Opinion ID: 202406
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A demand or a request

Text: 52 The district court disbelieved Kominsky on the question of whether he requested or demanded that Henderson write down his identifying information. Kominsky testified that I observed that the passenger, who turned out to be Mr. Henderson, wasn't wearing a seat belt, and asked him if he had any identification on him .... He said `no, I don't have any ID on me' . . . . I then asked him if he would mind writing down [his] name, date of birth, and Social Security number on a piece of paper ... [which] he did. Kominsky said that when Henderson asked why he had to write down his identifying information, he said: You're not wearing your seat belt, sir. At that point, Kominsky said, Henderson voluntarily complied ... He picked up a piece of paper. He used my pen. He wrote down his information. Kominsky later clarified that he did not even think that there was a legal way for me to force a passenger in a stopped car to write down his identifying information in order to be cited for a seatbelt violation. 53 Alford contradicted Kominsky both as to whether he mentioned anything about a seatbelt violation to Henderson and as to whether Kominsky merely requested — rather than demanded — Henderson's information. She testified that when Henderson asked Kominsky why he needed to write down his social security number and date of birth, Kominsky responded: Just write your fucking information on the paper before I snatch you up. Alford's testimony on this point was consistent. However, Alford related Kominsky's profanity only reluctantly, after the district court told her that she was required to state Kominsky's words accurately, even if it's language we wouldn't ordinarily use. In its written findings, the district court said that after Henderson `told Kominsky that he did not have a license or any identification, 54 Kominsky instructed Henderson to write his name, date of birth, and social security number on a piece of paper. Henderson asked Kominsky why he had to provide that information. Kominsky did not answer the question, but insisted that Henderson give him the requested information. 55 Henderson I, 229 F.Supp.2d at 37 (emphasis added). The district court indicated that this finding was significant. In talking to counsel after the second suppression hearing, the district court noted its findings on these points before saying: back on [sic] October, I didn't believe everything that Mr. Kominsky said and I still don't. 56