Hypothetical- Refuse to speak to police

Status
Not open for further replies.

mightymoose

Moderator
Hypothetical scenario:

A police officer makes a traffic stop for a common traffic violation. The driver provides the officer with a driver's license, insurance card, and vehicle registration. The officer, as a matter of habit, asks the driver his name and birthdate, even though he is already holding the ID. The officer, through his many years of training and experience, knows that ID cards are easy to fake, difficult to detect, and he does not accept their validity at face value, even though there does not appear to be any discrepancy with this particular ID. The officer wants the driver to verbally confirm the information on the ID card. The driver, for whatever reason, refuses to speak with the officer despite the officer's many polite attempts to verify the information. The officer proceeds to arrest the driver for refusing to identify himself, which he beilieves is obstructing/delaying an officer, and takes the driver to jail for fingerprinting and identification.

I already know this is bogus, and a very bad arrest. I am curious for some input regarding case law other than Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Humboldt County, if there is anything relevant. This is not quite the same as most "stop and identify" statutes that I am aware of- and I suspect this answer would apply to all states absent a specific state statute that says otherwise.

What this boils down to is whether the driver has any responsibility to provide a verbal answer regarding his identity when a valid state issued ID has already been presented. Certainly the situation is different when an ID is not presented, or is presented and there is reasonable suspicion to believe it is false.

Terry explains that the scope of questioning must be reasonably related to the reason for the contact, so this scenario already is off base at that point.

Hiibel explains the right of the officer under certain circumstances to obtain identification.

Nothing I have found really addresses whether or not an officer can reject a state issued ID as valid identification (absent some reasonable suspicion it is false) and insist upon a verbal response. Of course, the argument being made is that the 5th Amendment doesn't protect non-incriminating questions regarding ID and the driver is obligated to respond.

The bottom line is, what right does an officer have to choose what he accepts as valid identification?
 
From CPOLS:

It was not a violation of Penal Code section 148 for an arrestee to fail to give his name in response to questions asked while being driven to the station "because it did not delay or obstruct a peace officer in the discharge of any duty within the meaning of the statute." The officer had no compelling reason to complete the "booking sheet" until the suspect arrived at jail. However, at the jail, the police had the right to question defendant about his identity during a routine booking, and the suspect's refusal to verbally identify himself constituted a violation of Penal Code section 148 just as much as if he had fled from an investigatory detention or physically struggled with a peace officer. (Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 972.)

The AG apparently has opined that failure to provide verbal identification or affirmation during some mandated process can constitute PC 148(a). While a valid CA identification card or license can be considered valid, there appears to be no clear case that I can find in CPOLS or elsewhere that requires an officer in CA to accept the ID solely. While an officer is certainly able to do so, if he or she has some reservations or requires some current information - such as clarifying the address on the license as his current address - then it would seem that PC 148(a) might apply.

EDIT: What is with this Center formatting???
 
Very intriguing question, Moose.

I'll Offer more fuel fir this hypothetical fire.

What if the driver was mute?

What if the driver was deaf?

Now, the crown jewel cometh, are you ready?

What if the driver did not speak English?

Back to reality, Moose, my friend.




Absent any statutory requirement, does the driver have a duty to disclose anything NOT already on the license?

I dare say, not.


If such an arrest were to be made using the gambit of "obstruction", some 1st year law students, most 2nd year law students, a vast majority of 3rd year law students, and any 1st year lawyers would make a very big name for themselves.



The aftermath for the officer would not be promising.

The officer's career, and more importantly his pension, could be placed in jeopardy.
 
In 20 years, I have never had anyone stand so mute. Thus, it seems a largely irrelevant hypothetical and subject to local (state) laws and legal interpretation.

From CPOLS:

Under section 40302, subdivision (a), a cited (arrested) traffic violator must produce his driver's license "or other satisfactory evidence of identification for examination."

In McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, the California Supreme Court interpreted this section to mean that you have a duty to ask if the violator has a driver's license or its functional equivalent, that is, some identification with a photo, description, signature, address, etc. If this type identification is produced, you must accept it as reliable unless, of course, there is some reason to think it is false, has been altered, or is otherwise suspicious.
However, if the violator fails to produce this type of presumptively reliable written identification, you have no duty to pursue the matter further, or to ask questions in an effort to determine the reliability of the violator's oral identification.

In other words, although you can accept the violator's oral identification or some lesser type of written identification, you are not obligated to do so. Rather, without making any effort to verify these other identifications, you can decide to reject them and to take the violator into custody. Of course, your decision to take the violator into custody cannot be based on an improper reason, such as the violator's race or religion. (McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601; see also Monroe (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1174.)


Whether failing to verbally affirm or clarify elements of the ID would give rise to a 148(a) arrest in CA is questionable. As there is no case law on point, it might be open for debate. All PC 853.6 requires is "satisfactory evidence of personal identification." Whether the ID would be sufficient is debatable. What if the ID were expired? Old? Did not match a more recent vehicle registration in the same name? Those could lend themselves to a more reasonable cause for an arrest.

On its face, I would say that at least in CA absent some articulable reason to suspect the ID as NOT being current and/or valid, then an officer would seemingly have to accept it regardless of any verbal feedback.
 
What if the driver was mute?
What if the driver was deaf?
What if the driver did not speak English?

Yes, we argued these points. The response was that a deaf/mute person could write, and most of us these days speak enough Spanish to get a person's name.... and if it wasn't Spanish that they spoke, well, it was still the officer's perogative to just let it go.
Yes, I realize how terrible that would all turn out... but the question remained about someone that it just being a jerk and doesn't want to answer- does that person, who was lawfully detained during a traffic stop, have any obligation to verbally identify himself if the officer, as a matter of habit due to his experience, does not trust the validity of the ID itself.

I say the answer to that is an obvious no... I just haven't found anything that really addresses it.

If such an arrest were to be made using the gambit of "obstruction", some 1st year law students, most 2nd year law students, a vast majority of 3rd year law students, and any 1st year lawyers would make a very big name for themselves.
The aftermath for the officer would not be promising.
The officer's career, and more importantly his pension, could be placed in jeopardy.

I agree.

Can you think of anything other than Terry that addresses this? Terry tells us that the officer's questioning must be relevant to the stop. In this scenario the officer is just fishing. In this case it was a traffic offense, not an investigation of false ID- but the argument was made that since false ID's are easily available and difficult to detect that the questioning regarding ID is justified.
If the officer actually had some reasonable suspicion about a false ID due to its appearance, then yes, the officer may reasonably shift gears toward the ID and make more of an effort to identify the person.
 
Moose, tell me YOU didn't engage in this shoddy behavior, did you?

Nooo....
This truly is a hypothetical.
We were having a conversation about open carry laws and whether an officer could inspect the weapon and ask for ID. It somehow led to this scenario. A person argued that if someone is detained they are required to identify themselves. I argued that presenting the ID card satisfied any such requirement, in those situations where it is required. The other person argued that there is no requirement for law enforcement to accept a piece of plastic as identification and the officer may instead require verbal identification, in part to verify the accuracy of what is on the ID.

I was told there was case law supporting this, but have found nothing.... so my thinking is that the other person is full of crap.
 
In McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, the California Supreme Court interpreted this section to mean that you have a duty to ask if the violator has a driver's license or its functional equivalent, that is, some identification with a photo, description, signature, address, etc. If this type identification is produced, you must accept it as reliable unless, of course, there is some reason to think it is false, has been altered, or is otherwise suspicious.
However, if the violator fails to produce this type of presumptively reliable written identification, you have no duty to pursue the matter further, or to ask questions in an effort to determine the reliability of the violator's oral identification.

In other words, although you can accept the violator's oral identification or some lesser type of written identification, you are not obligated to do so. Rather, without making any effort to verify these other identifications, you can decide to reject them and to take the violator into custody. Of course, your decision to take the violator into custody cannot be based on an improper reason, such as the violator's race or religion. (McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601; see also Monroe (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1174.)[/i][/indent]

Awesome- that is what I was hoping to find. Thanks :)

According to this, the officer can not reject a state issued ID and require anything further without some reason to be suspect of THAT particular ID. Previous experience that false ID's are readily available and difficult to detect have nothing to do with it.
 
Awesome- that is what I was hoping to find. Thanks :)

According to this, the officer can not reject a state issued ID and require anything further without some reason to be suspect of THAT particular ID. Previous experience that false ID's are readily available and difficult to detect have nothing to do with it.
Exactly what I had concluded.

Past experience can be a useful tool with regards to some issues, but not all. If the past experience involved officer safety some greater lega leeway might be granted. But, in this hypo, I don't see how it could be used to justify compelling anything more than producing valid ID absent something more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top