TexasCHLforum.com

Actually, you're right. I found this pretty interesting. I thought that detention required disclosure of ID, but apparently not... So I learned something today.
Caselaw is: Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko
I stand corrected.
Apparently LEOs get this wrong too, so be careful if you want to stand your ground.

It's worth noting that this is particular to Texas - it is not the same in other states. It's also worth noting that the US Supreme Court has ruled (Hiibel v Nevada) that a state can prosecute someone who refused to ID while detailed... I guess it's just not on the books in Texas (yet).

I thought that one possible exclusion for this would be if you are a passenger in a car that is stopped for a valid violation, you'd be a witness to a crime and required to ID. And apparently TXDPS thinks this way too, as they've arrested passengers for failure to ID. However, there is an internal memo on that issue, indicating that they should not get upset by passengers who don't comply, unless they have "articulable" suspicion - which isn't supported by Texas state law: http://libertyfight.com/2013/tx_trooper ... to_id.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jumping Frog wrote:I would not have identified myself in those circumstances. Of course, I'd never be in those circumstances because I am never unarmed in public so I must then comply with the CHL identification requirements.

Might ask one of our resident LEOs how that would work out in similar circumstances. The officer was investigating a "disturbance" and although you don't have to hand him a DL, you do have to identify yourself... It's pretty trivial to for the officer to come up with a circumstance that justifies compelling ID. The officer does not have to give you reasons or tell you why he's demanding ID, BTW.

It's reasonable to ask the guy for his credentials first, but to refuse to give your name under this circumstance, that's not going to work out so well.

I *think* that the legal issue is one of authority and jurisdiction. The authority runs 24/7/365 within the jurisdiction.
There are only two sub-questions that I can think of that might make a difference:
1) Departmental policy.
2) Context around when can an officer demand ID. If you were in a private venue, the management could simply require it if you were wanting to stay. If the "misunderstanding" is of possible criminal nature, then you might have been party to an investigation, in which case the LEO can demand ID.