TexasCHLforum.com

reddit poster wrote:Austin police have what can only be called an official stated policy of demanding ID, under penalty of arrest, from subjects who are detained but not under arrest when ID is requested. Yes, TX Penal Code 38.02 does not allow that (though there are certain narrow ID-on-detention situations like on the UT campus or while concealed carrying a handgun). Yes, APD has been made very directly and explicitly aware of this. Yes, the office of the Police Monitor is aware of this. Yes, staff of the City Council were briefed on this. Yes, there have been Texas Public Information Act requests filed and answered, and -- yes -- they show APD staffers being explicitly aware of the current law as they lobby the state legislature to loosen it. No, nothing has changed.

...

There are thousands of Failure to Identify arrests in this city just in a period of a few years that I started to analyze last year. I've pulled from APD, the County Court, and some from the Municipal Court, but there have always been missing elements involved in nailing down a pattern on things like race, age, and geography, and part of the difficulty has in truth been down to stonewalling. The behavior of public information officers in particular has been very disheartening.

Federal trial court decision in Deffert v. Moe (W.D. Mich.), which held that the police didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment by briefly but coercively stopping Johann Deffert, who was openly carrying a gun (and whose actions ultimately proved to be lawful)

Plaintiff was walking in a residential neighborhood across the street from a church in service on a Sunday morning. He was wearing camouflage pants and an FNP-45 Tactical pistol secured in a leg holster, with a TLR-2 rail mounted tactical light with a laser sight attached to the pistol

Ruark wrote:Also, I think it general it's a little futile to start arguing with an LEO about constitutional law.