Opinion ID: 1060645
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State's Contention: Reliable Corroboration of an Individual's Physical Identity

Text: The State takes issue with the Court of Criminal Appeals's finding that a misdemeanant is required to provide some form of photographic evidence under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-7-118(c)(3) and insists that this Court adopt an objective standard. However, the State contends that when no tangible proof is available, an individual should be required to establish his or her identity by reasonably reliable corroboration of the individual's physical characteristics in addition to verbal information. Under the State's contention, it is difficult to conceive of a case where a misdemeanant could establish his or her identity by corroboration of his or her physical characteristics without some form of photographic proof. Essentially, therefore, the State would require misdemeanants to present another form of photographic evidence to meet the satisfactory evidence requirement. We reject the notion that, in all cases, an officer's rejection of evidence of identification will be objectively reasonable if the misdemeanant did not offer additional proof of physical characteristics. It is not unusual for one to forget to carry one's driver's license or other document describing physical characteristics. As the California Supreme Court noted: [a common] explanation for a motorist's failure to have his [or her] license with him [or her] is the most obvious, i.e., that he [or she] inadvertently left it in a different suit of clothing ... Such occasional forgetfulness is a fact of human nature, no doubt reinforced by the pressures and demands of modern life. Indeed, we daresay that at one time or another virtually every motorist has suffered the minor embarrassment of leaving his [or her] license at home. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 101 Cal.Rptr. 837, 496 P.2d at 1211-12. Because it is common for individuals to forget their license or other evidence of physical characteristics, [o]ral evidence as an alternative means of identification necessarily forms an integral part of the honor system in our cite and release statute. Monroe, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d at 285 (Smith, J., dissenting); see also Nava, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d at 610-11 (finding that verbal identification can constitute satisfactory evidence of identification under California's cite and release provisions). In this age of computers, officers have a variety of reliable methods at their disposal by which to verify the identity of a misdemeanant who cannot display a driver's license or other proof of his or her physical characteristics. Monroe, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d at 285 (Smith, J., dissenting). For example, a misdemeanant may still be able to provide an officer with a full name, address, date of birth, and, possibly, a driver's license number. An officer may relay this information to a dispatcher and, in a matter of minutes, determine if the record on file matches the description of the misdemeanant. See id. If the information given by the misdemeanant does not match the address, birth date, or driver's license number, the officer's decision to reject such data as satisfactory evidence of identification may indeed be objectively reasonable. Moreover, if the information given does match the record, but there is some other objective reason for questioning the accuracy of the misdemeanant's identification, an officer's decision to reject the evidence may also be deemed proper. Additionally, an officer may test a misdemeanant on the information he or she gives concerning residence, telephone number, social security number, and/or place of employment. See id. This is not to say, however, that photographic proof or additional evidence of a misdemeanant's physical characteristics will never be necessary. In some cases corroboration of an individual's identity beyond oral representations may be necessary. Nonetheless, an officer's decision to reject a misdemeanant's oral representations is evaluated under an objective standard, and an officer must make all reasonable efforts to verify a misdemeanant's identity. Accordingly, the determination of whether verbal representations supply satisfactory evidence of identity must be made on a case-by-case basis.