Fort Hood issues new policy after soldiers protest for OC

[Dragonfighter]

Of course this flies out the window if you are armed and have a CHL, then you must produce ID and CHL upon demand, no matter if detained, arrested, witness to a crime, or "just demanding."

Code: Select all

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.

OT, this has me shaking my head since MPA came along. An unlicensed person carrying under MPA doesn't have to say squat, though it is highly advisable if during the transaction your hands will be getting anywhere near the weapon. But a person, with BG check, training and license has to do this first thing.

[K.Mooneyham]

Though I agree whole-heartedly that military members can be legally ordered by their superiors to produce ID if an LEO requests, I still wonder how big a problem it is that soldiers from Hood are in these situations and not producing ID. Probably more media hype surrounding a very small incident set.

[E.Marquez]

very small incident set.

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

[sunny beach]

Doesn't this fly in the face of Federal law?

I was under the impression that one didn't have to identify oneself when not being detained? Am I wrong?

You mean like the Texas requirement to show CHL and ID when asked for ID?

[Dadtodabone]

[youtube][/youtube]

[cb1000rider]

If I remember my Texas Statutes correctly, any Commissioned Peace Officer can demand production of a Texas DL without PC.

That's incorrect. However, there is nothing prohibiting from an LEO to "ask" for ID, rather than demand it.
You get to decide if they're asking or demanding. If you guess wrong, you go to jail.


As indicated above, if you're in the military, it's a different set of rules.

[OldCurlyWolf]

If I remember my Texas Statutes correctly, any Commissioned Peace Officer can demand production of a Texas DL without PC. Additional, coverage provides that an individual in Texas regardless of military status must produce identification upon request/demand of Texas LEO with or without PC. Failure or refusal to produce identification or properly identified will get you a visit to the local lockup until you are identified. A Texas based individual took the case to SCOTUS. We the individuals lost. Sorry about that but be prepared to id yourself at any time and as I tell my young airmen and officers..........make sure you have paid off all your tickets in Onelight, Texas. Or be prepared to spend time at the local lockup. 73s

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

[E.Marquez]

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.

[Jaguar]

If I remember my Texas Statutes correctly, any Commissioned Peace Officer can demand production of a Texas DL without PC. Additional, coverage provides that an individual in Texas regardless of military status must produce identification upon request/demand of Texas LEO with or without PC. Failure or refusal to produce identification or properly identified will get you a visit to the local lockup until you are identified. A Texas based individual took the case to SCOTUS. We the individuals lost. Sorry about that but be prepared to id yourself at any time and as I tell my young airmen and officers..........make sure you have paid off all your tickets in Onelight, Texas. Or be prepared to spend time at the local lockup. 73s

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

Unless I am missing something in the statutes (quite likely - IANAL) the way I read it you do not have to ID yourself unless you are arrested. Any other time giving a factious name is illegal, giving no ID at all is legal unless operating a motor vehicle or carrying a weapon under your CHL.

§ 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.

But in this situation with active military, you have to follow the lawful orders of your command. Civillian rules don't necessary include you.

[cb1000rider]

Probable Cause is not required in Texas. The bar is lower than that.

Be aware that courts have ruled that motorists stopped for less than probable cause (reasonable / articulable suspicion) may be required to identify themselves for the sake of officer safety. Failing to do so can lead to arrest for failure to ID.

See: United States v. Villagrana-Flores, 467 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. November 7, 2006).

We explained in Holt that ‘the justification for detaining a motorist to obtain a criminal history check is, in part, officer safety’ because ‘by determining whether a detained motorist has a criminal record or outstanding warrants, an officer will be better apprized of whether the detained motorist might engage in violent activity during the stop.’” As long as the detention is for a short period, “the government’s strong interest in officer safety outweighs the motorist’s interests

Apparently the same pertains to pedestrian stops.


To me, this means that the current state of affairs is that as long as LEOs have a articulable reason (less than probable cause) to stop you, you could be arrested if you failed to identify yourself. Without that articulation, they cannot force you to identify yourself nor can they arrest you for not providing it. 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.

Good luck.

[Jaguar]

CB,

Does the 10th Circuit ruling apply to Texas? I thought we were under the 9th circuit court. I can't find anything other than what I posted as applying in Texas.

Just trying to understand, case law seems totally disconnected with the statutes.

Thanks.

[Dave2]

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?

[E.Marquez]

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......

[Jaguar]

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......

I would rather they just call me "sir". My name doesn't need to be in any police reports of suspicious activity just because I am recording things that happen on the street through photography and video. I have not had a problem, but recording public officials seems to make them want to know who you are and why you are "acting suspicious" when that is not their business, and what you are doing is perfectly legal.

According to this website (http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... egory_ID=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) Villagrana-Flores only applies to states with "stop and identify" laws. Since Texas does not have said law, Villagrana-Flores does not apply. I guess if push comes to shove, I will have to stand up for what I believe and you guys can watch another nut on YouTube.

[K.Mooneyham]

CB,

Does the 10th Circuit ruling apply to Texas? I thought we were under the 9th circuit court. I can't find anything other than what I posted as applying in Texas.

Just trying to understand, case law seems totally disconnected with the statutes.

Thanks.

Texas falls under the 5th Circuit Court. See map http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx for reference.