1

I was wondering if two people can put their driver licenses in the same wallet. For example, could two spouses keep each of their licenses in the same wallet? Another example could be a parent and child having their licenses in a shared wallet. Would this violate laws that prevent people from carrying multiple licenses, or do laws against carrying multiple licenses apply only to carrying multiple licenses of the same person? And for purposes of clarification, we'll use Texas and Ohio as example jurisdictions, assuming such would be the same.

0
2

Two people, who agree to do so, can put their respective licenses in the same wallet. You can put twenty different people's licenses in a wallet (as a teacher leading a school field trip might, for example) as long as you have their permission to do so.

The prohibition on having multiple licenses is on having multiple licenses FOR THE SAME PERSON. It is not a prohibition on having multiple licenses for different people in the same place with the permission of the respective license holders.

6
  • There is, of course, also a prohibition of presenting someone else's ID as one's own. Holding multiple IDs could be taken as showing an intent to do that. But where it is clear that there was no such intent, that should not be an issue. Jul 23 at 21:36
  • Yes, if you have permission, but there are some tricky bits if you're suspected of intent to commit fraud. Texas has a presumption that you intend to harm or defraud if you have identity information for three or more people of certain circumstances. texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_32.51
    – ColleenV
    Jul 23 at 21:36
  • 1
    @ColleenV This is a presumption under this particular Texas statute, but in the typical case, it should be trivially easy to overcome a presumption of intent to defraud.
    – ohwilleke
    Jul 23 at 21:39
  • 1
    I guess that in any situation where someone had a fistful of other people's IDs, it wouldn't be the number of IDs that caused the problem for them; it would be other aspects of why they had them.
    – ColleenV
    Jul 23 at 21:43
  • 1
    @TheEditor If you had expired licenses of your own, the presumption of fraudulent intent would likewise easily be overcome.
    – ohwilleke
    Jul 26 at 19:04
2

(Cross-posted with the OP's jurisdiction edit)

There is no legal requirement to carry a licence so it depends on one's intent for having someone else's in their possession.

If they have it for convenience or as a favour etc then there is no offence. However, if their intent is "improper" or they do not have a "reasonable excuse" they may be commiting an offence under s.4 or s.6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010, respectively:

Section 4

(1) It is an offence for a person (“P”) with an improper intention to have in P's possession or under P's control -

...

  • (c) an identity document that relates to someone else.

(2) Each of the following is an improper intention -

  • (a) the intention of using the document for establishing personal information about P;

  • (b) the intention of allowing or inducing another to use it for establishing, ascertaining or verifying personal information about P or anyone else.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine (or both).

Section 6

(1) It is an offence for a person (“P”), without reasonable excuse, to have in P's possession or under P's control—

...

  • (c) an identity document that relates to someone else,

...

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  • (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both), or

  • (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum [i.e. 12 months] (or both).

...

As can be seen by the maximum sentences, s.4 is the more severe of the two. The burden of proof in s.6 is reversed and lies with the defendant to establish what is a reasonable excuse on the balance of probabilities.


There's also the possible offence of theft, but this appears to be off-topic judging by the tone of the question.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.