55 yo otherwise law abiding citizens need not worry about getting hooked up for walking down the street where sidewalk provided.
Feather-legged charges like that are best saved for special cases. (saying it for the last time)
Search found 7 matches
Re: No I.D.
Have to?
No.
No.
Re: No I.D.
No- verbal is fine, as long as I don't suspect you're lying. Which, isn't something I think anyone on here needs to worry about.hpcatx wrote:gigag04, not to belabor the point, but I still have a question... Do you actually need a physical identification card on you while walking down the street (without a CCW) or if/when a LEO asks you for "ID" is it enough to provide your name, address, etc.?gigag04 wrote:Like I said, it's a problem solving tool. It's not something I'm working to combat in my zone, just a way to get figure out who someone is.
Even if an infraction occurred, such as the minor ones you've provided, is it illegal to not a physical identification card or will verbally providing the accurate information suffice? I understand that you would be more inclined to arrest for the infraction to verify my identity.
(Edited for clarity of the last paragraph.)
Re: No I.D.
Like I said, it's a problem solving tool. It's not something I'm working to combat in my zone, just a way to get figure out who someone is.
With all due respect, until you've worked the overnight shift in an area full of drugs, your good ideas about police work are just that. Come do a ride a long and you'll see how we use simple laws, like the pedestrian statutes to curb drugs, prostitution, burglaries, and thefts. Having a valid detention is a great pre-text to bigger things...
With all due respect, until you've worked the overnight shift in an area full of drugs, your good ideas about police work are just that. Come do a ride a long and you'll see how we use simple laws, like the pedestrian statutes to curb drugs, prostitution, burglaries, and thefts. Having a valid detention is a great pre-text to bigger things...
Re: No I.D.
I'm clear - edited my wording accordingly.
Re: No I.D.
One of the above posts describes a scenario of walking down the street. I can think of at least a two part traffic infractions a person could be committing while walking down the street:
Keep in mind, this is not an everyday enforcement action, but just a tool in the bag to supress crime.
So, using the above statute, I can assume a valid detention. You are not required to ID if you are merely detained. If a person refuses to ID when I have them detained for the above infraction, I would merely arrest for the TC violation. This guarantees I figure out who they are, and keeps me constitutionally bound.Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:
(1) the left side of the roadway; or
(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.
(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 497, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 2001.
Keep in mind, this is not an everyday enforcement action, but just a tool in the bag to supress crime.
Re: No I.D.
If you're walking down the street (when there is a sidewalk or with traffic), and refuse to ID, I would take you to jail for it. If you still refuse, I'd add fail to ID, and do a two finger lookup.