Duty to Provide LTC on Voluntary Identification to LEO?

[airbornecpa]

Something I have wondered about but never had happen to me until tonight, note I was NOT carrying:

I was acting as an intermediary on a return of property for my son's his future ex to return property and cash. She asked that I meet her at a neutral location for her to transfer said items to me. asked that I meet her at a neutral location with She moved the day before. I'd been waiting for a while when my truck was lit up by blue and red flashing lights. My initial thought was that someone had called me in for being "suspicious". That wasn't the case, she called the the Sheriff's office for a civil stand by. I thought okay, no big deal. Deputy asked me if I knew a "son's name" and who his wife was. I identified that I knew my son and provided daughter-in law's name. He asked for my driver's license, I declined as this was a "voluntary" interaction and I was free to go, but he said that if I did not provide my drivers license that he would tell daughter in law not to come. Reluctantly I showed him my driver's license while maintaining possession, he then proceeded to call in a license check I withdrew my driver's license and he then recited its number to dispatch. During the course of all this I asked if I was being detained or was I free to go, I was free to go. He went back to his car but another officer (different uniform) was standing by my passenger window. I pulled forward about 10 yards as I did not feel like being stared at.

Deputy returned to my car and asked if I had forgotten anything, I answered "no", He asked again, I again told him "no". He said I failed to tell him I had an LTC as the law requires I do. I told him I didn't tell him as I wasn't carrying. He said that didn't matter, that I was supposed to identify my self as an LTC holder. FWIW he said I was being rude. I chose not to discuss the finer points of 411.20 with him.

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. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/government ... 1-205.html

Questions:
1) Does voluntarily identifying yourself to a LEO then require further display of the LTC if one is in possession of a handgun;
2) If a LEO demands identification but you are not in possession of a handgun, is there a legal requirement to display the LTC;
3) Same as #2, but you have a rifle or shotgun with you?

[ScottDLS]

Something I have wondered about but never had happen to me until tonight, note I was NOT carrying:

I was acting as an intermediary on a return of property for my son's his future ex to return property and cash. She asked that I meet her at a neutral location for her to transfer said items to me. asked that I meet her at a neutral location with She moved the day before. I'd been waiting for a while when my truck was lit up by blue and red flashing lights. My initial thought was that someone had called me in for being "suspicious". That wasn't the case, she called the the Sheriff's office for a civil stand by. I thought okay, no big deal. Deputy asked me if I knew a "son's name" and who his wife was. I identified that I knew my son and provided daughter-in law's name. He asked for my driver's license, I declined as this was a "voluntary" interaction and I was free to go, but he said that if I did not provide my drivers license that he would tell daughter in law not to come. Reluctantly I showed him my driver's license while maintaining possession, he then proceeded to call in a license check I withdrew my driver's license and he then recited its number to dispatch. During the course of all this I asked if I was being detained or was I free to go, I was free to go. He went back to his car but another officer (different uniform) was standing by my passenger window. I pulled forward about 10 yards as I did not feel like being stared at.

Deputy returned to my car and asked if I had forgotten anything, I answered "no", He asked again, I again told him "no". He said I failed to tell him I had an LTC as the law requires I do. I told him I didn't tell him as I wasn't carrying. He said that didn't matter, that I was supposed to identify my self as an LTC holder. FWIW he said I was being rude. I chose not to discuss the finer points of 411.20 with him.

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. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/government ... 1-205.html

Questions:
1) Does voluntarily identifying yourself to a LEO then require further display of the LTC if one is in possession of a handgun;
2) If a LEO demands identification but you are not in possession of a handgun, is there a legal requirement to display the LTC;
3) Same as #2, but you have a rifle or shotgun with you?

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.

[Jusme]

While I understand the LEO hate these type of situations, since they can often turn ugly. You could legally have a handgun in your vehicle, without a LTC. Since you were not lawfully detained, or stopped for a traffic violation, you are not legally required to show your LTC, whether carrying or not. (Why you don’t carry 24/7 is your call)
I can only surmise that there is a past, non positive, history with LEO, in your area, or as a result of your son’s dealings with his marital situation. I am always ready to fully ID myself to LEO, including my LTC, for two reasons: They will know, that I am not a threat to them, and that if things go south, I will be the one viewed as the most cooperative.
I understand that I have 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, when dealing with law enforcement, I also know that trying to defend those rights on the street, can often be counterproductive. JMHO

[TxRVer]

I think the OP has a different definition for voluntary than I do.

Like Justme, I would have preferred to appear to be the cooperative one.

[Tex1961]

While I understand the LEO hate these type of situations, since they can often turn ugly. You could legally have a handgun in your vehicle, without a LTC. Since you were not lawfully detained, or stopped for a traffic violation, you are not legally required to show your LTC, whether carrying or not. (Why you don’t carry 24/7 is your call)
I can only surmise that there is a past, non positive, history with LEO, in your area, or as a result of your son’s dealings with his marital situation. I am always ready to fully ID myself to LEO, including my LTC, for two reasons: They will know, that I am not a threat to them, and that if things go south, I will be the one viewed as the most cooperative.
I understand that I have 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, when dealing with law enforcement, I also know that trying to defend those rights on the street, can often be counterproductive. JMHO

Well said.

[Grayling813]

While I understand the LEO hate these type of situations, since they can often turn ugly. You could legally have a handgun in your vehicle, without a LTC. Since you were not lawfully detained, or stopped for a traffic violation, you are not legally required to show your LTC, whether carrying or not. (Why you don’t carry 24/7 is your call)
I can only surmise that there is a past, non positive, history with LEO, in your area, or as a result of your son’s dealings with his marital situation. I am always ready to fully ID myself to LEO, including my LTC, for two reasons: They will know, that I am not a threat to them, and that if things go south, I will be the one viewed as the most cooperative.
I understand that I have 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, when dealing with law enforcement, I also know that trying to defend those rights on the street, can often be counterproductive. JMHO

Like Justme, I would have preferred to appear to be the cooperative one.

[G.A. Heath]

The LEO did demand ID, while you were not required to show ID under normal conditions this demand had no basis in law for a normal situation, which this was.

Had you been carrying you would have been required to notify him by statute as he did demand ID under a strict reading of the law. As far as I am aware there is no case law resolving the conflicting, and for the most part unrelated, statutes although I suspect a trial court would go with you being required to provide your LTC.

I would contact the officer's supervisor(s) and suggest the officer receive additional training on Texas LTC statutes, specifically the requirement to ID.

[AF-Odin]

Whereas I explain to my students the exact points of the law regarding when they are REQUIRED to display, I advise them that it a good idea anytime they have interaction with a law enforcement officer and are asked for identification to display BOTH their DL and LTC and state that they are or are not carrying. This is just for the type circumstance you described, because the fact that you have a LTC is going to pop up anytime they run the DL. If you have shown your LTC and stated that you are not carrying, there will not be a surprise and further questions when they see that.

[oljames3]

Whereas I explain to my students the exact points of the law regarding when they are REQUIRED to display, I advise them that it a good idea anytime they have interaction with a law enforcement officer and are asked for identification to display BOTH their DL and LTC and state that they are or are not carrying. This is just for the type circumstance you described, because the fact that you have a LTC is going to pop up anytime they run the DL. If you have shown your LTC and stated that you are not carrying, there will not be a surprise and further questions when they see that.

This is the way. Of course, I would be carrying.

[srothstein]

The LEO did demand ID, while you were not required to show ID under normal conditions this demand had no basis in law for a normal situation, which this was.

I agree with this. I do not think of your identifying yourself as voluntary when the officer asks for your ID. The law states you should show your LTC when an officer demands ID. It does not ever define what they mean by "demand" and it does not say only when you are required by law to identify yourself. I think any court would interpret the word demand in this case as when an officer requests your ID.

As an aside, there is still a lot of confusion in law enforcement circles on when a person must produce his identification. In general, officers believe it to be when you are lawfully detained, lawfully arrested, are driving a vehicle, or if you are carrying a weapon. The law is actually clear that you do not have to identify yourself when you are simply detained, just you may not provide false identification. But as with the recent incident in San Antonio, many officers do not understand this well. Many citizens do not understand that if you fail to provide the identification, the officer can legally take you downtown (or back to a crime scene) to get proper ID on you. When you are arrested, you do not have to produce identification but simply must provide the officer with your correct name, date of birth, and home address. Both of these are covered in Penal Code Section 38.02.

Interestingly enough, you are required under Transportation Code section 521.025 to display your driver's license to any magistrate, court officer, or peace officer if you are required to have one (operating a motor vehicle on a public street), but there is a defense to prosecution that you showed the license in court. As with the lack of a penalty for the LTC, this makes it debatable if it is truly against the law to not show your DL to a police officer who stops you. Of course, the more immediate problem in that case is how to convince the officer to give you a ticket instead of arresting you and taking you to jail if there was an offense committed. As a side point, Texas law specifically allows a police officer to stop you just to see if you have a DL, though I doubt that this law would stand up in court under a Fourth Amendment challenge (based on stopping cars at random, not a checkpoint type operation).

Which gets us down to if you have to show your DL and LTC when you are armed. Government Code 411.205 says you must display both your LTC and your DL or ID Card when a peace officer demands ID. As I said above, I think the word demand is going to be interpreted by courts as "asked for" and the law does not give any circumstances other than if you have a handgun on or about you. Since you were unarmed, you were not required by law to produce the LTC at that time. This is also further complicated by the removal of the penalty for not showing the LTC when asked.

In all of these cases, you get down to one very important question. Do you want to proceed on your way with the minimum of inconvenience or not? I strongly support your ability to stand on the law and your rights and now cooperate with the officers. As a general rule, cops are people and respond to people who treat them as people. Your best bet when dealing with police in almost any situation is to cooperate with what they ask. You may not be required to ID yourself, but you stand much better odds of being allowed to go on your way when you cooperate than when you do not. Same with just getting a ticket instead of being arrested, or getting your property from another person who is cooperating. You can always fight the case in court later, or file a complaint on the officer after the incident.

Look at the recent jogger incident in San Antonio. In the long run, I am not sure i would say the jogger won. He was arrested and spent at least one night in jail. Yes, the case was dismissed by the DA refusing the charges. But he still spent time in jail and will have an arrest record (unless he pays a lawyer to get it expunged). He could have avoided this by just showing the officer his ID so the officer could know that he was the person they had been looking for. And he was only set free because the officers wrote the arrest report for assault on an officer, a felony. From my reading of the media, he did not meet the elements of the offense of assault so the DA could easily kick the case. If the officer had not gotten greedy and had gone for the class A misdemeanor instead, I doubt the DA would have dismissed the charge of resisting transportation quite so easily.

Sometimes you need to stand firm on your rights. Sometimes, the best tactical answer is to cooperate.

[Rafe]

Steve's posts, like this one, are so often required reading. I learn a ton every week.

Thank you, Sergeant Rothstein!

[Soccerdad1995]

Something I have wondered about but never had happen to me until tonight, note I was NOT carrying:

I was acting as an intermediary on a return of property for my son's his future ex to return property and cash. She asked that I meet her at a neutral location for her to transfer said items to me. asked that I meet her at a neutral location with She moved the day before. I'd been waiting for a while when my truck was lit up by blue and red flashing lights. My initial thought was that someone had called me in for being "suspicious". That wasn't the case, she called the the Sheriff's office for a civil stand by. I thought okay, no big deal. Deputy asked me if I knew a "son's name" and who his wife was. I identified that I knew my son and provided daughter-in law's name. He asked for my driver's license, I declined as this was a "voluntary" interaction and I was free to go, but he said that if I did not provide my drivers license that he would tell daughter in law not to come. Reluctantly I showed him my driver's license while maintaining possession, he then proceeded to call in a license check I withdrew my driver's license and he then recited its number to dispatch. During the course of all this I asked if I was being detained or was I free to go, I was free to go. He went back to his car but another officer (different uniform) was standing by my passenger window. I pulled forward about 10 yards as I did not feel like being stared at.

I bolded the part of the OP that is relevant to the officers request for his identification. Given this fact pattern, where the officer asks for ID, the OP essentially says "do I have to give it to you" and the LEO responds with "no, but if you don't then I won't do XYZ", I don't know that this meets the common English language definition of a "demand". It sounds alot more like a "Request", or possibly a "conditional demand" where the LEO is telling you that you need to do something in order to have him do something else. Then again, IANAL.

[Soccerdad1995]

"Look at the recent jogger incident in San Antonio. In the long run, I am not sure i would say the jogger won. He was arrested and spent at least one night in jail. Yes, the case was dismissed by the DA refusing the charges. But he still spent time in jail and will have an arrest record (unless he pays a lawyer to get it expunged)."


"You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride"

I'm not familiar with the jogger incident you reference, but in general I am not a huge fan of restricting your actions and/or giving up rights in order to avoid being arrested when you have not committed a crime. After all, you can be arrested for anything. To is no way to ensure that you "beat the ride" as long as you are alive.

I do know that there are many cases where civil damages come as a result of being arrested without sufficient evidence of a crime having been committed. In this case, if the LEO had decided to arrest the OP (for not showing his LTC), then the LEO would be arresting him for doing something that isn't even illegal. Kind of like getting arrested for wearing a white shirt. Seems like that would be a pretty straightforward case and would just come down to proving damages. Then again, IANAL.

Edited to add. I just read a story on the San Antonio jogger situation and saw the video of his arrest. I think that case is a bit different since he was clearly being arrested, at least by the time the video started to roll. As a result, he had a legal duty to provide ID. There is a separate question of whether the officers had sufficient cause to make the arrest. I think that will be the key focus for that case, so again, a bit different than the situation in the OP.

[striker55]

Because I carry every time I go out of my house I volunteer my LTC whenever I'm asked for ID. Every time the officer says it's not needed.