Q: If you are a passenger in a car that police suspect might be stolen, do you need to identify yourself? I know that for a traffic infraction stop you don’t need to provide identification, but in this situation I would think the cops have a good reason to identify everyone in the car.
A: I don’t like to tell people they’re wrong, so how about this: you’re mostly right. Also, this question is a good prompt for the reminder that I’m a traffic safety nerd, not an attorney. And I’m particularly unqualified to answer questions about your civil rights when you’re a passenger in a suspected stolen vehicle.
With that caveat established, let’s first consider the typical traffic stop. When an officer stops a car because the driver committed a traffic infraction, let’s say it’s speeding, there is generally no obligation for passengers in the vehicle to identify themselves. In Washington, the Supreme Court has determined that our state constitution protects passengers from even being asked to provide identification if it’s not related to an investigation. (That’s a stricter rule than the US constitution’s fourth amendment.) However, if an officer requests that a person identify themselves “pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction,” they have “a duty” to provide their name and address.
What does “pursuant to an investigation” look like? Perhaps the most common occurrence of this would be a passenger that’s not wearing a seat belt. The officer stopped the car for speeding, but when they approach the car they notice the unbuckled passenger. When a passenger violates the law in the presence of an officer they’ve now become the subject of an investigation, and they’re obligated to identify themselves.
I suppose a passenger could also insert themselves into an investigation. Maybe when the officer tells the driver they were speeding, the passenger chimes in with, “He was actually driving faster before you caught him. I know because I looked at the speedometer.” Now the officer might request the identity of the passenger to include their statement in the report. I’m imagining a response of, “He does it all the time. I know, because I’m his wife.” For this fictional driver, if your spouse is so uncomfortable riding with you that they rat you out like that, it’s time to reevaluate either your driving habits or your marriage.
But what about a passenger in a suspected stolen vehicle? First off, if you’re riding around in a stolen vehicle it might be time to find better friends. If it’s not stolen but the police think it is, I suppose you’re just unlucky. Possession of a stolen vehicle is a felony, and depending on the situation, could lead to a much more intense traffic stop. But to keep things simple, let’s set aside the potential for a guns drawn, everybody out of the car scenario. I can’t find any case law that automatically requires passengers to identify themselves. Police need reasonable suspicion that a passenger has engaged in criminal activity, and being in the company of criminals (like maybe the driver) isn’t, in itself, enough.
There are many variables that determine the answer to this question. Is the passenger a known car thief? Do they have a Slim Jim (the tools to unlock cars, not the meat stick) tucked under their feet? Do they match a witness description? Experienced officers could probably list many other less obvious indications that give them a good reason to identify passengers in a car. I’ve oversimplified a fairly complicated bit of law here, but that’s the standard: reasonable suspicion.
If you have a traffic related question you would like to ask, click here.