Duty to Inform

[Bunnykid68]

Let me add a few clarifying notes. (First and most important note, I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding of the law.)


By and large, Sheepdog is correct. Under a simple/routine traffic stop the passengers in the vehicle do not have to answer questions or identify themselves.

IIRC, under this actual circumstance there was a report of "words and utterances" tossed back and forth between this car and another car. Since this is not a legal transgression in of itself, I would believe that the passengers are still protected by law in not id-ing themselves. There has been no crime or infraction that the police can hang a reason on.

However, if the actions had included something such as an object thrown out of a window towards another car then we might have a different case. I don't know if the officer actually has to witness such a deed or if he can take the word of another driver about it before beginning the legal process of investigating it. Perhaps someone can add to this part. If the officer is indeed formally investigating certain things then he can legally require the passengers ID.

Nothing sounds unreasonable about the scenario you just painted, to me at least

 

[ATM]

do keep in mind that if asked if you are in possession of a weapon and it is subsequently discovered you were untruthful, your experience might be less pleasant. Of course your experience can vary.

Which is why most questions should not be answered, to ensure that for each party the experience remains a pleasant one.

 

[KG1]

do keep in mind that if asked if you are in possession of a weapon and it is subsequently discovered you were untruthful, your experience might be less pleasant. Of course your experience can vary.

If it's not relevant to the stop then don't ask. It's already gonna be a crap shoot if asked and answered in the affirmative on whether your experience might be less pleasant if the Leo asks the question with the intent of disarming you and running the numbers then returning the firearm back unloaded and disassembled.

I assure you that most people would rather skip all of those unpleasantries and just get on with the business of dealing with the alleged infraction stop.

 

[eachitandi]

Yes it has been challenged. Look at James Malone v Indiana and Melvin Washington v Indiana.

Ok, from what I read, and correct me if I'm wrong, the mere presence of a legally carried firearm is not enough for an officer to disarm you for "officer safety". There must be some other action that the officer must show that gave him reason to seize the firearm.
If that's the case, it seems a simple "I thought I smelled alcohol" would be all he needs.

 

[Mark 1911]

Walk backwards into traffic?

That could be bad if he had my 1911 in his hand, repairs get pricey.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Ok, from what I read, and correct me if I'm wrong, the mere presence of a legally carried firearm is not enough for an officer to disarm you for "officer safety". There must be some other action that the officer must show that gave him reason to seize the firearm.
If that's the case, it seems a simple "I thought I smelled alcohol" would be all he needs.

I would look at that officer and say I smell bacon

 

[KG1]

Ok, from what I read, and correct me if I'm wrong, the mere presence of a legally carried firearm is not enough for an officer to disarm you for "officer safety". There must be some other action that the officer must show that gave him reason to seize the firearm.
If that's the case, it seems a simple "I thought I smelled alcohol" would be all he needs.

He could also say "I thought I saw a dead hooker in your backseat"

 

[SteveM4A1]

Ok, from what I read, and correct me if I'm wrong, the mere presence of a legally carried firearm is not enough for an officer to disarm you for "officer safety". There must be some other action that the officer must show that gave him reason to seize the firearm.
If that's the case, it seems a simple "I thought I smelled alcohol" would be all he needs.

For officer safety, specific, articulable facts of being armed and dangerous.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

By and large, Sheepdog is correct. Under a simple/routine traffic stop the passengers in the vehicle do not have to answer questions or identify themselves.

Huh? Whaaat??? I was right? (by and Large... that means well sort of, i think...have to look it up ) wowww. What do I win?

A post on INGO, is like having your name called for the "Price is Right"... Whoo Hoo...

Ok............... Im over it.....

 

[Destro]

I assure you that most people would rather skip all of those unpleasantries and just get on with the business of dealing with the alleged infraction stop.

assuming the stop is for an infraction

 

[Bunnykid68]

assuming the stop is for an infraction

After 230 posts I assumed that was the premise we were working from

 

[KG1]

assuming the stop is for an infraction

Well, I sure as hell was'nt referring to a felony stop.

 

[ModernGunner]

Only been stopped once in 4 decades while carrying (traffic stop. Yeah, I did it, LOL!) Officer was polite, asked me if I was carrying, responded in the affirmative. He asked where it was, told him under my arm in a shoulder rig. Asked me to just leave it there. Went back to the squad, ran my driver's license, came back to the window about a minute or so later, handed me back my ID, said "Just drive a bit more cautiously, have a good evening, sir". End of event. He left before I could even get my license back in my wallet, LOL.

NO headaches, no hassle, no 'confrontation', no shouting "I have the RIGHT!". None of that silliness. I was a bit over the speed limit, he stopped me for it. Perfectly legitimate. What I COULD have been turned into a '2nd Amendment confrontation' ended as just a minor inconvenience, caused by my lack of attention.

 

[Tay]

Indiana has a stop and identify statute.

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

 

[ATM]

Indiana has a stop and identify statute...

Sure, but not sure how that code applies to this topic.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Indiana has a stop and identify statute.

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

Ok. I don't see how this applies. There are also 2 words you want to be very aware of in that statute, them being infraction and ordinance.

 

[Tay]

Let me add a few clarifying notes. (First and most important note, I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding of the law.)


By and large, Sheepdog is correct. Under a simple/routine traffic stop the passengers in the vehicle do not have to answer questions or identify themselves.

IIRC, under this actual circumstance there was a report of "words and utterances" tossed back and forth between this car and another car. Since this is not a legal transgression in of itself, I would believe that the passengers are still protected by law in not id-ing themselves. There has been no crime or infraction that the police can hang a reason on.

However, if the actions had included something such as an object thrown out of a window towards another car then we might have a different case. I don't know if the officer actually has to witness such a deed or if he can take the word of another driver about it before beginning the legal process of investigating it. Perhaps someone can add to this part. If the officer is indeed formally investigating certain things then he can legally require the passengers ID.

This is how it applies. And I agree, I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I'm kind of running around at work right now. But regardless, I guess now I can't figure out if my passenger could've remained unidentified...

 

[Bunnykid68]

 

[henktermaat]

Typical INGO code expert right here

Incorrect - I recently got new glasses and had the paneling painted...

 

[Rookie]

This is how it applies. And I agree, I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I'm kind of running around at work right now. But regardless, I guess now I can't figure out if my passenger could've remained unidentified...

Adam Starr v. State of Indiana



http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=06221001lmb.pdf