TexasCHLforum.com

jbarn wrote:

Skaven wrote:Ok, I am curious if it is required for me to produce identification upon request of an off-duty LEO who is working as a security guard.

To clarify, there was a misunderstanding, and an off duty LEO (had shoulder patches ID'ing his department, no badge on, open carry) instructed me to produce identification so he could check for wants/warrants. I didn't really want to make a scene, and honestly I don't want to be a jerk to a LEO who is just trying to be safe. I produced without any sort of resistance because I wasn't sure and honestly did not want the guy to have a negative connotation with me as the confusion was sorted out. Also, I was not carrying at the time, so I didn't produce my CHL. 5 minutes of conversation later we are all on our way with no problems.

As far as the interaction with the LEO, he was very professional, polite, and respectful, so I want to make sure he gets praise for that.

He is a peace officer. The law that requires you to display your CHL to a peace officer upon demand does not state in what on or off duty capacity he asked. He is a peace officer, period.

However, since you were not carrying, you were under no oligation to display your CHL. That leads to your real question,

if it is required for me to produce identification upon request of an off-duty LEO who is working as a security guard.

Again, a peace officer is a peace officer. The law does not allow for you to determine his status before you comply with a lawfully mandated demand. Texas has a law regarding identifying to a peace officer;

Texas Penal Code
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.


(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

Notice nothing there requires a person to produce any formal ID, it is only required to provide the information.

Notice that unless you are arrested you are not required to ID yourself, verbally or otherwise. Additionally, you commit an offense if you lie about your ID and have been arrested, lawfully detained or are a witness. However, as a witness or person detained, you do not have to ID. It is only an offense to lie.

So based on your situation you did not have to ID at all to the officer. His status matters not. He is treated the same as a peace officer under the law whether on or off duty, or acting off duty as a security officer.

I should point out that a person engaged in an activity that requires licensing, such as operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway, hunting, fishing, carrying a handgun under a CHL, etc., all have their own requirements regarding the display of that license. Had you been engaged in a licensed activity, such as carrying your handgun, you would have been required under the Government Code to display both your CHL and DL or ID.

puma guy wrote:

Skaven wrote:

jmra wrote:Did he suspect you were involved in criminal activity? Seems like that is the first question most of the open carry guys ask when an officer wants to see ID. I would more than likely give an officer my ID wether I had to or not because ultimately he can find out who I am anyway.

I am sure that the lady who called him said I was up to no good. But she embellished quite a bit based on his explanation of what she said I did.

I'm missing something here. Where was he and how did she call him? Was he working at the establishment you visited? If I had left as requested and was in a public parking lot inside my car, I'm not sure I would have cooperated with the LEO working security unless he was a witness to something actionable. I'd be back on the phone to corporate while the LEO was present to report their employee. If the LEO says it's within his duties and authorization while off duty I'd point out that the manager made a false report and he'd be duty bound to investigate her, especially since you recorded it. I may be completely off base, but that's my opinion

jmra wrote:

Skaven wrote:

jmra wrote:

Skaven wrote:

jmra wrote:Did he suspect you were involved in criminal activity? Seems like that is the first question most of the open carry guys ask when an officer wants to see ID. I would more than likely give an officer my ID wether I had to or not because ultimately he can find out who I am anyway.

I am sure that the lady who called him said I was up to no good. But she embellished quite a bit based on his explanation of what she said I did.

I'd say refusing to show ID just escalates the situation and lends credibility in the eyes of the officer to her story. Showing him that you were a rational law abiding citizen does just the opposite.
Did he ask you to leave the area? Or did he say thanks, have a nice day?

He didn't ask me to leave. He told me I was completely within my rights to stay right where I was. I left anyways because there was no reason for me to stay beyond irritating the manager.

Sounds like a good encounter and an officer confirming that the woman was a crackpot.

jmra wrote:

Skaven wrote:

jmra wrote:Did he suspect you were involved in criminal activity? Seems like that is the first question most of the open carry guys ask when an officer wants to see ID. I would more than likely give an officer my ID wether I had to or not because ultimately he can find out who I am anyway.

I am sure that the lady who called him said I was up to no good. But she embellished quite a bit based on his explanation of what she said I did.

I'd say refusing to show ID just escalates the situation and lends credibility in the eyes of the officer to her story. Showing him that you were a rational law abiding citizen does just the opposite.
Did he ask you to leave the area? Or did he say thanks, have a nice day?

cb1000rider wrote:I *think* that the legal issue is one of authority and jurisdiction. The authority runs 24/7/365 within the jurisdiction.
There are only two sub-questions that I can think of that might make a difference:
1) Departmental policy.
2) Context around when can an officer demand ID. If you were in a private venue, the management could simply require it if you were wanting to stay. If the "misunderstanding" is of possible criminal nature, then you might have been party to an investigation, in which case the LEO can demand ID.

jmra wrote:Did he suspect you were involved in criminal activity? Seems like that is the first question most of the open carry guys ask when an officer wants to see ID. I would more than likely give an officer my ID wether I had to or not because ultimately he can find out who I am anyway.