Traffic Stops
IC 9-24-13-3 — the license in immediate possession, and shown on demand of an officer
Two sections set what a driver hands over at a stop, and what an officer may do with a phone that holds the license.
Who handles this in Indiana: legal aid programs and the state offices, listed in the Indiana directory.
- A driver with a physical license card has it in immediate possession while driving, and displays it on demand of a court or of a police officer authorized to enforce the motor vehicle rules.
- Knowingly or intentionally refusing to provide either a name, address and date of birth, or a driver's license if one is in the person's possession, to an officer who stopped the person for an infraction or an ordinance violation is a Class C misdemeanor.
- Where the license is a mobile credential, a court or an officer may not, without the person's consent, confiscate the phone to check compliance, keep it as evidence pending trial for a violation of the section, or download information from it, unless there is probable cause that the phone was used in a crime, a valid search warrant, or other authority in law.
- Sending data from a mobile credential is not consent to search, view or access anything else on the phone.
- The person receiving the credential's data does not handle the phone to view the credential or verify identity.
An officer may not arrest or ticket a person for breaking a law regulating driving on a highway unless, at the time, the officer is wearing a distinctive uniform and a badge of authority, or is driving a vehicle clearly marked as a police vehicle.
The rule does not apply to an officer in an unmarked car when a uniformed officer is present, or to an arrest for reckless driving that endangers others, recklessly passing a stopped school bus where someone is hurt or killed, or impaired driving that endangers a person.
The Fourth Amendment sets limits on every stop, and the Supreme Court of the United States has drawn several of them. It has held that a stop is reasonable where the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, whatever the officer's actual motive; that an officer making a lawful stop may order the driver, and the passengers, out of the vehicle; that a passenger is seized by the stop and may challenge it; and that a stop may last no longer than its purpose requires, so it may not be extended for a dog sniff without separate reasonable suspicion. It has also held that consent to a search has to be voluntary, judged on all the circumstances, and that the prosecution does not have to prove the person knew they could refuse. Those holdings are a floor: a state's own constitution and statutes can give more protection than they do, never less.
Sources for this section (9)
- IC 9-24-13-3 — Possession and display of licenses and permits; mobile credentials
- IC 34-28-5-3.5 — Refusal to identify self
- IC 9-30-2-2 — Uniform and badge; marked police vehicle; exceptions
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) — A traffic stop is reasonable when there is probable cause of a traffic violation
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) — An officer may order the driver out of a lawfully stopped car
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) — An officer may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped car
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) — A passenger is seized by a traffic stop and may challenge it
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) — A stop may not be extended beyond its purpose to run a dog sniff
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) — Consent to a search must be voluntary
Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of October 2026. Applying it to a particular situation is the work of a licensed Indiana attorney.