COURT: POLICE CAN'T ALWAYS RUN ID CHECKS

Police in Colorado can legitimately ask passengers in cars stopped for
traffic violations for identification, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.

But without reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, officers
cannot take the IDs back to their patrol cars and run checks to see if the
passengers are wanted, according to the unanimous ruling.

The decision voids the case against Derek Lavan Jackson, 34, of Aurora. His
attorney, Cynthia Sheehan, called prison officials Monday seeking his
immediate release from Buena Vista Correctional Facility.

Jackson was a passenger in a car stopped in Aurora for a minor traffic
infraction in October 1997.

He wound up being convicted of possessing crack cocaine and sentenced to
two years on the basis of improperly seized evidence, Justice Nancy Rice
wrote in the court's decision.

Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant, whose office tried Jackson, said
officers will now be instructed to ask a passenger's permission not only
for the ID but to run the ID.

He said he understands the constitutional basis for the ruling but said it
makes no street sense. Grant said normally an officer goes back to his
patrol car with identifications of both the driver and passenger and almost
instantaneously is told if either is wanted.

"It's kind of half a loaf," the prosecutor said of the ruling.

Grant said he is not aware of a large number of criminal cases being
generated by such checks. But he said prosecutors see a large number of
cases where passengers take an action such as throwing items from a car or
hiding something in the back seat.

Sheehan said that while the justices said police officers can ask
passengers for identification, the passengers don't have to produce it
unless suspected of a crime.

"I think the bottom line is that the police can't demand ID from a
completely unsuspicious person on the street or from a car passenger,"
Sheehan said. "They can ask, but not demand, to see an ID. That person has
a constitutional right to say no and to walk away."

Jackson was a passenger in a car in Aurora that was stopped because it had
only its parking lights on, not its head lights as required.

Aurora patrolman Brant Harrold asked both the driver and Jackson for
identification. When he returned to his patrol car and radioed in the
information, Harrold discovered Jackson had three outstanding traffic warrants.

Later, two pieces of crack cocaine were found in Jackson's pocket, and
Jackson was convicted of possessing crack cocaine.

The court ruled Monday that the cocaine shouldn't have been used at
Jackson's trial because it had been improperly seized.

While Harrold had the right to ask Jackson for identification, taking his
identification and checking it on his car radio amounted to an
"investigatory stop and seizure" which can only be done if the officer had
a reasonable suspicion Jackson committed a crime. Here, Rice said, there
was no suspicion.

Sheehan said the ruling is significant.

"The Supreme Court held that a passenger in a traffic stop may refuse a
simple request for ID," Sheehan said. "However, if the officer tells the
passenger not to leave and retains his ID so he can't leave, then it's a
violation of our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures."

The case was tried in Adams County District Court, and prosecutors were
represented on appeal by the Colorado Attorney General's Office.

Ken Lane, spokesman for Attorney General Ken Salazar, said the opinion is
important because it makes clear that officers can ask passengers for
identification.

According to Lane, the justices said passengers may not necessarily be able
to leave the vehicle.

"The ruling does not mean a passenger may suddenly exit a vehicle . . .
upon request for ID, and persons should not believe they have been given
the green light to do so," Lane said.

Justice Rice noted that because Officer Harrold told Jackson to stay in the
car so he could check for warrants, the issue of whether Harrold could have
asked Jackson to stay in the vehicle because of safety concerns wasn't
before the court.

But she added that the Colorado Supreme Court feels the "need for officer
safety is both "legitimate and weighty.' "