Passenger in a car

[dtalley]

I was just wondering if you are a passenger in a car and the driver is stopped by LEO for a traffic violation and you are carring do you need to show your CHL or just leave it alone until asked?

[Odin]

I would sit there quietly until the stop was completed and not interact with the officer at all unless the officer talks to you.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I would sit there quietly until the stop was completed and not interact with the officer at all unless the officer talks to you.

I agree. You are not required to show your CHL unless the officer asks you for ID.

Chas.

[LarryH]

The way the law reads, IMHO, is that, if an officer asks for your identification, you show your DL and CHL.

Unless a passenger does something stupid, there's no reason the officer should ask for his ID.

In other words, what Charles said while I was typing.

[dtalley]

Thanks for the quick replies. That is kind of what I figured but just wanted some other opinions...

Again Thanks.

[rm9792]

The way the law reads, IMHO, is that, if an officer asks for your identification, you show your DL and CHL.

Unless a passenger does something stupid, there's no reason the officer should ask for his ID.

In other words, what Charles said while I was typing.

I have had several stops where the officer asked for the passengers id for no reason at all. I asked a DPS officer why and he said it is policy. I have wondered what they could do if a passenger said no. Passengers are not required to have a license on them. DPS is bad about this. Unless they are looking for someone that fits a passengers description can they do anything about it? "Show your papers. please" doesnt seem to be right.

[nitrogen]

The way the law reads, IMHO, is that, if an officer asks for your identification, you show your DL and CHL.

Unless a passenger does something stupid, there's no reason the officer should ask for his ID.

In other words, what Charles said while I was typing.

I have had several stops where the officer asked for the passengers id for no reason at all. I asked a DPS officer why and he said it is policy. I have wondered what they could do if a passenger said no. Passengers are not required to have a license on them. DPS is bad about this. Unless they are looking for someone that fits a passengers description can they do anything about it? "Show your papers. please" doesnt seem to be right.

It doesn't but if you're carrying, you're required to have ID and chl on you, or you're carrying illegally, much like when you're driving.

[rm9792]

No guns just a passenger.

[srothstein]

If you are just a passenger and not carrying, you have little obligation to answer any questions concerning anything from the police. Until recently, I would have said no obligation, but a recent SCOTUS ruling makes it somewhat questionable. It also makes many traffic stops legally questionable.

The ruling was in the case of a passenger who was searched after the driver was stopped for an improper stop (the violation did not exist). The question was if the passenger's rights had been violated by the illegal stop, as an improper seizure without probable cause. Previous cases had all said the passenger was not stopped. In this case, the SCOTUS ruled that the passenger could question the stop since no reasonable person would think the passenger was free to leave the scene by getting out of the car and walking away (which i always thought he could do).

This means that the passenger would now be legally detained also. But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.

Incidentally, I know of no policy at DPS that says they will always ID the passengers. I know they have not asked my wife or daughters for ID when I have been stopped (and yes, I have been stopped - even ticketed).

[rm9792]

Along these lines, I was just told that Pearland currently has a "narcotics check point" set up at hwy 35 and Dixie Farm road (for the Houston Locals). I thought these checkpoints were illegal now?

[srothstein]

I thought they were also. Even DWI checkpoints are illegal in Texas. I did not know of one by Pearland.

[txinvestigator]

The way the law reads, IMHO, is that, if an officer asks for your identification, you show your DL and CHL.

Unless a passenger does something stupid, there's no reason the officer should ask for his ID.

In other words, what Charles said while I was typing.

I have had several stops where the officer asked for the passengers id for no reason at all. I asked a DPS officer why and he said it is policy. I have wondered what they could do if a passenger said no. Passengers are not required to have a license on them. DPS is bad about this. Unless they are looking for someone that fits a passengers description can they do anything about it? "Show your papers. please" doesnt seem to be right.

It is not policy, and I know a bunch of Troopers. If you are having "several stops" and DPS is always asking your passengers for ID, I suspect there is more to it than routine stops.

However, this thread is about the requirement for somone who is NOT asked for ID to show a CHL if a passenger in a traffic stop, and that question has been answered.

[Penn]

But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.

How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.

Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?

[pt145ss]

But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.

How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.

Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?

How do "Terry" (terry vs. ohio...i think) stops come into play. If the stop is legal from a traffic violation, can a LEO say that at that point they are legally allowed to ask questions from an investigative stand point? If so, then would it be legal to question the passenger?

[pt145ss]

For those who don't know about "Terry" stops this a pretty good dialogue about it on the Federal Law Enforcement Training (Homeland Security) web sight.

http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/ ... frisk.html

Solari: Okay. Let’s start with Terry Stops. A Terry Stop, as you know, is an investigative detention of a suspect. We can conduct one with reasonable suspicion that criminal activities is a foot. An agent can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time. And, even though that’s not a formal arrest, it is a seizure. The suspect’s not free to leave during that Terry Stop. The agent’s going to control that stop and can even use reasonable force to stop the suspect and keep him there while the agent does his investigation.

Now in addition to a Terry Stop, there’s another legal tool that’s similar, it’s called a Terry Frisk. After legally detaining the suspect in that Terry Stop, if the agent also has reasonable suspicion that the suspect’s presently armed and dangerous, then the agent can conduct a limited search of that suspect’s outer clothing for weapons. Now weapons are basically anything that can be used to hurt the officer. So the search is going to be limited to searching for hard objects that the suspect could use to hurt the officer like guns, pocket knives, mace, clubs, … it’s not limited to just those things we ordinarily think are weapons. It could also be things like car keys or pens because those could hurt an officer as well.

Miller: Okay, now why is the frisk an exception to the probable cause and warrant requirement?

Solari: Well most generally because it’s reasonable; again, it’s not based on probable cause or warrant; it’s based on reasonable suspicion alone.

It wasn’t always the case that we had such a thing as a Terry Stop or a Terry Frisk and as the name suggest, it’s based on a Supreme Court case called Terry v. Ohio that was decided in 1968. Previously before the Terry case, there were only two types of police/citizen encounters. There was a voluntary contact and then anything above that in the way of a seizure was a full out arrest.

Well, in Terry v. Ohio a police detective who had been walking the beat for over 30 years was in plain clothes and came across two men that were standing on a sidewalk in front of a store, sort of talking to each other. They would intermediately take turns walking back and forth past the glass door window. Now normally if someone does that once or twice they’re probably window shopping, but these men would take turns doing it, then sort of converse after each time one of them had past the store window looking inside and they did it probably about 10 to 12 times a piece over the course of I don’t know, 15 or 20 minutes. Officer McFadden, being a seasoned officer, recognized this as “casing the joint.� Officer McFadden thought they were going to rob this store. He reached that conclusion based on his observations, walked up to these men, identified himself, and asked them who they were. They sort of muttered something and in return, McFadden quickly put them up against the wall. He did a frisk - patted them down for weapons because of course he thought they were about to rob the place.

What do you rob a place with; usually some sort of a gun or a knife or a weapon so he reasonably suspected that they were armed and dangerous at that time. He found concealed weapons on Terry and both were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

Of course Terry challenged McFadden’s seizure and frisk because at the time Officer McFadden didn’t have probable cause to make a formal arrest. So they said well anything short of that that obviously was not a voluntary contact, we weren’t free to leave so it must have been in violation of the 4th Amendment.

The Supreme Court considered Terry’s argument and agreed that while it wasn’t supported by probable cause, and obviously not a warrant, the limited stop and limited frisk could be based on something less than probable cause. The key here was that Office McFadden had facts that led him to reasonably suspect criminal activity was a foot; that these guys were casing the joint - they were going to rob this place. And, also the officer had facts that led him to his reasonably suspect Terry was presently armed and dangerous. He knows that robbery or armed robbery is accompanied by weapons so the courts said that even though that something less than PC, what drives the 4th Amendment as reasonableness and his actions were reasonable in that case so that’s where we get the Terry Stop and the Terry Frisk.