How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Samuel II Your Own Question

Samuel II
Samuel II, Attorney at Law
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 25082
Experience:  Handle criminal matters in both state and federal courts.
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Samuel II is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

A vehicle is pulled over by LE for a minor traffic violation,

Customer Question

A vehicle is pulled over by LE for a minor traffic violation, but is not ticketed and free to go. Another officer asks the passenger, who is wearing his seat belt, for identification. The passenger politely declines. The officer does not feel threatened by the passenger, but demands that the passenger identify himself. Again, the passenger declines. Now the officer commands the passenger out of the vehicle. The passenger complies. Passenger is handcuffed and his person thoroughly searched (more than a simple frisk). The officer discovers a package of methamphetamine and a pipe. The passenger is then placed into the back of a police car. The officer then removes the passenger's ID from wallet and radios in the identification. As it turns out the passenger has an arrest warrant. He is also charged for possession. Shouldn't the methamphetamine and pipe evidence be suppressed due to the officer performing an illegal search of the passenger. The passenger was not obligated to ID himself.
Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Samuel II replied 6 years ago.



the passenger was legally required to present the requested ID, as the US States Supreme Court has ruled that once a car is legitimately stopped the police essentially "seize" everyone in the vehicle for the duration of the stop.


once the passenger denied the request and was handcuffed is where the determination as to whether the "search" was constitutional and therefore whether the evidence is admissible. the court has also ruled, as you note, that a frisk is appropriate for their own safety. in this matter, you state "thoroughly" meaning hands in pockets??


if the officer felt something during the frisk that they felt could have been a weapon, then they could have taken the next step beyond the frisk and into the pocket.


however, it is something that a local defense lawyer should be consulted on - because there are some lines that need to be drawn - if the pat down was not directly related to the stop at hand - but instead just a suspicion that something else was taking place then the evidence being admissible is questionable. and that is what needs to be determined. even though the passenger was asked to get out of the car because he did not comply with request - was that directly related to the stop at hand or did the officer say anything that would have indicated the handcuffs and search was due to another reason.


here is a link to a very recent case Arizona v Johnson that might be of some use to you



Customer: replied 6 years ago.

I am not sure I agree with your conclusion.

The is how I understand the following rulings:

In Arizona vs. Johnson, the ruling states that during a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search (not an "exploration of pockets" search that was performed on the person in my question) a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but has no reasonable grounds to believe the passenger is committing or has committed, a criminal offense.

In Hiibel vs Sixth Jud. Dist., an officer may not arrest a subject for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2412: It is unlawful for a fail to refuse to state person's true name on request of a police officer who has lawfully detained based on reasonable suspicion the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Brendin simply states that the passenger is seized during the course of a traffic stop, and is not free to go. This doesn't mean that the passenger subject to the driver's unlawfulness that precipitated the stop in the first place.

If I am correct in the above assessments, I don't see how the passenger in my question could have been legally searched by the police officer. Thus the evidence would surely need to be repressed.
Expert:  Samuel II replied 6 years ago.



i think i summed up everything you are now stating in my last paragraph wherein i pointed out that there are certain circumstances that would have precluded the pocket search.



JustAnswer in the News:

Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.

What Customers are Saying:

  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
< Previous | Next >
  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL

Meet The Experts:

  • Ely

    Counselor at Law

    Satisfied Customers:

    Private practice with focus on family, criminal, PI, consumer protection, and business consultation.
< Last | Next >
  • Ely's Avatar


    Counselor at Law

    Satisfied Customers:

    Private practice with focus on family, criminal, PI, consumer protection, and business consultation.
  • Nate's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    Over 10 years of criminal defense practice.
  • P. Simmons's Avatar

    P. Simmons


    Satisfied Customers:

    16 yrs. of experience including criminal law.
  • LawTalk's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    30 years legal experience
  • Marsha411JD's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    Licensed attorney with 29 yrs. exp. in criminal law
  • RobertJDFL's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    Experienced in multiple areas of the law.
  • AttorneyTom's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers: