I can assure you that telling a LEO that you're "self-employed" would go over a lot better with an officer than "I don't have to give you that information" would.
Help me understand why this is so?
If its not required/unlawful...then why would the officer care? Is it perceived as some challenge to the officer's authority?
I mean...really, in the end...its easier for the officer to write "refused" than it is to write out all the other information. Unless they are getting a bunch of heat from their superiors for not collecting the information..then why would they mind?
Instead of unnecessarily collecting information from every motorist ( a colossal waste of the officer's time), the courts should simply "triple" the amount of the fine for those who do not take care of their tickets expediently. They'll be caught sooner or later.
I guess it just "irks" me when the city/government places revenues above citizens rights because some folks don't come in and pay their tickets.
i probly would not have said it so nice as you did
"I have two guns. One for each of ya" Doc Holiday
"Out here, due process is a bullet."
"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave."
"forgiveness is between them and god its my job to arrange the meeting" man on fire
Well....doing a little research and found out that Travis county also asks for employment information. There are several differences. One they do not print this information on the citation it self. They put the information in their report. If someone refuses to answer the questions they simply write down that the person refuses to answer. They do not effect custodial arrest for refusing as they can complete the citation with only the driver license information. I was told they use this information just in case an investigator needs to contact the individual for a follow up investigation...which is not usually the case in a traffic citation (unless there are other extenuating circumstances).
I think I am ok with this and understand why they need it...however, I would refuse to give the info if i get pulled over by Travis county. I do not like the Chief's response because...although he did not say it directly...he insinuated that the officer could effect a custodial arrest for refusing to answer the questions.
Well, I have some perspective to add to this.
just got off the phone with a buddy o' mine that just happens to be a Cop. He tol' me that yeah, he gets that info anytime he writes a citation. if they don't give that info, he just writes refused on the ticket, and he said the judge who sees the case will typically drop the hammer on the person for not obliging the cop. The reasoning being that the cop is just "doing his job" and doesn't want someone harassing him on the side of the road.
and yes he can take you to jail for that. but he's not likely to do that unless he has reason to think you're not going to pay, or you're not going to show.
He also said the reason for obtaining the work addy/phone # is for warrants. He said while serving warrants, he only got like 3 people at home, and the other hunnerd or so at their place of work.
he further said that if you tell him "self-employed" he's not worried about it.
I asked him how long this has been going on, and he said A Long Time. "If you ain't heard that question, you obviously hadn't gotten a ticket in a while!"
I thought that I explained it fairly well regarding other departments. The news story about the Irving PD shows what can happen regarding traffic stops.
Over the last few days I have spoken with officers I know from quite a few different agencies (small to mid-size departments) regarding this question. In almost every case they told me that if someone makes a blanket statement of, "I don't have to provide you with that information" they will probably end up going to jail unless the ticket was going to be for speeding - state law mandates that you can't perform a custodial arrest for just a speeding violation by itself.
I'm not here to defend other departments or their officers regarding the policies they enforce. I have a hard enough time explaining to friends and family about some of the goofy things that occur within my own department.
What you said about writing refused vs. all the other work info is correct IF that department or officer will accept refused. If they don't or won't accept it then you're a lot better off just saying you're self-employed or unemployed than getting arrested. Not only would you have that to deal with you would also have to deal with the costs of getting your car out of the pound along with paying for any towing fees.
This is all just my 2¢s worth and take it as such.
I thought that I explained it fairly well regarding other departments. The news story about the Irving PD shows what can happen regarding traffic stops.
Over the last few days I have spoken with officers I know from quite a few different agencies (small to mid-size departments) regarding this question. In almost every case they told me that if someone makes a blanket statement of, "I don't have to provide you with that information" they will probably end up going to jail unless the ticket was going to be for speeding - state law mandates that you can't perform a custodial arrest for just a speeding violation by itself.
I'm not here to defend other departments or their officers regarding the policies they enforce. I have a hard enough time explaining to friends and family about some of the goofy things that occur within my own department.
What you said about writing refused vs. all the other work info is correct IF that department or officer will accept refused. If they don't or won't accept it then you're a lot better off just saying you're self-employed or unemployed than getting arrested. Not only would you have that to deal with you would also have to deal with the costs of getting your car out of the pound along with paying for any towing fees.
This is all just my 2¢s worth and take it as such.
put yourself in our shoes
would you think this is fair or right
"I have two guns. One for each of ya" Doc Holiday
"Out here, due process is a bullet."
"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave."
"forgiveness is between them and god its my job to arrange the meeting" man on fire
When did it become policy at various departments to ask for your Social Security Number? I saw it mentioned earlier in this thread - reason I ask is that a buddy of mine received a ticket in Gainesville and the cop ask him for his SSN.
what is this a game of 20 questions
do they want my mothers maiden name to
geeze i think they are really stretching it here this is going to come to a head and when it does it wont be pretty
"I have two guns. One for each of ya" Doc Holiday
"Out here, due process is a bullet."
"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave."
"forgiveness is between them and god its my job to arrange the meeting" man on fire
I still say they are not entitled to employer information or SSN. It's flat our wrong. As long as my Drivers License has the correct information on it along with my Insurance card, that information is all that I am required to provide by law. Last time I checked I still lived in America and as such have rights afforded to me under the constitution.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
I thought that I explained it fairly well regarding other departments. The news story about the Irving PD shows what can happen regarding traffic stops.
Over the last few days I have spoken with officers I know from quite a few different agencies (small to mid-size departments) regarding this question. In almost every case they told me that if someone makes a blanket statement of, "I don't have to provide you with that information" they will probably end up going to jail unless the ticket was going to be for speeding - state law mandates that you can't perform a custodial arrest for just a speeding violation by itself.
I'm not here to defend other departments or their officers regarding the policies they enforce. I have a hard enough time explaining to friends and family about some of the goofy things that occur within my own department.
What you said about writing refused vs. all the other work info is correct IF that department or officer will accept refused. If they don't or won't accept it then you're a lot better off just saying you're self-employed or unemployed than getting arrested. Not only would you have that to deal with you would also have to deal with the costs of getting your car out of the pound along with paying for any towing fees.
This is all just my 2¢s worth and take it as such.
Here is my question: Is giving information about your place of employment required by LAW or not?
If not, then you are suggesting that an officer will take you to jail more as a matter of "teaching you a lesson"...and that next time you will be more willing to give out information that is NOT required?
That is being vindictive and leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. I hope you do not support that!
i tend to think like Shaft My problem is Nazis with badges
"I have two guns. One for each of ya" Doc Holiday
"Out here, due process is a bullet."
"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave."
"forgiveness is between them and god its my job to arrange the meeting" man on fire
I thought that I explained it fairly well regarding other departments. The news story about the Irving PD shows what can happen regarding traffic stops.
Over the last few days I have spoken with officers I know from quite a few different agencies (small to mid-size departments) regarding this question. In almost every case they told me that if someone makes a blanket statement of, "I don't have to provide you with that information" they will probably end up going to jail unless the ticket was going to be for speeding - state law mandates that you can't perform a custodial arrest for just a speeding violation by itself.
I'm not here to defend other departments or their officers regarding the policies they enforce. I have a hard enough time explaining to friends and family about some of the goofy things that occur within my own department.
What you said about writing refused vs. all the other work info is correct IF that department or officer will accept refused. If they don't or won't accept it then you're a lot better off just saying you're self-employed or unemployed than getting arrested. Not only would you have that to deal with you would also have to deal with the costs of getting your car out of the pound along with paying for any towing fees.
This is all just my 2¢s worth and take it as such.
Here is my question: Is giving information about your place of employment required by LAW or not?
If not, then you are suggesting that an officer will take you to jail more as a matter of "teaching you a lesson"...and that next time you will be more willing to give out information that is NOT required?
That is being vindictive and leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. I hope you do not support that!
I do not know of any TX statute which compels us to provide employer information. The US Supreme Court, In Hibel vs. the Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada, ruled that if there is a state law requiring a person to produce identification, then an officer can require that information in a Terry stop and that requiring such information was not a violation of fourth amendment rights. The Supreme Court did not expand any further than identification. I believe this is relevant because both the TX Criminal Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court analogies a traffic stop to that of a terry stop.
I plan on responding to the chief with something similar to the letter below:
Mr. Blake:
I appreciate your response to my recent inquiry about Kyle PD policies.
Please be assured that I am not questioning your integrity or your 30 + years of experience and I salute you and all your colleagues for your selfless service to our community.
I must admit though that I am a little disappointed with your response. All though you do not say it directly it seems that you insinuate that one could be placed in custodial arrest for refusing to answer questions about employment.
I did call a few departments in the local area and it seems that you are correct in the fact that some agencies do engage in this line of questioning. However, there are a few differences. The agencies I contacted do not print employment information on the citation, instead, it goes into a report that the officers writes about the traffic stop. Two, the officer only engages in that line of questioning if he/she feels it is necessary. This is usually in response to questionable ID or some other extenuating circumstance or if there is a possibility that an investigator will need to contact the person as a result of a follow up investigation (usually not associated with a traffic citation). Three, they do not effect a custodial arrest for simply refusing to answer questions about employment. Please note that the above varied slightly from agency to agency.
I do not know of any TX statute which compels us to provide employer information. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), In Hiibel vs. the Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada, ruled that if there is a state law requiring a person to produce identification (often called a “stop and identify�…or a Terry Stop), then an officer can require that information and that requiring such information was not a violation of fourth or fifth amendment rights. The SCOTUS did not expand any further than identification. In fact, SCOTUS went on to elaborate that a citizen can refuse to answer any questions above and beyond identifying them selves. I believe this is relevant because both the TX Criminal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS analogies a traffic stop to that of a terry stop.
Given the information above, coupled with your statement about an officer having statutory authority to effect a custodial arrest for minor traffic violations, except speeding, harkens back to my original correspondents in which I said it borderlines Official Oppression. I am sure you are aware that official oppression is:
§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant
acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if
he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or
to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual
harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts
under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to
act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or
purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome
sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a
term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Hence, effecting a custodial arrest based solely on the fact that someone refuses to answer questions about employment or forcing someone to answer questions under threat of custodial arrest is Official Oppression.
What I would like to see is that Kyle officers get training in regard to this line of questioning. I want them to know that they can not force anyone to answer such questions and refusing to answer such questions, in itself, does not rise to a level of custodial arrest. I would also like see that employment information is removed from the citation. I believe that it could bias a judge or jury against a defendant who fights a citation in court, if the judge or jury sees on the citation that the defendant refused to answer questions under their fourth and fifth amendment rights. Please note that I am not asking that the officers refrain from asking these questions…only that there is no penalty for refusing to answer.
pt145ss wrote:I plan on responding to the chief with something similar to the letter below:
OK apart from my disagreement with your position that the officer should not refrain from asking these questions, I think your letter is well-written and right on. However please correct your two spelling errors before sending it:
pt145ss wrote:
Hence, effecting a custodial arrest...
I think you mean affecting
No, "effecting" is correct.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: effect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to cause to come into being
2 : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles <effect a settlement of the dispute>
3 : to put into operation <the duty of the legislature to effect the will of the citizens>
I would definitely change this, though:
I believe this is relevant because both the TX Criminal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS analogies a traffic stop to that of a terry stop.
