These Arizona laws are similar, as the 9th Circuit panel noted, to the Nevada laws at issue in Hiibel.Īfter concluding that, “A demand for a passenger’s identification is not part of the mission of a traffic stop…. § 28- 622(A) (“A person shall not willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.”). § 13- 2412(A) (“It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person’s refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person’s true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.”) id. Landeros was arrested … for “failure to provide his true full name and refusal to comply with directions of police officers.” See Ariz. Landeros stood on his rights (sat, to be more precise): The two officers also repeatedly “commanded” Landeros to exit the car because he was not being “compliant.” Officer Frank Romero then arrived, and he too asked for Landeros’s identification. As a result, Officer Baker called for back-up, prolonging the stop. Officer Baker then repeated his “demand to see ID.” Landeros again refused. Later, Officer Baker explained it was “standard for to identify everybody in the vehicle.” Landeros refused to identify himself, and informed Officer Baker - correctly, as we shall explain - that he was not required to do so.
Officer Baker, in his own words, “commanded” Landeros to provide identification. The stop was legal, as was the demand for the driver’s license to drive, but what happened next was not: Landeros was one of the passengers in a car stopped by police for speeding on a road in Arizona. Landeros (for purposes of the opinion) were that Mr. What does this mean for you, especially when or if you are in the 9th Circuit or want to raise the 9th Circuit’s latest decision as persuasive authority in another circuit? Landeros read the Hiibel decision carefully and correctly, and gave important and explicit guidance on the narrowness of its findings and what it actually means for people who are stopped and asked for ID by police. But that’s not what the Supreme Court actually said. Many police think that the Hiibel decision upheld the Constitutionality of requiring anyone stopped by police to show ID.
Landeros is one of the most significant decisions to date interpreting and applying the widely-misunderstood 2004 US Supreme Court decision in Hiibel v. The opinion by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit earlier this month in US v. That holds even in a state with a “stop and identify” law, and even if the initial stop of the car (for a traffic violation committed by the driver) was legal. Passengers in a car stopped by police don’t have to identify themselves, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
0 kommentar(er)
