florida case law passenger identification florida case law passenger identification

See 316.605(1), F.S. at 413-14. And the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver. Ibid. The officer admitted that he had got all the reason[s] for the stop out of the way. Id. 901.36 Prohibition against giving false name or false identification by person arrested or lawfully detained; penalties; court orders.. 434 U.S. at 108-09. Passengers purchasing tickets onboard trains from conductors must provide photo identification and be at least 16 years old. Hull Street Law a division of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. at 328. The Court then addressed the State of California's assertion that Brendlin was not seized and, therefore, could not claim the evidence was tainted by an unconstitutional stop: We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. Once there is activity that raises any Terry issue, no problem with IDing passengers. Additionally, the Aguiar court determined that two Supreme Court casesBrendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), and Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)support the conclusion that a passenger may be detained for the duration of a traffic stop. In the motion itself, Sheriff Nocco briefly asserts that he is entitled to dismissal of the negligent hiring and retention claims of Count V "because of a lack of factual allegations that would plausibly suggest that Sheriff was on notice of, or reasonably could have foreseen, any harmful propensities or unfitness for employment of Deputy Dunn []." Plaintiff alleges that the Advisor opined that Plaintiff was lawfully detained during the traffic stop, lawfully required to provide his identification, and lawfully arrested for resisting without violence for refusing to do so. As the United States Supreme Court has explained. Presley, 204 So. For Florida state court decisions, the original digest is called the Florida Digest, and it indexes decisions from the Florida Supreme Court between 1846 and 1935. The Supreme Court explained: A lawful roadside stop begins when a vehicle is pulled over for investigation of a traffic violation. AL has a must identify statute, but you are not required to have photo ID on your person. I, 12, Fla. Instead, a stop that was initiated for basic traffic violations7 quickly evolved into a struggle between a law enforcement officer and a passenger who had attempted to leave, requiring that officer to call for backup. He moved to suppress the evidence, contending the traffic stop constituted an unlawful seizure of his person. In fact, a court "may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all." 13-CIV-23013-GAYLES, 2016 WL 9446132, at *3 (S.D. The Supreme Court also explained that because the passenger is already stopped, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal. Id. Const. See L. Guinier & G. Torres, The Miner's Canary 274-283 (2002). Gainesville, FL 32611 (citing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985), for the proposition that in determining the reasonable duration of a stop, it [is] appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued [the] investigation). Annotations. 3d at 89 (quoting Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333). XIV. In his complaint, Plaintiff has alleged facts showing that Deputy Dunn lacked probable cause to arrest him for obstruction without violence. Id. In that case, two officers stopped a vehicle to verify that a temporary permit affixed to the vehicle was actually assigned to the vehicle. Whether or not you have to show the police your ID legally, always respond to the request politely. The opinion by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit . Id. (1) This section may be known and cited as the "Florida Stop and Frisk Law.". In such a case, "it is clear that even if . 105 S 1st Street, Suite H Richmond, Virginia 23219 804-230-4200 . GREGORY PRESLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 12 of Florida's Declaration of Rights both guarantee citizens the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In Wilson v. State, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held: [A] police officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may not, as a matter of course, order a passenger who has left the stopped vehicle to return to and remain in the vehicle until completion of the stop. Specifically, the Court concluded that a passenger's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated if police detain them during the "reasonable duration" of a valid traffic stop. A plaintiff's failure to establish any one of these elements is fatal to a malicious prosecution claim. Id. 901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.. See, e.g., id. Because the legitimate and weighty concern of officer safety can only be addressed if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation[,] we believe that this interest outweighs the minimal intrusion on those few passengers who might prefer to leave the scene. In three cases from 1988 through 2000, the SCOTUS reversed state and appellate decisions to rule that police can lawfully pursue a subject ( Michigan v. Chesternut, 1988) and that pursuit itself does not equal detention or seizure ( California v. Hodari D., 1991). Presley filed a motion to suppress his statements and all evidence seized on the basis that he was illegally detained during the traffic stop. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 309 Village Drive They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. We disapprove of the Fourth District's decision in Wilson v. State, and any cases that rely upon Wilson v. State for the proposition that law enforcement officers under the Fourth Amendment are precluded from detaining passengers for the reasonable duration of a traffic stop. Presley does not challenge the bases asserted by Officer Jallad for the initiation of the traffic stop. State v. Jacoby, 907 So. Despite our previous explanation as to what constitutes a reasonable period of time to detain passengers during a routine traffic stop, the facts of this case present a situation that was anything but routine. State, 940 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Ark. Nothing in the record suggests that the duration of this traffic stop was unreasonable and, accordingly, we hold that the seizure of Presley did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pursuant to traffic stop laws, drivers are required to pull over for law enforcement. pursuant to a governmental 'custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels." (explaining that during a routine traffic stop, a reasonable duration of time is the length of time necessary for law enforcement to check the driver license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance; determine whether there are outstanding warrants; and write and issue any citations or warnings). Reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 109 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." 12/27/2019 - 20-01: Warrantless Search of a hotel room was lawful where even though the occupant did not provide express consent for the search, his actions and nonverbal communication supplied implied consent. 2004). A traffic stop occurs when law enforcement pulls a vehicle over for committing a traffic infraction. Landeros, No. The criminal case was ultimately dismissed. Further, the Court ruled that fleeing from police may be suspicious enough in . of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826 n.4 (11th Cir. Id. In a majority 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that restricts gun ownership for a person convicted of reckless domestic assault. at 1614 (citations omitted).6 Consistent with Johnson, the Supreme Court stated: The seizure remains lawful only so long as [unrelated] inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop. An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. Consequently, the motion to dismiss is due to be granted as to this ground. Deputy Dunn argues that Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Although Plaintiff generally alleges that the Sheriff owed him a "duty of care," the nature of the duty is vague and unclear. If you have a case citation, such as 594 So. at 329. As such, the Court finds that the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims of this count are facially insufficient. . What Florida statute says I must give my name to police upon request and in what circumstances is it . See id. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009). Indeed, it appears that a significant percentage of murders of police officers occurs when the officers are making traffic stops. Id. This page contains significant/relevant cases that were incorporated into annual LEGAL UPDATES training. The temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop. The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B) 901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.. The case law establishes that in most situations a person's name and biographical information does not implicate their right against self-incrimination, so a suspect can be asked his name, date of birth, et cetera. "Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." That holds even in a state with a "stop and identify" law, and even if the initial stop of the car (for a traffic violation committed by the driver) was legal. Previous Legal Updates. 2020 Updates. A plaintiff attempting to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress bears a heavy burden, particularly when alleging facts that rise to the requisite level of outrageousness. Presley, 204 So. If you are researching an issue and want to find relevant cases in print, you will need to start with a digest, which is an index of case law. A search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine. Presley volunteered his date of birth. Highway and officer safety are interests different in kind from the Government's endeavor to detect crime in general or drug trafficking in particular. at 392-393 (footnote omitted) 25 Id. The Court further finds that based on the Fourth Amendment itself and the case law discussed, the law was clearly established at the time of the arrest. Vehicular Searches.In the early days of the automobile, the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v.United States 281 that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. Florida's legislature has an implied consent law in place. In Maryland v. Dyson26 a law , enforcement officer received a tip from a reliable confidential informant that the Count IX is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. In fashioning this rule, we invoked our earlier statement that [t]he risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Wilson, [519 U.S.] at 414 (quoting Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-703 (1981)). Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414 (quoting Summers, 452 U.S. at 702-03). I'm not required to identify myself." It's a sentence that would put Andre Roxx behind bars in 2018 on a night that started off with excitement. at 922 (explaining that the defendant was the front-seat passenger in a vehicle being stopped because a brake light was out and the driver was not wearing a seat belt). Colorado . See Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 258. However, in 1999, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal decided a case called Wilson v. State, which held that officers could not order passengers to remain inside a vehicle during a traffic stop. Call the Law Offices of Julia Kefalinos at 305-676-9545 if . 2d 1285, 1301 (M.D. Plaintiff, in fact, contends that the Sheriff ratified this conduct through his Constitutional Policing Advisor. "Alternatively, the causal connection may be established when a supervisor's custom or policy results in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights or when facts support an inference that the supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully or knew the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so." 734 So. Some states do not have stop-and-identify statutes. The Supreme Court in Johnson further concluded that [a]n officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the stop's duration. See Presley, 204 So. Pursuant to existing law on this point, Plaintiff had no obligation to talk to or identify himself to Deputy Dunn. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Frias, 823 F. Supp. All rights reserved. Buckler v. Israel, 680 F. App'x 831, 834 (11th Cir. If you are researching an issue and want to find relevant cases in print, you will need to start with a digest, which is an index of case law. 3d at 88 (quoting Aguiar, 199 So. FLORIDA CRIMINAL CASE WORK HUSSEIN & WEBBER, PL. Trooper Steve said not all TV shows are set in Florida, so they may not present what's lawful in the Sunshine State. 4.. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. "With that said, here in the state of Florida you are required as a driver to . at 1613. 3d at 87. Is the passenger detained and not free to leave during a traffic stop, just as the driver is detained? Weighing the competing interests, the Court first stated: We think it too plain for argument that the State's proffered justificationthe safety of the officeris both legitimate and weighty. Presley, 204 So. In this case, the defendant does not challenge the reasonableness of the duration of the traffic stop, and I agree with the majority that under the specific facts of this case, the stop was reasonable when it was prolonged not by law enforcement, but by the fact that one of the passengers was belligerent and had to be secured. 1994)). 3d at 89. . We have two convenient locations in North Central Florida: Allen Law Firm, P.A. Fla. 2018) (dismissing emotional distress claim after concluding that officers' alleged conduct in repeatedly punching arrestee the face, slamming him into the hood of a car, arresting him without probable cause, and fabricating evidence against him was not sufficiently outrageous); Frias, 823 F. Supp. Pretrial detainees enjoy the protection afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." In the US: Yes, an officer may ASK for a passenger's ID, but generally cannot REQUIRE a passenger to produce an ID. College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. As a result, the motion is granted as to this ground. 3d 95, 106 (Fla. 2017) (holding that officers may temporarily detain passengers during reasonable duration of traffic stop). Therefore, instead of being able to address the traffic violations immediately, Officer Jallad first needed to secure that passenger, who was belligerent and had to be placed in handcuffs. As the Justice Department notes, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. Id. Completing the picture, . Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Plaintiff alleges that each of the officers at the scene incorrectly believed that Plaintiff could be arrested for failing to provide identification even though there was no legal basis to demand such identification since he was only a passenger in the vehicle and was not suspected of criminal activity. So we're hanging out. In the motion, Defendants argue that Count XI should be dismissed because actual probable cause existed to support Plaintiff's arrest. A shotgun pleading is one where "it is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief" and the defendant therefore cannot be "expected to frame a responsive pleading." When law enforcement conducts a traffic stop on a vehicle, both the driver and the passengers have been . at 1615 (citations omitted). Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. Johnson also admitted he had previously been incarcerated for burglary. But, is the passenger free to leave once the vehicle is stopped? Another officer repeated these claims and told Plaintiff that he needed to identify himself. 3d at 925-26 (quoting Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414)). Except under some certain circumstances, there is NO requirement for a passenger in a car. After being indicted in federal court, Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the officer who initiated the stop prolonged it without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff. The Court further finds that based on the Fourth Amendment . Online legal research platform providing access to case law from FL courts, as well as many other primary and secondary legal resources. Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2069-71 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (citation omitted). Practical considerations, and not theoretical speculations, should govern in this case. 901.151 (2) Whenever any law enforcement . Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Deputy Dunn had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop based on the obstruction of the license plate. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Municipalities can only be held liable, however, where "action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort;" it cannot be liable under 1983 on a respondeat superior theory because it employs a tortfeasor. Online legal research platform providing access to appellate case law from FL courts, as well as many other primary and secondary legal resources. Call 800-351-0917 to set up your complimentary account. Authority of peace officer to stop and question. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment . . In 1994 alone, there were 5,762 officer assaults and 11 officers killed during traffic pursuits and stops. Noting that the Aguiar court relied upon Brendlin and Johnson to hold an officer may, as a matter of course, detain a passenger during a lawful stop without violating the Fourth Amendment, the First District agreed with this conclusion and certified conflict with Wilson v. State, as well as its progeny. Presley, 204 So. Therefore, the Court finds that, under the well-pled facts of the complaint, Plaintiff had a legal right to refuse to provide his identification to Deputy Dunn. While Plaintiff was in the police car, law enforcement officers brought a dog to sniff the outside and claim that the dog "alerted" on the passenger side door. See art. 8:16-cv-060-T-27TBM, 2016 WL 8919458, at *4 (M.D. Id.at 248-50 (Nugent, J., dissenting). Dist. The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Id. The Supreme Court then traced its precedentfirst Mimms, then Maryland v. Wilson, then Brendlinto conclude that a vehicle driver or any passenger may be subjected to a patdown when there is reasonable suspicion to believe he is armed and dangerous. "[A] motion to dismiss should concern only the complaint's legal sufficiency, and is not a procedure for resolving factual questions or addressing the merits of the case." Courtesy of James R. Touchstone, Esq. As noted by the United States Supreme Court, [t]he touchstone of [an] analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-09 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968)). Id. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Id. Name, address, and an explanation of the person's actions; In some cases it also includes the person's intended destination, the person's date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if . Id. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but. Deputy Dunn again stated that Plaintiff was being arrested because of his refusal to provide his identification, claiming that Florida law requires all occupants of vehicles to give their names. amend. Count IV is dismissed with prejudice, with no leave to amend. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are isolated. They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. It is also reasonable for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardize his safety. Because we are bound to follow the United States Supreme Court precedent on search and seizure issues, I concur but I would not announce a bright-line rule. A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal . The op spoke of traffic stops. The First District acknowledged the Aguiar court's disagreement with the Fourth District's conclusion that detaining the passenger for the duration of the stop was not a de minimis intrusion: [E]ven if detaining a passenger who desires to leave is more burdensome than directing a stopped passenger to step out of the vehicle, the infringement is minimal in light of the fact that: (1) the passenger's planned mode of travel has already been lawfully interrupted; (2) the passenger has already been stopped due to the driver's lawful detention; and (3) routine traffic stops are brief in duration. Instead, [b]ecause addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose, and the [a]uthority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction areor reasonably should have beencompleted. Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1614 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Select "Case Law" radial button, then select Florida courts. Instead, when Wilson exited the vehicle, crack cocaine fell to the ground. Id. Count IV: 1983 False Arrest - Fourteenth Amendment Claim, As the Court previously discussed, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not a pretrial detainee at the time the arrest occurred. By Mark Hanna. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. 3d at 927-30). The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that although Presley was detained, the limited nature and duration of the detention did not significantly interfere with his Fourth Amendment liberty interests. . Fla. July 10, 2008). While it is clear that the brevity of the invasion of the individual's Fourth Amendment interests is an important factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion, we have emphasized the need to consider the law enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably needed to effectuate those purposes.United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985) (citation and quotation marks omitted). (Doc. 3d 1085, 1091-92 (M.D. However, to the extent any factual findings are involved in the application of the law to a specific case, the findings of the circuit court must be sustained if supported by competent substantial evidence. Id. Twilegar v. State, 42 So. See M. Gottschalk, Caught 119-138 (2015). The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be . does not equate to knowledge that [an official's] conduct infringes the right." (2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has . In sum, as stated in Brendlin, a traffic stop of a car communicates to a reasonable passenger that he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will. See Validating Florida Case Law in this guide at https://guides.law.ufl.edu/floridacaselaw/validating for instructions on how to update the cases you found. Based upon her observations and Johnson's answers to her questions while he was still seated in the vehicle, the officer suspected he might possess a weapon, so when Johnson exited, she frisked him and felt the butt of a gun. Prescott v. Greiner, No. However, Sheriff Nocco is not precluded from raising these arguments in future filings if appropriate. at 1311-12 (quoting Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999, 1015 (11th Cir. However, a handful of states have rejected the Mimms/Wilson rule on . 3d at 88-89 (citing Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 251; Johnson, 555 U.S. at 327). Plaintiff alleges that the supervisor - here, Sheriff Nocco - directed his subordinates to act unlawfully or knew the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to prevent them from doing so. We can prove you right later. Ct., 542 U.S. 177, 188 (2004) (holding that an officer may not arrest an individual for failing to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984) (holding that an individual is not required to provide information, including his identification, to law enforcement officer who lacks probable cause to arrest); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52-3 (1979) (holding that law enforcement cannot stop and demand identification from individual without a specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity); Young v. Brady, 793 F. App'x 905, 909 (11th Cir. Decisions from the Florida Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal. Johnson v. Outside the car, the passengers will be denied access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior of the passenger compartment. 2016) (quoting Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. The Supreme Court rejected the State of California's contention that, under this holding, all taxi cab and bus passengers would be seized under the Fourth Amendment when the cab or bus driver is pulled over by the police for running a red light. 551 U.S. at 262 n.6. Id. The Eleventh Circuit has identified four primary types of shotgun pleadings. 1. "For a right to be clearly established, 'the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.'" The following information is for educational purposes only, and is not intended as, nor is a substitute for, legal Presley was one of two passengers in the vehicle. . Law students and faculty also have access to the other resources described on this page. Because the Presley and Aguiar courts concluded that the evolution of United States Supreme Court precedent with regard to traffic stops and passengers necessitated a reconsideration of Wilson v. Statea conclusion the State contends is also supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015)a review of those cases follows. Here, the traffic stop commenced when Officer Jallad pulled the vehicle over for a faulty taillight and a stop sign violation. Id. at 1288. The officer asked for ID. Unfortunately, in this case, the 9 th Circuit ruled that the lawful stop had concluded prior to the officers ordering Landeros out of the car. Lastly, in Rodriguez, the Supreme Court articulated a limitation on traffic-stop detentions. Rice, 483 F.3d 1079, 1084 (10th Cir.2007) ("[B]ecause passengers present a risk to officer safety equal to the risk presented by the driver, an officer may ask for identification from passengers and run background checks on them as well.") (citing Wilson, 519 U.S. at 413-414, 117 S.Ct. As Justice Sotomayor has eloquently explained, it is a real concern that these expanded rules regarding lawful seizures will adversely impact minorities: This Court has given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you. . Co. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 8:09-cv-1264-T-26TGW, 2009 WL 10671157, at *2 (M.D. Thus, even assuming that the imposition here was no more intrusive than the exit order in Mimms, the dog sniff could not be justified on the same basis. - Gainesville office. In Johnson, the Supreme Court reiterated that the weighty interest in officer safety applies regardless of whether the occupant of the vehicle is a driver or a passenger, and the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension for a more serious crime is every bit as great as that of the driver. 555 U.S. at 331-32 (quoting Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. at 413-14).