TexasCHLforum.com

Jaguar wrote: Villagrana-Flores only applies to states with "stop and identify" laws. Since Texas does not have said law, Villagrana-Flores does not apply.

This is what you're seeing:
"In short, if the state has a law requiring suspects to identify themselves when asked to do so during a valid stop or detention, the U.S. Constitution will not bar arrest and prosecution for failure to do so."

Again, I need a little clarity here. Texas does require the people provide ID during a valid (probable cause) stop. We also allow for officers to stop us for culpable suspicion, although we don't have any laws around ID required there...

Jaguar wrote:CB,
Does the 10th Circuit ruling apply to Texas? I thought we were under the 9th circuit court. I can't find anything other than what I posted as applying in Texas.
Just trying to understand, case law seems totally disconnected with the statutes.

Jag,
I'm not an attorney. Looking at the details, it looks like our "region" is the 5th Circuit court. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... of_appeals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
However, the decision that I referenced is actively being referenced by a senior legal advisor to the Plano Police Department. They're generally pretty well funded and I don't expect ill-considered decisions out of that position. The reference is written and it's probably what the LEOs in DFW are following:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=42007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand the "am I under arrest" question. Consider the "what crime are you investigating" - which covers the culpable suspicion case also. LEOs are not required to answer either. And you may not be required to provide your identification (verbal or printed).

Of course, we could all just play nice and try to get along, which is probably the best bet... A little mutual respect.

Probable Cause is not required in Texas. The bar is lower than that.

Be aware that courts have ruled that motorists stopped for less than probable cause (reasonable / articulable suspicion) may be required to identify themselves for the sake of officer safety. Failing to do so can lead to arrest for failure to ID.

See: United States v. Villagrana-Flores, 467 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. November 7, 2006).

We explained in Holt that ‘the justification for detaining a motorist to obtain a criminal history check is, in part, officer safety’ because ‘by determining whether a detained motorist has a criminal record or outstanding warrants, an officer will be better apprized of whether the detained motorist might engage in violent activity during the stop.’” As long as the detention is for a short period, “the government’s strong interest in officer safety outweighs the motorist’s interests

Apparently the same pertains to pedestrian stops.


To me, this means that the current state of affairs is that as long as LEOs have a articulable reason (less than probable cause) to stop you, you could be arrested if you failed to identify yourself. Without that articulation, they cannot force you to identify yourself nor can they arrest you for not providing it. LEOs are under no obligation to tell you what they are investigating, articulate what they are doing, nor are they required to differentiate between requesting and demanding, so you'll get to guess if they've got enough to make you identify yourself.

Good luck.

cherokeepilot wrote: If I remember my Texas Statutes correctly, any Commissioned Peace Officer can demand production of a Texas DL without PC.

That's incorrect. However, there is nothing prohibiting from an LEO to "ask" for ID, rather than demand it.
You get to decide if they're asking or demanding. If you guess wrong, you go to jail.


As indicated above, if you're in the military, it's a different set of rules.