect them of something.
Yes, you are right I thought that since we were talking about a traffic stop my comment would be adequate without further explanation.
Driving is a priviledge requiring a license to do so. Were a police officer to ask for ID while you are the driver you can hand them your driver license and any other required documents but you are not legally obgligated to answer any questions nor remain in the car unless ordered to do so. "please remain in the car" is not an instruction, it is a request. You can walk away if the car is parked legally. You might then create a reasonable suspecion but that is a different story and has nothing to do with you right to start walking away unless told to remain. Of course the cop will then detain you but that is also a different story. All actions have consequences.
If you get pulled over, you go ahead and get out of the car after the Officer "asks" you to stay in it, or better yet, drive away when he goes to check your license- then come back here and tell us how that went.
You clearly don't understand how the law works, so there is little point in trying to explain it to you. An Officer does not have to tell you to stay anywhere. If your ability to freely leave or move from where you are is impaired, that is a detention. If you are stopped for a traffic violation, that is a lawful detention. If you are stopped for a traffic violation you should consider yourself detained until the Officer either writes you a ticket or tells you that you can leave. There are no magic words that he has to speak in order to require you to wait until he tells you that you can go. You have to give your name when you are stopped, if you are driving the Officer has a legal right to ask to see your driver's license. This information is readily available online feel free to verify what I am telling you.
Utter nonsense. No one has to consider themselves detained unless informed by the police thwy are detained. Link to your source that has a legal foundation, like a written law or you just made all this up, something you have done before. Your ideas aren't believable.
You need to look up lawful detention and then post again. I already know what it neans, you obviously have no idea. A person can leave the presence of a police officer at any time unless ordered to remain or arrested. Go ahead though, post your source.
All a person has to do is ask "am I free to go?" if there is any doubt and the police officer must answer. The police have no obligation to tell you that you are not detained, you are supposed to know your rights and not knowing them is ignorance and the law does not care how ignorant you are sleepy.
Detention in the absence of a verbal instruction to remain is based on the premise of what the person believes. If the person ignorant of their rights, stupidly believes they are detained, that is their own problem, can help the ignorant nor the stupid, they reap the rewards of that all by themselves. Like the people who choose to talk to the police without the benefit of a lawyer or choose to give up their right to remain silent, stupid is as stupid does.
You need to look up lawful detention and then post again. I already know what it neans, you obviously have no idea. A person can leave the presence of a police officer at any time unless ordered to remain or arrested. Go ahead though, post your source.
Here you go:
Quote:
“Under both state and federal law, whenever a police officer stops a motorist, he has “seized”
him.” State v. Silvernail, 25 Wn.App. 185, 605 P.2d 1279 (1980)"
“. . . a person is placed under arrest when he is deprived of his liberty by an officer who
intends to arrest him. The arresting officer does not need to orally communicate this intent
to the person being arrested. State v. Sullivan, 65 Wn.2d 47, 395 P.2d 745 (1964)."
“A motorist is seized when a police officer pulls up behind his car and activates full
emergency lights.” State v. DeArman, 54 Wn. App. 621, 624, 774 P.2d 1247 (1989).
“The officers’ attempt to summon the occupants of the parked car with both their emergency lights and high beam headlights constituted a show of authority sufficient to convey to any reasonable person that voluntary departure from the scene was not a reasonable alternative. Cf. United States v. Palmer, 603 F.2d 1286, 1289 (8th Cir. 1979)."
“A person is “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when, in light of all
the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that he or she was not
free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 100 S.Ct 1870, 64 Led. 2d 497
(1980); State v. Young, 135 Wn.2d 498, 509, 957 P.2d 681 (1998)."
"People v. Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, 453, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 N.E.2d 263 (1963) (where a defendant was arrested for speeding but not informed of the reason for arrest, there is no requirement of notice because “on the whole picture [the person arrested] had for our present purposes sufficient notice as to the cause for his capture and detention”)."
"Perhaps it should be mentioned that as a general rule a person is placed under arrest when he is deprived of his liberty by an officer who intends to arrest him. It is not always necessary for the officer to make a formal declaration of arrest. See: 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, 75 (1961); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 4 L.Ed.2d 134, 80 S.Ct. 168 (1959) and United States v. Boston, 330 F.2d 937 (1964). "
“A motorist stopped by a traffic officer for a traffic offense would be considered “arrested” . . .
even if the motorist was not specifically informed that he had been arrested.” People ex rel.
Winkle v. Bannan, 125 N.W.2d 875, 879, 372 Mich. 292. "
"As the Court explained in Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004): “While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required.” In Devenpeck, the Court rejected a requirement that probable cause for an arrest must be measured by reference to the offense that the officer named at the time of arrest. "
Utter nonsense. No one has to consider themselves detained unless informed by the police thwy are detained. Link to your source that has a legal foundation, like a written law or you just made all this up, something you have done before. Your ideas aren't believable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Year2525
You need to look up lawful detention and then post again. I already know what it neans, you obviously have no idea. A person can leave the presence of a police officer at any time unless ordered to remain or arrested. Go ahead though, post your source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Year2525
All a person has to do is ask "am I free to go?" if there is any doubt and the police officer must answer. The police have no obligation to tell you that you are not detained, you are supposed to know your rights and not knowing them is ignorance and the law does not care how ignorant you are sleepy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Year2525
Detention in the absence of a verbal instruction to remain is based on the premise of what the person believes. If the person ignorant of their rights, stupidly believes they are detained, that is their own problem, can help the ignorant nor the stupid, they reap the rewards of that all by themselves. Like the people who choose to talk to the police without the benefit of a lawyer or choose to give up their right to remain silent, stupid is as stupid does.
So which is it? You just changed your story 4 times in an hour....
Detention and arrest are used interchangeably in appellate cases. Had you spent 10 minutes doing some research you would know that. And a traffic stop can for all intents and purposes be considered an arrest.
that is not even close to being true. when you are pulled over for a traffic violation, you are NOT under arrest. It can lead to an arrest (ie: DWI), but at the time of the stop you are not under arrest until the officer places you under arrest....it sounds like you should take your own advice and use that 10 minutes wisely
that is not even close to being true. when you are pulled over for a traffic violation, you are NOT under arrest. It can lead to an arrest (ie: DWI), but at the time of the stop you are not under arrest until the officer places you under arrest....it sounds like you should take your own advice and use that 10 minutes wisely
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
