Outdoors
Sponsored by

Police Stops

8,508 Views | 77 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by op_06
Thomas Sowell, PhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm pro police (father was one) but I'm even more pro-constitutional rights and carrying out those principles ABOVE and BEYOND.

Been stuck at home and ended up watching a few episodes of COPS.
Question: They seem to always ask the passenger for their ID when the car was pulled over for no taillight etc... I understand the driver has to produce a drivers license since he is obviously driving but does the passenger have to produce an identification card? Do they even have to identify themselves if they weren't reasonably suspected of committing a crime?
Secondly, it irks me when they ask have you ever been arrested before. An arrest is not a conviction and yet it most certainly is being used to imply that whenever an officer ask
you. I prefer they only ask are you currently on supervision or what crimes have you been convicted of.
My guess is that they ask the passenger floor idea just so they can see if he has warrants and they know he doesn't have to produce an idea but 99% a time he will comply. I also think they are lazy ethically in asking have you ever been
arrested but they don't care about the fine details of the American fundamental principle of being assumed innocent until proven guilty - they just want the information anyway.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DrHeadShrink said:

I'm pro police (father was one) but I'm even more pro-constitutional rights and carrying out those principles ABOVE and BEYOND.

Been stuck at home and ended up watching a few episodes of COPS.
Question: They seem to always ask the passenger for their ID when the car was pulled over for no taillight etc... I understand the driver has to produce a drivers license since he is obviously driving but does the passenger have to produce an identification card? Do they even have to identify themselves if they weren't reasonably suspected of committing a crime?
Secondly, it irks me when they ask have you ever been arrested before. An arrest is not a conviction and yet it most certainly is being used to imply that whenever an officer ask
you. I prefer they only ask are you currently on supervision or what crimes have you been convicted of.
My guess is that they ask the passenger floor idea just so they can see if he has warrants and they know he doesn't have to produce an idea but 99% a time he will comply. I also think they are lazy ethically in asking have you ever been
arrested but they don't care about the fine details of the American fundamental principle of being assumed innocent until proven guilty - they just want the information anyway.


Been out of the business for a few years, but yes, police have the authority to control the movements the passenger of a car stopped (Maryland vs Wilson) but last year the 9th federal Circuit held that police did NOT have authority to ID passengers absent other legal need (reasonable suspicion at minimum). It is hard to tell how the current SCOTUS would rule since there are some good libertarian instincts there.
https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/qa-common-issues-arising-traffic-stops-2/
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
op_06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DrHeadShrink said:


Question: They seem to always ask the passenger for their ID when the car was pulled over for no taillight etc... I understand the driver has to produce a drivers license since he is obviously driving but does the passenger have to produce an identification card? Do they even have to identify themselves if they weren't reasonably suspected of committing a crime?
Secondly, it irks me when they ask have you ever been arrested before. An arrest is not a conviction and yet it most certainly is being used to imply that whenever an officer ask
you. I prefer they only ask are you currently on supervision or what crimes have you been convicted of.
My guess is that they ask the passenger floor idea just so they can see if he has warrants and they know he doesn't have to produce an idea but 99% a time he will comply. I also think they are lazy ethically in asking have you ever been
arrested but they don't care about the fine details of the American fundamental principle of being assumed innocent until proven guilty - they just want the information anyway.


Depending on the state, some states could require passengers to identify themselves. I have no idea about the other 49, but a passenger in a motor vehicle during a traffic stop is not required to identify themselves. Although, a vehicle and ALL of its occupants are detained for the duration of the traffic stop in Texas. Meaning, a passenger cannot get out of the vehicle and simply walk away during the middle of the stop. Evading detention/arrest laws would/could be applicable in this situation.

Police officers are legally allowed to ask questions and ask for identification of anyone inside of the vehicle. I'm not sure where or why you're implying that asking a question is trampling individual rights.

Some cops are *******s and don't have tact when asking questions, but most are generally polite about it and treat it as more of a conversation rather than an interrogation.

I've read the rest of your post several times but seems like more of a rant than a legitimate attempt at getting a question clarified. There isn't anything unethical about asking a person about their background.
Thomas Sowell, PhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What if I was arrested for 4 things but found not guilty by a jury of my peers? The police asked me what I've been arrested for and I have to bring up those things? The past, even though I was not found guilty, will be thrown in my face?
The police may be able to legally ask me but what about higher human principles? Being arrested shouldn't be part of your background - convictions should.
Ag_07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't LEOs usually see a perps rap sheet in the computer or via the dispatch after they run them?

They know what they've been arrested for. They just want to see if they're truthful. Kinda goes back to they're not gonna ask a question they don't already know the answer to.
op_06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You've got a few options. One would be saying something along the lines of "I'm not comfortable discussing that with you" or another would be saying exactly what you wrote. *Most* officers wouldn't bat an eye with either response. Again, *most* cops get into law enforcement for legitimate reasons and aren't the boogeyman that folks want to make them out to be. They are people just like you. Talk to them like a person and you'll typically get a normal response/reaction. Act hyper vigilant/be an ass/scream about "knowing your rights" and you probably will get a slightly altered response.

An arrest will still up on a criminal history just like a conviction unless you take steps through the court to get it removed. The arrest alone can't/won't be held against you except for certain circumstances, usually involved family violence. I'm not sure what higher human principles have to do with anything. I promise you that a cop, just like most folks, will judge you more on your words than your looks/backgrounds. People make mistakes and get past them. Don't be a jackass in the moment and you won't be treated like one.
Thomas Sowell, PhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I see your point. I'm just adamant that convictions mean something TOTALLY different than arrests. Seems like they get treated the same in many cases. For example, "Has your new love interests been arrested?" "Arrest record" ...
In America if arrested you are going to be treated in a large part as though you're guilty ...FOREVER..
You'd think Republicans, Democrats, and Independents could get together as Americans to end this. I'm not trying to be politically correct, I'm trying to be American. I seem to be the only one bothered by this and I have "no record." Of course a "record" means arrests .... might as well be the old Soviet Union almost.
op_06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It really depends on the state/city. I've seen one department in Texas broadcast CCH info over the radio (info accessed by dispatch via request) and another treat CCH info like nuclear launch codes.

It gets more detailed than that. I'm about to eat dinner and can expand on it later if anyone's interested.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag_07 said:

Don't LEOs usually see a perps rap sheet in the computer or via the dispatch after they run them?

They know what they've been arrested for. They just want to see if they're truthful. Kinda goes back to they're not gonna ask a question they don't already know the answer to.


My old jurisdiction strictly limited info you could access. If a person was a criminal suspect or person of interest in a crime, it was okay. On any stop made, one could access record of past police interactions with the department (which might contain MOs regarding drugs, weapons, violence or sex offend er status or involvements with known gang affiliations/criminals) . But actual criminal history maintained by the state and federal governments (TCIC in Texas/ NCIC at the federal level) would have been verboten.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
SACR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

You're way overthinking this.

If they ask a question, you're not required to answer.

"Have you been arrested before?"

"No comment."

gig em 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not about what you say, it's about how you act when you say it.
texag84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hell, watching that show I never want to drive through Williams county! I would hate to live there thinking I could end up in jail for having a tail light out, because it would be hard for me to just be quiet when those guys start giving me lip.
expresswrittenconsent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gig em 02 said:

It's not about what you say, it's about how you act when you say it.

And your skin color
SACR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
expresswrittenconsent said:

gig em 02 said:

It's not about what you say, it's about how you act when you say it.

And your skin color
Bullsh it
expresswrittenconsent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Like you'd know, guero
RCR06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
95% of the police interactions you see on cops lead to an arrest. It's not a live show so they film a bunch of stuff and then piece together a show later of the most interesting/excitings moments. So generally on cops you're seeing the officers demeanor when they suspect something is going on during a stop.
Charismatic Megafauna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here's my problem: like all the sneaky wording op_06 is using, cops don't tell you what questions you do and don't have to answer when they ask them. It's true that they can ask you anything they want. But try telling one that you'd rather not answer something. It becomes your responsibility to know what you do and don't have to answer, then when you don't, the cop says you're uncooperative or whatever and takes you in under suspicion of something. You may get off without charges, maybe even that same night, but you wasted a lot of time and stress dealing with it, and what happens to the cop that should never have arrested you for knowing your rights? Nothing. The saying "you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" is bs. You shouldn't have to go to the station because a cop thought you had a bad attitude. Sorry, I appreciate cops' work and what you go through but I've had some nasty interactions and heard about a lot nastier ones that have changed my mind about the "do everything the cop asks, be cooperative for their safety and yours" mindset I used to have
EskimoJoe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RCR06 said:

95% of the police interactions you see on cops lead to an arrest. It's not a live show so they film a bunch of stuff and then piece together a show later of the most interesting/excitings moments. So generally on cops you're seeing the officers demeanor when they suspect something is going on during a stop.


"COPS is filmed on location with the men and women of law enforcement. All scumbags are considered guilty until proven innocent in the court of law."
SACR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NRD09 said:

Here's my problem: like all the sneaky wording op_06 is using, cops don't tell you what questions you do and don't have to answer when they ask them. It's true that they can ask you anything they want. But try telling one that you'd rather not answer something. It becomes your responsibility to know what you do and don't have to answer, then when you don't, the cop says you're uncooperative or whatever and takes you in under suspicion of something. You may get off without charges, maybe even that same night, but you wasted a lot of time and stress dealing with it, and what happens to the cop that should never have arrested you for knowing your rights? Nothing. The saying "you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" is bs. You shouldn't have to go to the station because a cop thought you had a bad attitude. Sorry, I appreciate cops' work and what you go through but I've had some nasty interactions and heard about a lot nastier ones that have changed my mind about the "do everything the cop asks, be cooperative for their safety and yours" mindset I used to have
You have the right to remain silent.

They can ask you any questions they want, part of their job is gathering information. If you don't want to answer a question, don't answer any questions.
fightingfarmer09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RCR06 said:

95% of the police interactions you see on cops lead to an arrest. It's not a live show so they film a bunch of stuff and then piece together a show later of the most interesting/excitings moments. So generally on cops you're seeing the officers demeanor when they suspect something is going on during a stop.


Which is why I love Live PD. There is a lot of random interactions they show that have nothing to do with arrests.
Alte Schule
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can only comment that in Texas if you are a passenger in vehicle stopped for a violation on a public road you are required to identify yourself if requested. Other than that questions regarding where you are going and what you are doing is none of their business. Remember though being polite is the best route to take.

A law enforcement officer can take a reasonable amount of time to investigate a violation even a Class C misdemeanor which encompasses most traffic offenses. If reasonable suspicion exists he/she can dig a little further.

Also remember that most LEO's these days have body and vehicle cameras. Being polite and non condescending goes a long way to prove your just an average Joe citizen. Watch COPS or Live PD. The ones that scream "I know my rights", refuse to identify themselves or demand a supervisor always get a narcotics dog sniffing the vehicle or some type of probable cause to search and are usually taken to jail..
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NRD09 said:

It becomes your responsibility to know what you do and don't have to answer, then when you don't, the cop says you're uncooperative or whatever and takes you in under suspicion of something.
At the end of the day, it is your responsibility to know your rights. Unfortunately what should be a required high school civics class is not being taught.
As to the rest of your statement, that is some of the biggest internet hoax BS I have read in a while. If you get arrested for suspicion of something, you're going to get a nice paycheck, because suspicion is not an arrestable crime in any US jurisdiction.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DrHeadShrink said:

Question: They seem to always ask the passenger for their ID when the car was pulled over for no taillight etc... I understand the driver has to produce a drivers license since he is obviously driving but does the passenger have to produce an identification card? Do they even have to identify themselves if they weren't reasonably suspected of committing a crime?

Secondly, it irks me when they ask have you ever been arrested before. An arrest is not a conviction and yet it most certainly is being used to imply that whenever an officer ask you.
On the Fed side, the passengers don't have to ID if they are not suspected. Cop can always ask though and it is good practice. A large amount of criminals, if not the majority are arrested during traffic stops. If the situation or persons are suspicious it is prudent to ask to ID. If they say no, then oh well, that's their right.

It's also prudent to ask if they've ever been arrested before. The info is available when you pull them up on the computer, but it's nice to have a heads up if they've been arrested for violent crimes (assault etc) beforehand. Also gives you a chance to see how honest they're gonna be with you, very important when your investigating.

Convictions count, but as a society we tolerate a very high level of crime. By the time someone is convicted of a crime, they usually have multiple arrests. I've seen guys with 20 years of arrests and cases dropped or plead to a lesser charge and I mean sexual assault type charges.
In most metro areas usually only a third of arrests are even papered (to go to trial). Then 75-90% of those are plead out, oftentimes with the suspect getting a slap on the wrist. This is why so many prosecutes have a 90%+ conviction rate.
Meanwhile guys make an entire life career out of stealing from or preying on innocent people. Often with multiple arrests and very little convictions.
At most me and the people I have always hung out with might have an arrest for MIP or something very minor, at the most. Whole different category of people.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
expresswrittenconsent said:

gig em 02 said:

It's not about what you say, it's about how you act when you say it.

And your skin color
Source?
Oh that's right, another internet myth.
Naveronski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
InfantryAg said:

expresswrittenconsent said:

gig em 02 said:

It's not about what you say, it's about how you act when you say it.

And your skin color
Source?
Oh that's right, another internet myth.

Quote:

In Texas, a 1995 analysis of more than 16 million driving records by the Houston Chronicle found that minority drivers who strayed into the small white enclaves in and around the state's major urban areas were twice as likely as whites to be ticketed for traffic violations. The study found that Hispanics were ticketed most often, though blacks overall faced the sharpest disparities, particularly in the suburbs around Houston where they were more than three times as likely as whites to receive citations. Bellaire, a mostly white city surrounded by southwest Houston, had the widest disparity in ticketing minorities of any city statewide, with blacks 43 times more likely than whites to receive citations there. (Source: The Houston Chronicle)

https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
Build It
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
" There isn't anything unethical about asking a person about their background."

Except it's none of your damn business who is in the car with me.
Build It
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is such a biased study it should be used as the TP you've all been searching for.

If I get pulled pulled over in my own neighborhood I usually get a warning because I'm local. Not because I'm white. If I cross the tracks and go to Friendswood or Pearland those guys will write me up in a second. The truth is everyone gets more tickets outside their own hood not just people of color.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Naveronski said:

InfantryAg said:

expresswrittenconsent said:

gig em 02 said:

It's not about what you say, it's about how you act when you say it.

And your skin color
Source?
Oh that's right, another internet myth.

Quote:

In Texas, a 1995 analysis

https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
I guess I should have clarified I was talking about modern times.

For other ancient news, isn't it terrible how we burn people at the stake for being heretics?
Naveronski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
> Requests source
> Receives source
> Doesn't like source, moves goal posts and requests new source

Okay.
op_06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NRD09 said:

Here's my problem: like all the sneaky wording op_06 is using, cops don't tell you what questions you do and don't have to answer when they ask them. It's true that they can ask you anything they want. But try telling one that you'd rather not answer something. It becomes your responsibility to know what you do and don't have to answer, then when you don't, the cop says you're uncooperative or whatever and takes you in under suspicion of something


TLDR; Don't be a jackass and you won't be treated like one. That goes the same for cops and the public.


I'm not sure where or why you think I'm being "sneaky" with my response to the OP. I've been a cop in Texas for a little over a decade and am only replying to this thread to provide some accurate insight. I've worked for two different agencies and have seen how numerous others operate. I've been an FTO responsible for training newer officers, an instructor responsible for teaching experienced officers, have been present for numerous critical incidents, and have been assigned to a few different specialized units. I'm here to offer some insight and perspective.

Not stories that I've heard from a friend's co-worker, a show on TV produced and edited for entertainment, or neighbor's cousin who is a cop.

I'm wise enough to know that most folks are set in their beliefs but all I can do is provide folks with some perspective and let them make their own mind up. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The thought that you'll be "taken in" for "being uncooperative or whatever" on "suspicion of something" is stupid. For the most part.

Anyone can google and see that there are ****ty cops who do ****ty things. I've read on here far too often that it seems there's only two sides to the argument. You're either a "bootlicker" who kneels to cops or should only crack your window to slide your driver license through the crack, stare straight ahead, and refuse to answer any questions.

Typically being polite doesn't equate to being a bootlicker and acting like a decent human being while saying "I'd rather not discuss that with you" doesn't equate to the "RESIST/I know my rights!!" that some folks like to scream.

As some folks have already suggested, a person's tone/body language offers much more than their actual spoken word. I think something along the lines of 70-80% of communication is non-verbal. Probably an even higher percentage than that.

Most folks have stories of being a victim to a crime, usually some type of theft or burglary, and the cops doing "nothing". I certainly have a few of my own.

A large amount of property crime is solved based off of cops making traffic stops and asking questions similar to what the OP is complaining about.

Unfortunately, we haven't discovered the ability to identify and apply "criminal" or "non-criminal" stickers to the back of vehicles so we don't waste your time.

What are cops supposed to do when folks complain about not "doing anything" to solve their burglary but turn around and complain about the tactics used to solve that very crime.

I can ask a passenger for his ID when I can clearly see their wallet in their pants. A response of "I don't have it on me/I don't have one/ raises an entirely different flag than "I don't feel comfortable giving it to you/do I have to give it to you?"

I personally have solved numerous crimes and closed out cases by making a simple traffic stop for an unremarkable traffic violation and asking simple questions. Happens all the time.

I stopped a vehicle once with four passengers around midnight or so in a neighborhood with relatively little traffic. All the occupants were visibly nervous and all sputtered and looked at each other when asking a few simple questions that the OP is saying makes me "lazy and unethical". These questions were only spurred by the driver and passenger's non verbal communication.

An investigation showed that they all recently burglarized a house by kicking in the back door when the owner was not home. It was a great feeling finding a laptop under the driver seat and seeing a nametape written on it. A search of our internal records gave me the owner's phone number. I called him and arranged for him to go back home and meet with another officer so they could take a report for his home being burglarized when he wasn't even aware of it yet.

That's the truth straight from the horses mouth. I'm not an ******* while speaking with people and certainly don't trample on human rights as some would like to suggest. That goes for the majority of cops that I work currently and have worked with in the past.

I've been on YouTube several times as the subject of someone's "resist!!/I know my rights" video documentary of their police encounter and typically just offer the advice that they're holding their camera phone vertically and no one likes a vertical video. The vertical camera phone video has been a disturbing trend over the years. A common response is the crowd/their friends/bystanders laugh at the absurdity of the person behind the camera and they sheepishly put their phone down when they realize I'm not buying what they're trying to sell.

I'm not here covering for the *******s that I've worked with in the past and will likely continue to work with in the future. There are processes in place to uncover/expose and deal with those cops. Typically involves the public contacting the department and filing a complaint or internal complaints from other officers.

And believe me, cops love to complain on other cops. Most large agencies publish a yearly report that provides the stats to back it up. Most internal complaints are sustained at a higher rate than outside complaints simply because the public makes a higher number of frivolous complaints that are exonerated via body cam/dash camera.

Lord knows I've got a microscope shoved so far up my ass at work that damn near every minute of the day is captured on audio/video from car and body camera. And I don't have a single problem with that. Just makes it a pain in the ass to deactivate everything when I'm trying to use the restroom. A minor inconvenience to deal with to protect myself from frivolous allegations.

And as a result of everyone having a body camera, supervisors these days spend more time in the office doing random video audits in an attempt to uncover bad behavior vs actually supervising their troops.

I know the above went on a huge tangent but it all ties together and I suppose you can say I've been "triggered" and felt like typing out a candid response.

I normally avoid pro/anti police threads because it generally develops into crap slinging from the "bootlickers" and the "RESIST!" crowd, just as this thread has spiraled into...


InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Naveronski said:

> Requests source
> Receives source
> Doesn't like source, moves goal posts and requests new source

Okay.
Statement was made in present tense. I was requesting a source of this happening in the present.

You posted a source from 25 years ago. Is that the standard we're going to use for fact checking now, look at the wayback machine till we find something to support our narrative? Your source is irrelevant to the statement made.
Charismatic Megafauna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I appreciate your thoughtful reply and again, respect and appreciate what you do, but I will explain what I meant by "sneaky"

OP asked:
does the passenger have to produce an identification card? Do they even have to identify themselves if they weren't reasonably suspected of committing a crime?

You replied:
Police officers are legally allowed to ask questions and ask for identification of anyone inside of the vehicle.

But the short answer is "no", right?
Naveronski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
InfantryAg said:

Naveronski said:

> Requests source
> Receives source
> Doesn't like source, moves goal posts and requests new source

Okay.
Statement was made in present tense. I was requesting a source of this happening in the present.

You posted a source from 25 years ago. Is that the standard we're going to use for fact checking now, look at the wayback machine till we find something to support our narrative? Your source is irrelevant to the statement made.

You said it was an internet myth. I showed that it is not an internet myth.
op_06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NRD09 said:

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and again, respect and appreciate what you do, but I will explain what I meant by "sneaky"

OP asked:
does the passenger have to produce an identification card? Do they even have to identify themselves if they weren't reasonably suspected of committing a crime?

You replied:
Police officers are legally allowed to ask questions and ask for identification of anyone inside of the vehicle.

But the short answer is "no", right?


I appreciate you, and a few others, taking the time to read my response. I was holding my kiddo while he was sleeping and had some free time. I didn't realize how long winded it was until I posted.

I answered his question in the second sentence of my very first paragraph with the short answer of "no".

"Depending on the state, some states could require passengers to identify themselves. I have no idea about the other 49, but a passenger in a motor vehicle during a traffic stop is not required to identify themselves."

What you're highlighting is my response to the OPs remark that asking a passenger for their ID is the equivalent of "trampling their rights".

I can't comment on what the other 49 are legally allowed to do, especially anything on the west coast bound by the rulings of the 9th Circus.
op_06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Build It said:

" There isn't anything unethical about asking a person about their background."

Except it's none of your damn business who is in the car with me.


I walk up to a car and see a scared teenager in the backseat, a roll of duck tape, mask, and gloves. I ask the driver, "is that your child in the backseat?" Their response is "none of your damn business". I shrug my shoulders, walk away, and go back to eating my donut. Seems legit.

Absurd statements will get an absurd response... Part of the role of law enforcement is detecting, preventing, and investigating criminal activity. That requires an officer having the ability to ask questions. Even when it's roadside standing next to a driver window. SCOTUS is pretty clear in this area.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.