{"id":152216,"date":"2025-08-29T14:49:47","date_gmt":"2025-08-29T21:49:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=152216"},"modified":"2026-09-17T06:16:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T13:16:26","slug":"what-do-we-do-if-we-make-stop-under-ks-v-glover-and-the-driver-refuses-to-id","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=152216","title":{"rendered":"What Do We Do if We Make Stop Under KS V Glover and the Driver Refuses to ID"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anthony Bandiero<\/a><\/strong>
\nAttorney and Senior Legal Instructor, Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training<\/p>\n

A question from an officer in California. You run a plate, the registered owner is suspended, it is dark and you cannot see the driver. You stop the car and the driver matches every physical descriptor, but says he is not the RO, says he has a valid license, and refuses to identify himself.<\/em><\/p>\n

Hey guys, it’s Anthony Bandiero here, attorney for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, bringing you a roadside chat. This one is a good question, and it comes from an officer in California.<\/p>\n

He says, can you demand ID during a Kansas v. Glover style traffic stop?<\/p>\n

So let’s say you are behind a car on the freeway and you run the plate and learn that the registered owner has a suspended driver’s license. Now it’s dark out, or maybe the back windows are tinted. You cannot see who the driver is. You assume the driver is the registered owner, an assumption that is reasonable under Kansas v. Glover. So you stop the car to investigate the potential violation of driving on a suspended license.<\/p>\n

When you stop the car and you contact the driver, he matches the general descriptors of the registered owner. Height, weight, hair color, eye color. However, let’s assume you don’t have a way to confirm the driver is the registered owner. This might be a hypothetical, because quite frankly most cops in California I think are going to be able to pull this up. But say there’s no photo available from the DMV database or a booking photo.<\/p>\n

When you explain the reason for the stop, the driver explains that he is not the registered owner, does have a valid license, has permission to drive the vehicle, but he will not identify himself to you since he claims he hasn’t broken any laws.<\/p>\n

In this situation, do you think it’s reasonable to require him to identify himself and produce his driver’s license under threat of arrest, in accordance with California Vehicle Code 12951 subsection B? Or under these circumstances do you think it’s better not to push the issue?<\/p>\n

What is Kansas v. Glover?<\/h2>\n

Okay, so the first thing is a couple of ground rules. Kansas v. Glover, what is that case about?<\/p>\n

What happened here was an officer in Kansas was behind Glover’s truck. He ran the plate. Glover came back with a suspended license status. He wasn’t supposed to be driving. Now the officer could not see who was in the vehicle, probably same situation, driving at night or whatever it was. And so he stops the vehicle, and boom, Glover is behind the wheel.<\/p>\n

So Glover goes to court and he’s like, hey, that stop was unreasonable, because if you’re going to court and you’re saying the driver is suspended, well, you should make the presumption that the RO is not driving the vehicle, that the RO is actually complying with the law, and therefore most likely somebody else is driving the vehicle, somebody who’s permitted to drive.<\/p>\n

And the Supreme Court says, look, first of all, this is reasonable suspicion<\/a>. Reasonable suspicion is a low standard. It’s a moderate chance that this person is involved in criminal activity, or violating the law.<\/p>\n

The second thing is, it is a reasonable presumption. Assumption means you’re just assuming, you’re just totally guessing. Presumption means you have some facts to back it up. It’s a reasonable presumption to believe that the RO is driving, because statistics show that like 70% of people who have a license issue still drive. The chances of getting caught are remote, they want to take the risk, they got to get to work, they don’t want to pay for an Uber, taxi, whatever.<\/p>\n

So actually the officer in Glover was being more reasonable than not. Okay, that’s Glover. So the conviction of Glover was upheld.<\/p>\n

Does a surrender-your-license statute apply to a reasonable suspicion stop?<\/h2>\n

The next thing is this law that the officer referenced, which is Vehicle Code 12951 subsection B. That is the law that basically says you must surrender your license upon demand.<\/p>\n

Does that apply here? Maybe. I don’t know for sure. But I will tell you that my opinion here is that that law does not apply to reasonable suspicion detentions. That law is for traffic stops where people are going to be issued a citation.<\/p>\n

When we read that law in isolation it pretty much says, give me your license. It doesn’t even tell you it has to be during a traffic stop. It’s basically surrender upon demand type stuff. Well, clearly that can’t be the case. I can’t just go up to somebody in a parking lot as a California police officer and say, how you doing today, it’s a nice day to be shopping at Walmart, huh, let me see your license. And the guy says no, and I say, well, here’s the law, and it requires you to surrender upon demand.<\/p>\n

That’s not the intent. We read the laws in the global context, in the big scheme of the legislative scheme and so forth, and also with the Fourth Amendment. So to me, that law is better understood as the mechanism to require people to show you their license when they’re getting a ticket.<\/p>\n

Do detained people have to identify themselves in California?<\/h2>\n

I also want to talk about PC 148. PC 148 in California is basically their obstruction law.<\/p>\n

The courts have held that people that have been detained by the police don’t have an obligation to identify themselves during a reasonable suspicion stop. Now many states, like Nevada, and I think Minnesota and all these other states, they have a stop and identify statute<\/a>. Not California.<\/p>\n

Now in California you can’t lie to the police officer about who you are. So if you are going to open your mouth and give your identification, it does need to be truthful. That would be hindering and obstructing a police officer. But it’s not obstruction just to keep your mouth shut and not say anything.<\/p>\n

So I also think that kind of backs what I just said about this whole surrender upon demand stuff. Because if we agree that this stop is a reasonable suspicion stop, which it is, that’s what Glover stands for, it’s not a PC stop, we can’t just go up there and start issuing a citation. If we agree that this is a reasonable suspicion stop, then I think we can also agree that 148 is your go-to law on how we deal with identifications, which just says you can’t demand ID.<\/p>\n

In other words, I don’t think you have a situation where, oh, if you detain somebody on reasonable suspicion on the street you can’t demand their ID, but if they happen to be behind the wheel and you still only have reasonable suspicion, no other crime, no other PC, we can demand their identification. I don’t think that’s what the legislature intended, quite frankly.<\/p>\n

What should the officer actually do on this stop?<\/h2>\n

So we’re back to the case at hand. Here’s what I suggest.<\/p>\n

Number one, it seems to me that the officer most likely has probable cause<\/a> here. Is there a fair probability that this guy who matches all these descriptors is behind the wheel of that car, and the RO has a bad license? Is there a fair probability that he actually is that person? The answer is yes.<\/p>\n

Unless there’s something very obvious that the person does not match. The eye color is completely different, not wearing contacts. But if he generally matches that description and he’s behind the wheel of that car, you have probable cause.<\/p>\n

Now the courts are also going to want you to really diligently try to figure out if it really is him. The picture would be the best way. And again, the officer mentioned booking photos. Just trying to do some other legwork if we can, to try to determine whether or not it’s him.<\/p>\n

But here’s what I said. If I had a driver that matched all the physical descriptors of the RO, and he’s like, I’m not the RO, but he doesn’t want to provide his ID, which by the way contributes to reasonable suspicion, I know he doesn’t have to, but it’s still part of the mix. I would say this.<\/p>\n

Sir, based on what I see here, you are the RO. You match the race, ethnicity, gender, approximate age, eye color, height, weight, and you’re behind the wheel of this particular vehicle. So here’s what it is. I have probable cause right now to arrest you for driving without a license. So either, if you disagree with that and you actually are somebody else, then prove it to me. If not, you’re going to take a ride to the clink.<\/p>\n

That’s how I’ll resolve that. But at the same time, if you’re like, man, I’m really unsure on this one, there’s something off on it, the weight is off or whatever, you just don’t feel good about it, then I guess let him go. It’s not the crime of the century.<\/p>\n

That’s what I suggest. I hope this has helped. I think this is a great discussion and I’m glad that we had it.<\/p>\n

The short version<\/h2>\n