TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote:I am not a lawyer either, so I cannot say for sure.

Don't worry Steve. Even if you were a lawyer I'm still not sure you could say for certain. Isn't that why we have courts, to decide what two different lawyers disagree on?

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I understand that an arrest, as it pertains to CHL applications and as the DPS defines it, requires that pictures and fingerprints be taken. if that didn't happen, they don't consider it an arrest. This would exclude normal traffic stops.
This is not meant to contradict srothstein's statements.

The DPS can have it's own rules concerning CHL applications, but IMO, DPS definitions are not the letter of the law.

I didn't say or even imply that they were.

srothstein wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

Actually, there is a separate law requiring the presentation of a DL when asked by a peace officer if operating a motor vehicle. It does not come under the failure to identify law in the penal code. I think there are a couple other similar special laws in various codes, like presenting a hunting license to a game warden.

But a traffic stop is definitely an arrest. The laws make this very clear and it was further clarified by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Part of the court's logic was that Chapter 543 authorizes an arrest and specifies that the person will be released on a signed promise to appear (ticket) in certain cases and taken to a magistrate in others.

And it is confusing enough that even some LEOs will argue that it is a detention, despite the court ruling. They did specify that it was not a custodial arrest high enough to trigger other rights though, which is part of the confusion. The case was primarily a jurisdiction case, but the law used for the question was where an officer had authority to make an arrest.

As for the definition of an arrest, we need to look at SCOTUS cases because it is not defined elsewhere. Perhaps the closest they come is in Terry v Ohio, when they decided to allow a stop without calling it an arrest. Until then, if a cop stopped you and you were not free to move on, it was an arrest - whether you get booked or not. That case created the detention, recognizing it as a seizure that came under the Fourth Amendment but was not a full blown arrest. They sort of refer to an arrest to include booking (calling it a "traditional arrest") but don't quite define it fully either.

If you are not sure, don't worry about it. Neither are the cops, as it continually comes up in court.

sjfcontrol wrote:I understand that an arrest, as it pertains to CHL applications and as the DPS defines it, requires that pictures and fingerprints be taken. if that didn't happen, they don't consider it an arrest. This would exclude normal traffic stops.
This is not meant to contradict srothstein's statements.

Scott in Houston wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

Jumping Frog wrote:

RSJ wrote:Anyone know the TX state law/citation for the statute about showing/not showing ID (i'm not talking about CHL)

Major tactical error.

The people videotaping are 100% in the right up until that moment. They do not have to talk to the cop, they do not have to stop videotaping, they do not have to show ID, they do not have to consent to being detained. They can ignore the cop and not interact with him at all.

Touch the cop, however, and he just committed a crime. That changes everything. Now they can be detained, arrested, ID'd, the works. Idiots.

Don't know the Texas statute, but the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on that issue. Needs to be a valid stop to require ID. That wasn't a valid stop.