TexasCHLforum.com

Training and experience directs a LEO. The 4th amendment and subsequent SCOTUS decisions restricts the actions of the LEO. If you are on foot at 0200 in an industrial area we are having a chat. The contact will direct what happens and how far the LEO demands anything.

You may have a right to be there, but he may have a right to hqve a little chat with you as well.

mojo84 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Abraham wrote:This is an interesting question.

Has anyone as a pedestrian (on the forum) ever been stopped by an LEO and been asked for an I.D. when carrying (or not for that matter) and if so, what transpired?

For the record, it's NEVER happened to me.

I'm going to guess it's a quite rare happenstance...unless you spend time as a public drunk or something akin to it.

When I worked graveyard as a cop I contacted lots of folks on foot, depending on the neighborhood.

"Contact" is one thing. Did you force or coerce them to provide ID even if they they weren't being arrested or suspected of committing a crime?

I stopped people in suspicious places or under suspicious circumstances. At 0200 if I see you walking in an industrial area we were going to visit. I always asked for ID. Didn't matter if I could arrest if they refused, I always asked.

Abraham wrote:This is an interesting question.

Has anyone as a pedestrian (on the forum) ever been stopped by an LEO and been asked for an I.D. when carrying (or not for that matter) and if so, what transpired?

For the record, it's NEVER happened to me.

I'm going to guess it's a quite rare happenstance...unless you spend time as a public drunk or something akin to it.

When I worked graveyard as a cop I contacted lots of folks on foot, depending on the neighborhood.

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:one of these days enough people will figure out that if you go by the legal definition of "transportation" that is clearly defined in the transportation code where most all motor vehicle statutes are in. transportation is defined as the commerical operation of a motor vehicle, and commercial is defined as being paid to drive. other exceptions are if you are in an accident where property is damaged, or an officer can prove you were acting in a dangerous fashion then you really don't have to produce any ID or legally get a ticket, and the officer really doesn't have any authority to pull you over in the first place. pretty much what it comes down to is traffic courts are the biggest money racket that states have and by producing id and/or signing a promise to appear you're consenting and waiving your private right to travel freely as it's stated in the constitution. look up the tao of law and do some research , i forget the lawyers name who put it out there but if you go about it the right way and not drive like an idiot you'll never pay a ticket again.....

Interesting. Completely wrong, but interesting. It is a point of view held by right wing extremist grouop, typically called militias. I am not suggest you are a member of one or even share their ideology, but you clearly have been exposed to their misguided beliefs.

But, in a sense if fairness, quote the laws or cite them here to support those claims. I have been wrong before....

I will help you; http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas Transportation Code, Title 7


Also, where in the constitution does it allow one to operate a motor vehicle on taxpayer funded road?

MeMelYup wrote:GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

Yes, that has been covered. Notice there is no penalty if you fail to ID.

nightmare69 wrote:I thought unless you broke a law you did not have to ID even when driving. I was told this by some buddies who were forced to work DL checks, if the driver refused to show ID they could not force him cause he broke no laws.

Does the person have to know they broke a law, or is the officer's word enough?

If you are operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway and a LEO asks for your license and you fail to produce it, he has probable cause to arrest you for operating a motor vehicle without a license.

Under the penal code, no one has to produce ID unless engaged in a licensed activity like operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway, hunting, carrying a handgun under a CHL, etc., or if under arrest

If you are a pedestrian and a LEO asks you to identify yourself, it is no offense to refuse. Only if you are arrested must you give your Name, residence address or date of birth. It is unlawful to lie if you have been lawfully arrested, detained or the LEO believes you were a witness to a crime. Otherwise, you do not have to ID.

So, what law requires you to ID if you are carrying a handgun under a CHL? The Texas Government Code section 411(h) 411.205 states, " If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. "

There is no stipulation that you must be under arrest, or lawfully detained, etc. Interestingly, there is no penalty if you refuse. Other than a ticked off cop.....

However, if the officer suspects you have a handgun and you fail to show your CHL, he just might have PC to arrest you for Unlawfully Carry Weapons. He has no way of knowing your handgun is lawfully carried if he cannot ascertain you have a CHL. For example, you are walking home from the local 7-11. A crime happens in the neighborhood with a vague description of the suspect, and you look pretty close. The officer conducts a Terry search (see Terry v Ohio) and discovers your gun. He then asks you for ID. Under the "failure to ID", Penal Code 38.02, you have no obligation to say who you are. However, under TGC 411.205 you are required. The officer arrests you for UCW. Now you have a legal obligation to ID.

Make sense? Easier to just ID yourself.....