TexasCHLforum.com

Jaguar wrote: I would rather they just call me "sir". :

Im sure you would.. Too bad that demand of respect only goes one way many times in the videos we see.. So sad some think they can demand respect, when in fact it is earned... or not as all to often viewed.

Dave2 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote: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.

Kinda OT, but how are we supposed to know if they aren't required to tell us?

Because those that are not running afoul of the law, not drunk or high, and have anything above diminished mental capacity are capable of speaking the words.. "officer am I under arrest?" The answer if not already very clear... (like say your in the back of a police car in hand cuffs) will help you understand if you are required to ID or not.

Additionally... What is the issue with telling an officer your name? Why is that a big deal? If your a drug runner or thief, rapist or pedophile, on probation or already had three DUI's I get it, hide your identity.. maybe you'll get lucky and a meteor will crash down the road and the LEO will be distracted.. ya that could happen.
Otherwise.... tell the officer your name......

OldCurlyWolf wrote:
The producing ID without PC is wrong. You have to identify your self if asked. This can be Verbally only.

Kind of

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

The law appears to only require providing ID if you are legally arrested..

And at least one court case supports no requirement to provide ID of any kind if only detained....

What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained. See Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko, No. 03-06-00438-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6030, 2008 WL 3166324 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, no pet.). The court held that Deputy Derrick Dutton had arrested Sheryl Hayes-Pupko without probable cause since the law did not require her to identify herself while she was only being detained..

There may be others, but this is the one I know of.

K.Mooneyham wrote:very small incident set.

You surmised correctly.
It was mostly a preemptive strike to avoid additional unneeded confrontations.

ghostrider wrote:

Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

I think its been that way for a long time, but it seems so wrong that the people expected to protect our freedoms are (almost by definition, it seems) not allowed to exercise all of them.

There is no constitutional issue here as far as I can see...

And as several LEO friends and I were just discussing yesterday when this policy came out.. Contact with a citizen in a non arrest / detention / investigative way.. AND the LEO still wants to ask for Id is very far and few.

Both officers I was riding with to GT Distributors, with a combined 8 plus years on the road.. could not recall doing a contact, wanting ID, that was not covered by law requiring the citizen to Id them self.

Im sure it happens, but it's not often I guess.

They are, and they are now required by regulation required to present DL or Mil ID if asked for by a LEO.