734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

A driver must show id when pulled over by a police officer in Michigan, but a passenger does not need to show id.

Original Post: 05/14/2017

The preceding is for informational purposes only.

Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of authority can lead most people to do things that they are not required to do out of fear of being arrested or having their liberties taken.

Many people are not aware of their rights on the road. Here at Aldrich Legal Services, we often get asked are you required to show an ID as a passenger. This article will focus on your rights as a passenger, especially focusing on identification.

Background on Passengers with ID

The story of a man arrested and charged with drug possession in Utah exemplifies this problem. According to an online media report, a Utah Highway Patrol officer reportedly stopped the driver for making an illegal lane change. During the stop, the officer asked the man, who was a passenger in the vehicle, for his license so that he could check the status of the license and check for warrants. 

As it turns out, an outstanding warrant was found and the man was arrested. The officer also found a glass pipe with methamphetamines, so the man was also charged with drug possession. A Utah trial court threw out the charges, reasoning that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to order the man to produce his identification.

The Utah Supreme Court reasoned that if an officer asks a passenger to voluntarily provide their identification, this would be permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Passenger Rights in Michigan

While this reasoning may be applicable in Michigan, many people stopped by the police may not realize that they may refuse to provide identification when the police ask for it. The offer may request your identification or request to search you. You may decline the officer's requests. Unless the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion, they cannot force you to submit. 

There are also cases of searches of passengers in Michigan that the Michigan Supreme Court ruled to be unconstitutional

Partnering with the Michigan Criminal Defense Experts 

Unexpected situations come up on the road. It can be difficult to know when your rights as a passenger or driver have been violated. If you have been charged with a crime on the road, you may benefit from an experienced criminal defense attorney who can assert constitutional defenses. Contact the legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services to discuss your case.

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405