Stop and Identify

[RiveraRa]

I tend to ask dumb questions so please bear with me.

According to TX PC 38.02:
You must give your Name, Address, and DOB if asked WHILE being arrested or detained.

Therefore, if you are just having a FTF contact with an officer and you are not being detained, you do not have to show ID if requested to do so.

Also....
According to TX GC 411.205:
If an office demands identification, then you need to show them both your drivers license and chl.

So my question is, what is the definition of demand?

If I am having that FTF contact with the officer and I am not being detained, yet they ask for ID...am I now required to show it just because I have my CHL (whereas with out the CHL I would have not had to display any ID at all)? My assumption is since they are asking, they are not demanding it. Correct?

Thanks!

[WildBill]

My assumption is since they are asking, they are not demanding it. Correct?

Not correct IMO. Just because an LEO asks "Can I see your driver's license?" doesn't mean it's not a demand. IMO, he's just being polite. For me, it is better than the first statement "I demand that you give me your driver's license!" Again I am not an LEO and IANAL so I could be wrong.

A demand is an emphatic claim, which presumes that no doubt exists regarding its legal force and effect. It is a request made with authority.

A legal demand is one that is made by a lawfully authorized individual and is proper as to form, time, and place.

[chasfm11]

This question has always intrigued me.

I would turn the question to ask "why wouldn't you want to identify yourself to a police officer?" Yes, I've seen the videos where the police are harassing someone who is open carrying. I also understand that, sometimes, it is those who push the envelope to the limit who help get lines drawn to protect our rights.

OTOH, I support voter ID. I want anyone who is influencing our government to properly identify themselves.
It stands to reason that an interaction with an officer has a purpose (good or bad) and identifying oneself is as much an assertion for rights as not doing so.

I maintain that an officer bent on incorrect activities is not going to change that path whether or not and ID is produced so there is nothing to be gained for me as an individual by not showing my ID.

I've had a couple of situations while riding my bike (I don't carry any ID when I do that) where I would have happily recited my TX drivers license number for an officer if I was asked. Whatever problem is coming my way, I don't see an benefit to no doing so. Some here have reported leniency by some officers when that officer learned that the person had a CHL. I believe that most officers are going to support the idea of CHL and I'm prepared the share that I have one, even if it is not "demanded" of me.

[recaffeination]

am I now required to show it just because I have my CHL (whereas with out the CHL I would have not had to display any ID at all)?

Not exactly. We're not required to display our CHL if we're not carrying a gun.

[The Annoyed Man]

So my question is, what is the definition of demand?

If I am having that FTF contact with the officer and I am not being detained, yet they ask for ID...am I now required to show it just because I have my CHL (whereas with out the CHL I would have not had to display any ID at all)? My assumption is since they are asking, they are not demanding it. Correct?

Thanks!

https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... e&ie=UTF-8

de·mand /diˈmand/
Noun:
An insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right.
Verb:
Ask authoritatively or brusquely.
Synonyms:
noun. request - claim - requirement - requisition - call - want
verb. require - claim - ask - request - call for - postulate

OK, so under certain circumstances, a police officer has the authority to ask for and see your ID, including your CHL in certain circumstances. Whether the officer in question chooses to use "Please" and "Thank you" is entirely up to his or her discretion, but whether he or she uses those words or not, the officer STILL has the authority in those circumstances to require you to present your ID to him or her.

Departmental policy (which is different from law) may require the officer to be polite, but the law does not necessarily require it. So when the request made under the officer's lawful authority to compel your cooperation is made, they may say "please" simply because they're trying to be polite and pleasant; OR they may say "please" because their department policy requires them to; but the use of "please" does not change the fact that they have the authority to compel your compliance with the request.......given the correct combination of circumstances.

The thing is that language can be used to grease the skids of social interaction, even when one party to the transaction has more authority in the transaction than the other. The cop's use of the word "please" in no way diminishes his authority to compel your cooperation with the request.

"Please step over here, sir," can just as easily become "got dragged over here in cuffs" if the circumstances warrant it. In those kinds of exchanges, the officer has a job to accomplish, and the legal authority to compel cooperation. The smart officer will at least try to be respectful of the other person's dignity by using "please/thank you." But, some people put their pride ahead of their dignity, which can lead to handcuffs. Either way, the officer's authority under the law remains unchanged by the presence or absence of "please."

For my own part, these types of questions boil down to "is this the hill I want to die on today?" I don't view a request to see my ID and/or CHL as any kind of inconvenience, and unless some kind of tectonic shift in the relationship between the officer and myself has just taken place, I don't see it as a major intrusion into my life either. Others are free to differ, for themselves. But I will always be the final arbiter of what is an illegitimate intrusion into my life. Nobody else's opinion matters to me. And when it comes to interactions with police, I tend to be generous in that regard.

[C-dub]

This question has always intrigued me.

I would turn the question to ask "why wouldn't you want to identify yourself to a police officer?" Yes, I've seen the videos where the police are harassing someone who is open carrying. I also understand that, sometimes, it is those who push the envelope to the limit who help get lines drawn to protect our rights.

If the reason for asking was not apparent I'm going to ask why? If I'm alone or the only other people with me already know I carry then no problem. However, if there are others with me that don't know I carry and I don't wish them to know then I've got a problem with an officer asking for ID for no apparent reason.

I'm not much of an envelope pusher any more, but I'm still curious and don't like being pushed around.

[rm9792]

If you have your gun then you need to show both. If you are asking when you are not driving nor carrying then you are not required to have Id on you. However, with valid cause they can detain you to verify your identity. Usually this happens when you fit a description they are looking for.

[Katygunnut]

I don't think a request is a demand.

If an officer (or anyone else) asks, "can I please see some identification" they are making a request. This is no different than the LEO asking if they can please take a look in my vehicle, or if they can please come in my house. In the latter cases, they are not demanding to search my car, or to enter my property, they are asking. You can say "no thanks".

Taken to extremes, if a request by a LEO is always a demand, then I sure hope that no uniformed LEO ever asks a store if they can get a discount on their purchase. Such a "demand" could be construed as a misuse of authority.

Now if you respond to the request by saying "no thanks" that might well trigger a demand on the part of the officer if they really, really want to see your ID. So you could always short circuit things and just show your ID in the first place.

[WildBill]

Now if you respond to the request by saying "no thanks" that might well trigger a demand on the part of the officer if they really, really want to see your ID. So you could always short circuit things and just show your ID in the first place.

[JALLEN]

Demand in the legal sense is merely a request which maybe be phrased as gently or as brusquely as circumstances warrant. "... to pay, without demand...", "... to pay, promptly upon demand..." are common uses, in both agreements and statutes. Actually, in French, demander is "to ask."

A peace office might state it anywhere from "May I please see your driver's license, sir?" to "Got some ID, buddy!", or worse!

[A-R]

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=42007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[srothstein]

The Police Chief article is interesting, but can be more confusing than the situation is. It also does not truly answer if a request and demand are the same thing.

First, to clarify one minor point. Disregarding the CHL for now, Texas does not require you to identify except when under arrest. It makes it illegal to give a false identity if you are detained, a suspect, or a witness, but you can refuse to identify.

Now, the exception is when you have a CHL and are carrying a weapon on or about your person. Important note is that it does not have to be under the authority of the CHL that you are carrying. It can be on your own property or as a peace officer or security guard, etc. The law says you must give your CHL and your DL or ID when the officer demands it.

This changes several things, such as making it a requirement that you have a DL or ID with you when you are not driving. It also makes it a requirement to identify when you are a witness or suspect or detained, which is not normally true.

And then we get back to the original question: what is a demand? I don't think this is ever answered in the law. The Code Construction Act says that the word is taken to mean its normal common meaning unless there is a technical meaning given by the law. But the common meaning of demand, as opposed to request, would not make sense in this law. An officer does not have the legal authority to demand ID in most cases. My opinion in this case is that the use of demand means a request, as explained earlier using the example of payment on demand. But we will not know for sure until there is case law on this.

And, since there is no longer any penalty for not providing the ID, there will never be case law. But it is interesting to discuss for those of us who like to discuss the academic ramifications of various laws.

[kjolly]

I have nothing but respect for LEOs. They are out there doing a dangerous demanding job and I have no problem with identifying myself. Nothing to hide and though I have never been stopped in the years since aquiring my CHL would look forward to showing it.

[WildBill]

A peace office might state it anywhere from "May I please see your driver's license, sir?" to "Got some ID, buddy!", or worse!

LEO: You got some ID?
Redneck: 'Bout what?

[WildBill]

The Police Chief article is interesting, but can be more confusing than the situation is.

I wonder if some of the confusion and vagueness about the laws date back to the time when many people didn't have cars or drive. I know that both my grandmothers never got a drivers license. I don't know if they had state IDs.