Home / Be The Change / Government Corruption / Proposed Law Will Jail Passengers for 4 Months for Riding in a Car Without an ID

Proposed Law Will Jail Passengers for 4 Months for Riding in a Car Without an ID

Phoenix, AZ – The nanny/security state has reared its ugly head, again — this time in the form of a new law that requires passengers in a vehicle to carry identification – with violators facing up to four months in jail and a $750 dollar fine.

Last week, HB 2305 was introduced by Rep. Anthony Kern (R-Dist. 20), in hopes of reinstating an Arizona law that was struck down in 2002 after a judge ruled the statute as too vague to enforce.

Currently, Arizona law requires only requires that the driver of a vehicle carry identification.

The new law would require passengers in a vehicle to have evidence of identity, with failure to do so resulting in a misdemeanor charge, which allows for a penalty of up to four months in jail. The entire text of the bill can be read here.

There are no stipulations in the bill differentiating between children and adults. Thus, under the proposed law, if passed in its current form, parents would be ridiculously obliged to procure IDs for their children to be able to simply ride in a vehicle without breaking the law.

Furthermore, the way the bill is worded makes it potentially applicable to anyone riding a bicycle if officers felt like applying it in that manner.

Under established precedent, an officer is only allowed to request identification from someone if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, or traffic infraction, to stop the driver of the vehicle.

Rep. Kern attempted to justify this absurd law by stating, “Police officers need to know who they are talking to, and we wanted to clarify it in statute for passengers also,” in reference to a previous court ruling that negated the old passenger ID law, which resulted in the dropping of possession of drug charges for a suspect who was arrested as a passenger for not having a valid ID and was not wearing a seatbelt.

READ MORE:  California Cops to Begin Charging 5-Year Olds with Misdemeanors

The reality of the situation is that under established U.S. law, unless an officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime afoot, a citizen is under no obligation to provide identification. Make no mistake that there is no logic or reason in attempting to force passengers to carry ID under threat of imprisonment.

These actions are simply another means of providing the government with more control over individuals when agents of the state and citizens interact. The state is clearly attempting to tread upon the civil liberties/rights that are supposed to be inherent to all Americans.

Steve Kilar, spokesperson with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said the proposal would ascribe a harsh punishment for a minor violation.

“This proposal takes us one step closer to a society in which we’re required to carry identification whenever we leave our homes,” Kilar said. “Furthermore, it needlessly piles criminal penalties onto civil violations, which would lead to huge fines and fees for otherwise minor violations. We don’t need people branded criminals simply because they failed to carry—or do not have—an ID card.”

This attempt at criminalizing people who simply don’t carry, or have, an ID is an unmistakable example of the ruling class attempting to provide cover for its paid enforcers as a means of allowing them to have more power in their interactions with people NOT suspected of a crime.

  • john smith

    just fucking wow

    • Tyrannicus_Rex

      Another communist posing as a republican… must have took lessons from McCain and Jeff Flake.

      • Storm

        Fascist, its fascist not communist, just think of hitler and mussolini PAPERS YOU MUST SHOW YOUR TRAVELING PAPERS!!! YOU OFF TO THE CAMPS WITH YOU!!!

        • Doran Zeigler

          Most AmeriKKKans still do not know the difference between a fascist and a communist. It this a failure or success of our propaganda system? On the other hand, most people still ASSume that if you do not like Trump, you are a “liberal.” Does this mean ALL conservatives like Trump? This is the pretzel logic of idiotic AmeriKKKans.

          • DocThrone Rush

            Fascism is a form of communism as are all socialists states.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Except that you have it completely backwards. Fascism is an extreme-right ideology.

          • Max Kremer

            thats incorrect. wikipedia is your friend

          • TechGump

            Arguably, and I’d agree that, he is right. All are a result of collective action with initiated violence/theft upon others (State), and State itself is a broad form of Socialism in practice (collective action through enforcement); not individualism.
            For example, both communism and fascism, through collective actions socialism justifies (aka enforcement; the INITAITON of violence and theft), result in:
            – One party State
            – Military citizenship
            – Consolidated State power
            – Centralized economy
            – “Strong” leader
            – Commitment to enforcement of ideology
            – Mass murder

            They are two sides of the same coin: totalitarianism…. rooted in the socialist pseudo-religious belief that State (representatives & enforcers of the collective, but with ‘special’ rights to do bad things) may commit immoral acts for the benefit of some men; the so called ‘common good’, aka socialism. But of course, as it turns out, ‘common’ and ‘good’ are subjective, and as such, no State will ever represent or produce it. It will only produce what those in control of law (leaders) believe ‘common good’, and the expense of violence upon some (or many) and theft of most.

          • Steve Rusk

            Actually “fascism” AKA the corporate state is a right wing phenomena, socialism and communism are at the other end of the political spectrum. Fascism is a form of “totalitarianism”, I think you’re getting the two terms confused.

        • Phil Freeman


      • Cortez

        …you don’t have a clue what communism is, do you?

      • Tinman0670

        Not a Communist, a Nazi. Try learning the difference.

        • DocThrone Rush

          Nazi’s were communists, learn some history.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Nobody is fooled by your lies, learn some history.

          • Tinman0670

            Oh you are the stupidest mother fucker to ever walk planet Earth. I know history, here’s your history lesson for today. The Nazis were German, the Communists were Russian. They actually fought against each other in World War 2. We sided with the Russians. Hitler hated communists, liberals, gays, and other minorities, much like you Nazi sympathizers. Try picking up a history book, oh that’s right you inbred, redneck, fucktards can’t read or spell.

          • Cortez

            Actually, the Nazis hated communists. When the Nazis burned down the German parliament they called it a terrorist attack and blamed communists. Communists were also one of the first groups rounded up and imprisoned in the concentration camps. Villification of the left wing was one of the first steps the Nazis took in establishing their dictatorship.

          • ranchdog

            DTR WOW, your ignorance is breath taking, either that or you are one hell of a troll

          • Edward Davis

            I think the problem we’re seeing here is one between textbook definitions of what things are, and what history has shown us things can be. I think fascism can be awfully similar to oligarchy and either of these can, and have existed side by side in democratic states, communist states, socialist states, etc. It’s really more of a question of corruption, more so than what the state claims it is, or desires to be.

            As an example, Nazi Germany is often called the “National Socialist period”. the same source that states that also states, that Nazi Germany was fascist and totalitarian. We know from history that Hitler and Stalin utterly despised one another. we also know that while Stalin called Russia a communist society, it was also extremely fascist, oligarchal, and totalitarian. many of us also believe that America, a democracy is also extremely corrupt, oligarchal, and possibly on it’s way to fascist, while still being labeled democratic. Where do names end and reality begin? It is unfortunate, that people associate liberty with words like democratic, communist, or socialist, when really the only reliable indicator is corruption.

          • morsextenebris

            “It is unfortunate, that people associate liberty with words like
            democratic, communist, or socialist, when really the only reliable
            indicator is corruption.”
            I can absolutely agree with you on that, but, we are not a democracy in any way shape or form. Only in the sense of the people being indoctrinated by constant parroting that we are a democracy and us not wanting to govern ourselves, America is a constitutional republic. Nowhere in the declaration or constitution(contract/compact) is democracy found to describe our form of government. The problem is as you say that far too many of the elected public servants are corrupt and self serving or are willfully ignorant about their duties. The State representatives are elected to secure our rights and when they infringe upon our rights, then it is time to toss them to the curb.

          • Steve Rusk

            In Nazi Germany “socialism’ was only for Aryans, the master race, not for everybody else.

        • Frank Welsh

          I don’t know which is worse, this guy thinking the Nazi’s were commies, or the arrogant responses. The Nazi were socialist which is why they were originally called “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”


          a link explaining the economic differences between the two systems.

        • Tyrannicus_Rex

          How many Jews did he kill? Zero, learn what the Hitler Card is.

          • Tinman0670

            It took Hitler a while to start the killing machine. He started off with shit like this.

        • TechGump

          There are far more commonalities in practice than there are differences.
          – Is Govt; check
          – One party State; check
          – Military citizenship; check
          – Consolidated State power; check
          – Centralized economy; check
          – “Strong” leader; check
          – Commitment to enforcement of ideology; check
          – Mass murder; check

          They are two sides of the same coin: totalitarianism. The ‘left’/’right’ paradigm isn’t really relevant or substantive in argument of thier purported “difference”. Left, and right, both support totalitarianism when it coddles and enforces thier own ideology. In real world outcomes, they are almost identical… stemming from mankind’s incessant desire to control others via initiated violence and theft through the pseudo-religious belief that State may commit immoral acts for the benefit (so called ‘common’ good) of men. And that of course, is entirely subjective (left/right politics).

  • TechGump

    Um, no, no, and no. Nothing screams police state like this does.

    • Cortez

      The neo-cons behind this aren’t conservatives. The Republicans gave up on conservative ideologies decades ago on pretty much everything except social issues.

      • TechGump

        So you don’t support any State reguation and enforcement? I bet it depends on the issue…

        • Cortez

          I never claimed to adhere to any particular political ideology, I only pointed out that the Republicans aren’t really conservatives. That said, looking at each individual issue and examining the best approach for the specific situatiom does seem like a wiser approach than blanketing all problems with the same ideological “solution” and hoping it applies universally.

          • TechGump

            “I never claimed to adhere to any particular political ideology”
            I never claimed you did, troll I asked you a blunt, direct question, which you really haven’t answered. I will get to my point when you do.

    • Lily *Dogs Name*

      They are RINOs
      Dont confuse them with conservative please

    • Difdi

      You sir have fallen for the propaganda and are happily drinking the kool-aid.

      The main difference these days between the democrat party and the republican party is which freedom you will lose first. They’re working together, they’re not opponents at all. But you’ve fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

      Say it with me: Freedom is a non-partisan issue. As long as you believe one side or the other is the enemy of Freedom, both sides can manipulate you.

      • TechGump

        Um, I’m 100% sure I said each side loves the police state and it merely depends on the issue. Perhaps you should read before commenting.

        • Cortez

          Ironic words, since you just made the exact same incorrect assumption with me after failing to read my post.

          • TechGump

            WTF are you talking about. I never assumed anything with you, troll. I asked you a question, and made a bet…. speaking of ironic and incorrect.
            Do better.

      • Undecider

        You two are in agreement. It helps to slow down and read what someone writes.

        • Difdi

          Yes it does. Perhaps you should try it some time.

          • TechGump

            So what about your post differs from the opinion I expressed? You still actually seem to think you’re stating something different. You’re not.

      • Steve Rusk

        Conservatives are only the obvious hypocrites, Liberals are the subtle, devious ones.

      • Stephanie Wiecz

        You sir, need a grammar lesson, particularly if you are going to write, on a public forum and attempt to sound intelligent. This phrase is incorrect and cannot ever be correct; “the democrat party” Did you fail English class? The proper way to say and spell that phrase is, The DemocraTIC Party. Got it? Do you hear people saying the republic party? No because as Democrats, we are not stupid ignorant buffoons.

        • Carey Allison

          Offers so much – knows so little!

      • Stephanie Wiecz

        You have been drinking the poison, the people running around saying that both parties are the same, are the ones falling for something hook, line and sinker. You are being fooled by and being fooled more than republicans. Name one freedom that the Democratic party took from you.

    • Stephanie Wiecz

      Stop comparing the two, there is no comparison, at all, ever.

      • TechGump

        Oh, I think I’ll compare whatever I want when I want, tool. Let go of your authoritarian desires and decrees. Prove me wrong, don’t declare me wrong. Try again?

  • The Cat’s Vagina

    This will probably get thrown out, like most Republican wet dreams.

  • Good Samaritan: What’s wrong?
    Stranger: I think I’m having a heart attack.
    Good Samaritan: I’ll drive you to the hospital. Got your ID?
    Stranger: No.
    Good Samaritan: Well, good luck then. *drives off*

    • TechGump

      Person: I think I’m having a heart attack.
      Siri: I can hail you an ambulance. But first, please scan your ID.
      Person: I don’t have one.
      Siri: Stay where you are. GPS tracking is engaged. The authorities have been alerted. They will transport you for processing. Resistance is futile.

  • Larry Brothers

    Don’t worry about it – it’s unconstitutional. Never survive a challenge.

    • Remberasha

      yep – illegal search and seizure

  • itstherecit

    why?…suggested by cops. introduced as a bill by idiot kern, in order to make more arrests and collect revenue…after all, id’ing 4 people in a car quadruples the chance of an arrest for any reason the cop decides he can get away with….

  • Jack Steen

    Absurd Pig Law.

  • Daniel W. McCullar

    Rep. Anthony Kern needs to be removed from politics.

  • It will never happen, the SCOTUS has already ruled on many cases that contradict this stupid law. Even if they pass it the first time it is challenged it will fall.

    • Edward Davis

      good to know, thanks for the background info. wait. Which SCOTUS?

  • Storm

    The Gestaupo says you must have your traveling papers…PAPERS SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!!

    • Jack O’malley

      ihren papiers bitte

  • Doc


  • Larry Dawson

    Dammittohell! Do newborns have to produce their birth certificate?

    • Ed

      and footprint! lol

  • Kweden

    As for the bit about us law protecting you from unrea..blah blah. Arizona already has an identification law, and at least in phx they have quotas to ask a certain amount ot people for their id–perhaps that is only in high enforcement poor neighborhoods though. white, brown, green, red, blue, dying, etc . Arizona republican politicians are with the shariah law lobby, and other religious extremists that want every one but them in jail or dead. And that is the obvious trutth.

  • Zapepper

    I thought the Constitution protected us from unlawful search and seizure. This sounds like more of a money grab by the state, for children’s ID cards. I was going to winter in AZ next year, Guess it will have to be Nevada or South Texas. I won’t contribute to an economy that passes such a law.

  • Phil Freeman

    Unenforceable passenger references a paying occupan in transportation laws.

  • Phil Freeman

    The law cannot compel commerce, to get an ID requires one to engage in commerce. This BS is unenforceable.

    • midnightrider35000

      That went out the window with obamacare.

      • Phil Freeman

        Obamacare isn’t compelled, it’s the result of electing to be a taxpayer. Obamacare is a tax. Not compelled commerce.

  • Welcome to the Union of Soviet America.

    • Edward Davis

      The Confederated States of Incorporated America!

  • Michael Jenkins

    Generally republicans hate the constitution and want the government to have total control over peoples lives.

    • Lily *Dogs Name*

      Uh, no

  • demoncrat

    I always have my ID on me. Always.

    • Undecider

      The 4th Amendment alludes you don’t really need to.

  • Guest

    Mother: Taking my 9 year old daughter to the emergency room, having horrible asthma attack. Police: Stopped you for driving to fast. May I see your I.D. >> Oh, by the way does your child have an I.D. too.

  • TimSto

    First thing I asked myself was who is this guy, Kern? This is from his website for his election
    “I’m a proud graduate of the Police Academy and support the men and women in blue because safe neighborhoods are fundamental to our quality of life. I support giving Law Enforcement the tools they need to protect us. I believe in mandatory sentencing laws with stiff penalties to prevent violent criminals and predators from being released back onto our streets. And I work to ensure that our individual liberties are also protected.”
    He’s a cop! No wonder he wants the police state!

  • DocThrone Rush

    It’s unenforceable. Simply invoke your right to remain silent or to participate without a lawyer being present.

  • martymarsh

    This is corruption at it’s finest, you are guilty until proven innocent, if I haven’t committed a crime it is no business of yours who I am. This is heading down a very bad road.

  • Lily *Dogs Name*

    My father remembers this happening in Germany
    It didn’t turn out so well for them either.

    No ID, you would get on a train

    • Edward Davis

      yeah, I seem to recall reading about that in a really insightful book. I think it was called… History? yeah. that’s the one. That book’s helped me out a lot as a human being over the years.

  • Ibcamn

    so by law…all the passenger has to do is ask the cop what crime he/she has committed then,and if no crime can be proven[as in the passenger says he/she has an ID]there is no suspect of a crime and therefore the passenger does not have to show shit to the criminal,i mean cop..it is the same in many states,just read the part that says the officer must have reason of suspicion,if the cop does not,then fuck them….by law.

    • Edward Davis

      except the crime doesn’t have to be proven. basically, the officer just has to say something. they don’t have to prove anything, nor do they have to prove their suspicion is warranted at the moment. (They might have to prove it months later if it goes to court, but things rarely do, and it is EXTREMELY rare for judges to question an officers motives). so in reality, officers don’t have to prove anything, but they do have to make up some bullshit. even something incredibly vague like “suspicious activity”. It is pretty well known that if your culture is able to make it illegal to not have ID on you at all times, you are strongly on your way to living the totalitarian dream. (Actually, you’re probably in it already, but are to well-trained to see it- closer to my personal opinion). While this law is a horrible idea, it really isn’t much different from the way things are now, and i greatly doubt that many Americans are going to have a problem with it overall. (I’m extremely fond of Michael Moore’s Awful Truth tv show episode- “Stop and Frisk Night”).

      • Ibcamn

        actually,no,im not living the totalitarian nightmare,im a biker,we live on the outside of society and look in on it once in a while,that’s why the RICO act was invented,for us along with other questionable people in the world,that’s why they are always after us and watching us,so no,i don’t….and you are correct about judges,it’s mainly because they are all corrupted,and working in a corrupt system.and as for their henchmen[aka;cops]it is true they will make up anything for an excuse for the ID check,i usually just answer their questions with more questions,keeps their little brains on overload…but im sure the people will catch on real quick as to how to fuck back with the cops.

  • Dave

    …except for the part where that’s not actually what the proposed law says.

    person other than the driver of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to
    provide [would be stricken] evidence of [/stricken] the person’s [would
    be added] evidence of [/added] identity
    to a peace officer or a duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement
    agency on request, ***when such officer or agent has reasonable cause to
    believe the person has committed a violation of this title,*** is
    guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.”

    The part between
    *** is critical; it doesn’t mean the police can demand ID of anybody on a
    whim, but rather that they can ask for it *if they have reasonable (or
    probable) cause. Moreover, section (E) allows that if the defendant to
    presents it to the court later, he “shall not be convicted of a

    It’s not nearly so draconian as the
    article’s breathless reporting implies–or outright falsely states
    (“…allowing them to have more power in their interactions with people
    NOT suspected of a crime;” cf. the above-quoted statute requiring
    reasonable cause).

    • Edward Davis

      ummm. maybe i read what you just posted wrong, (but i don’t thinks so), but it says that if the officer suspects you are breaking THIS title, they can ask for your i.d.
      That’s a big change, and is exactly what is described above. the officer can arrest you for not having an i.d, and if they suspect you don’t have an i.d., they can ask you for it. In this new case, the crime suspected of IS not having an id. so it’s exactly as draconian as the article describes. (I couldn’t say about the misdemeanor part, i don’t know what that entails in the state of Arizona- but i doubt they would get something as blatant as the maximum allowable penalty wrong in their reporting). That section E part you mention would be in keeping with a lot of current driving without proof of insurance cases I’ve seen. prove you had it at the time, (just not on your person) and most judges are lenient.

      • Dave

        You did misunderstand, but it’s kind of an obscure reason: “title” is a legal term of art, and refers to Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which encompasses all laws regarding transportation (see http://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=28 ). This bill wouldn’t make it a crime to not have ID; it would make it a crime to not provide one *when already reasonably suspected of breaking a law in Title 28*, and even then provides a remedy by allowing the defendant to provide it later in court. The law *can’t* make it illegal not to have ID; to make it a crime would allow the officer to bootstrap his suspicion on something that hasn’t yet happened. That violates causality.

  • A Voice in the Wilderness

    Reading the comments then I’m sure most of you would be against civil asset forfeiture…which means the police can take your cash or other assets when no crime has been committed. Check out what our President has to say about it.


    • ♓Ξ▲ѴƳ Ƙ∆RM∆~Ð∈ßϯ SᏝ▲V∈

      Comedian George Carlin said “its a Big Club and you ain’t in it” (youtube search) … He was talking about the Illuminati. To be fair, during Donald Trumps Presidential Inauguration while he was seated onstage he was slightly bent forward with his forearms on his lap, I noticed him holding his thumbs and fingers together which then formed a inverted triangle-like pyramid. That particular hand signal is one of many different Illuminati hand signals. Whenever Mr Trump talks he is quite often doing a Okay-like hand signal which is also a Illuminati 666 hand sign. Simply bing-image Illuminati hand signals and all the many various Politicians, Hollywood Stars, Musicians, etc using them. The whole Left versus Right Political paradigm is much like those pretend rivalries in professional wrestling. Always remember … ‘Its a big club and you and I are not in it’..

  • picnicfun

    Conservatives like State Rep;. Anthony Kern will be the death of us. He needs to be removed.

  • Shawn H.

    Believe it or not, but it’s the spirit of the fallen one that has taking over the minds and souls of those in power.

  • James Michael

    Fuck off traitors can be no law requiring id you stupid ass felons…Go fuck yourselves…