Facts
- In two separate, routine traffic stops, police officers asked vehicle passengers for identification without any particularized suspicion that the passengers were engaged in criminal activity.
- In Rankin’s stop (Snohomish County), a deputy stopped a vehicle for a noncriminal traffic infraction; Rankin was the passenger.
- The deputy did not observe Rankin commit any crime during the stop but asked Rankin for identification; Rankin provided an identification card.
- The deputy ran a warrants check using the identification information, discovered an outstanding warrant, arrested Rankin, and found methamphetamine (and a knife) during a search incident to arrest.
- In Staab’s stop (King County), an officer requested Staab’s identification during a lawful traffic infraction stop, ran a warrants check, discovered an outstanding warrant, arrested Staab, and found contraband during a search incident to arrest.
- Trial court outcomes diverged: Rankin’s evidence was suppressed and the case dismissed; Staab’s suppression motion was denied and he was convicted.
- The intermediate appellate court held officers may request (but not demand) passenger identification and ruled against both defendants; the Washington Supreme Court granted review in the consolidated cases.
Issues
- Whether article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution is violated when, during a lawful traffic stop, an officer requests identification from a passenger for investigative purposes without an independent, articulable suspicion that the passenger has engaged in criminal activity.
- Whether evidence obtained after discovering an outstanding warrant through such a request must be suppressed as the product of the constitutional violation.
Decision
- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court in both cases.
- The court held that requesting passenger identification for investigative purposes during a traffic stop, absent independent articulable suspicion of passenger criminal activity, violates article I, section 7.
- Rankin: the trial court’s suppression ruling (and resulting dismissal) was reinstated.
- Staab: the conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for proceedings consistent with suppression of evidence obtained after the unlawful identification request.
Legal Principles
- Article I, section 7 (“No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs ... without authority of law”) protects automobile passengers’ privacy during traffic stops.
- In the traffic-stop setting, an officer’s “request” for passenger identification for investigative purposes is treated as a constitutionally significant intrusion because the encounter is inherently coercive.
- Police may not convert a driver-based traffic stop into an investigatory warrant-check of a passenger by seeking identifying information unless there is an independent, articulable suspicion tied to the passenger.
- Evidence discovered through arrest and search incident to arrest following a warrant found only because of the unlawful identification request is subject to suppression as fruit of the violation.
Conclusion
The Washington Supreme Court held that article I, section 7 prohibits officers from requesting passenger identification for investigative warrant checks during a lawful traffic stop unless the officer has an independent, articulable suspicion that the passenger is involved in criminal activity, requiring suppression of evidence derived from the unlawful request.