Welcome to the Am I free to go Sticky!
I AM NOT A LAWYER. THE BELOW STATEMENTS ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR DO THEY CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY LEGAL COUNSEL. BELOW STATEMENTS ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO BE CORRECT NOR IS MY SHITTY ANALYSIS ON WHETHER THEY'RE LEGAL OR NOT.
If you want to discuss statutes I've posted please do so in a separate thread, and link to the statute you're talking about (PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT DIRECTLY ON MY POSTS, WE WANT TO KEEP IT UN-CLUTTERED). If the discussion is good I will link to your thread under the "Reddit discussions and opinions" portion of this post, or if you cite better sources we'll add to the post.
Please do NOT buy me gold, this is obviously a throw away account. If you want to say thank you, consider donating to the EFF, or ACLU
Know what Circuit Court is binding in your state!
The below post and the corresponding comments to this post are an aggregation of laws which you should know and understand. We'll cover the legal definition of detention, when you can and cannot be detained; stop and identify statutes; your and your passenger's rights during a traffic stop; Two party consent states, supreme court case rulings allowing individuals to film police in public; How long you can be detained for; Does HIPPA apply to me? And a bunch of other great legal shit. So grab a cup of coffee or a beer or water if you're a weirdo and sit down and lets learn our rights.
Terry V. Ohio (Terry from now on) is one of the most important cases to understand. Terry sets up the precedence of legally detaining a person. In order to be detained under Terry a police officer needs suspicion 'based on articulable facts' that you have committed, are about to commit or are committing a crime. During a Terry stop it is legal for the officer to lightly frisk your outerperson if he suspects 'based on articulable facts' you are armed and dangerous. Below you can find some quotes and info from the actual case:
Terry V. Ohio held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
" In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.”
This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."
Do I and my passenger legally have to exit the car during a traffic stop?
Yes, you and your passengers legally have to exit the vehicle if asked by a police officer. If you are pulled over you are hopefully detained legally under Terry (or at a legal checkpoint), therefore it is not unreasonable to request you to exit your vehicle. Your passengers are legally seized and thus can be asked to exit the vehicle.
Citations ALL ARE U.S SUPREME COURT RULINGS
Held that the order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Held: An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.
This case really aggregated previous rulings above. This precedence, however, allows LEOs to frisk a passenger and you. The same standard for terry holds in Arizona v. Johnson: " This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch."
The Court ruled 9–0 in favor of further expanding Terry, granting police the ability to frisk an individual [READ PASSENGER (emphasis /u/throwaway_55_55)in a stopped vehicle if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the individual is armed and dangerous.
You are seized under the Fourth amendment. No reasonable person in his position when the car was stopped would have believed himself free to “terminate the encounter” between the police and himself
If I am detained can they force me to wait for a K9 unit?
Like most Supreme Court cases they were as ambiguous as possible. The official ruling is essentially a 'maybe' leaning towards no. Police can extend the detention if it falls within a 'reasonable amount of time', or a direct quote:
doesn't unreasonably prolong the stop
What does 'unreasonably prolong' mean? It's up to other courts to decide, but certainly < 10 minutes (my opinion).
A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002).
In our view, conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner, unless the dog sniff itself infringed respondent’s constitutionally protected interest in privacy. Our cases hold that it did not.
Are 'stop and identify' statues legal?
The actual term 'stop and identify' would implies that you can literally be stopped just so a police officer can identify you. While a police officer can ask during a consensual encounter you are not legally required to identify or even speak with the officer. For the states that do have stop and identify statutes (You can find states that do have statutes here ) the request to identify must be preceded by a legal detention under Terry.
[_side-node_ THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADIVE Your passengers if ordered out of the vehicle are under no legal obligation to present identification to an officer as they are seized not detained under Terry.
Citation: US SUPREME COURT RULING
Hiivel v ... held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.