gregthehand - some officers from my department still weren't 100% clear on that rule either until a few years ago when we lost a court case regarding it. Trust me when I tell you it's real clear now.
That being said, I constantly run into officers from other departments who work off-duty jobs in our city, and they have the firm belief that they can require people to ID themselves under any circumstances. A court case that results in a huge monetary settlement will help educate them. However, as I've said before, most citizens don't fully understand their rights so these issues very seldom get addressed.
Most people are raised to believe that if someone in LE asks you to do something you're required to do it. And almost 100% of the time they are correct.
Arrested for no DL or ID?
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
Glockamolie
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 8:00 pm
I'm with txinvestigator, but read for yourself:
(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.
(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.
- Brandon
-
gregthehand
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 1399
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:48 pm
- Location: NW Houston, TX
-
txinvestigator
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
-
srothstein
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 5307
- Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
- Location: Luling, TX
Greg,
As a current academy instructor, let me chime in and say that TXI has had it correct all along. The only place you have to identify yourself in the US is in states that say so, based on the Hiible case that was cited. In Texas, identifying yourself means giving your correct name, home address, and date of birth. It does not mean producing ID which is never truly required (even the DL when driving has an out for showing it to the judge later).
I am reminded of a Houston PD case from the mid 90's (IIRC). Two officers were answering a call for a suspicious person in one of the upscale neighborhoods. The description included a young black male wearing jeans and a t-shirt (or something similar). They see a middle aged black male jogging in shorts and a t-shirt and stop him. He refuses to cooperate or answer even what his name is. They arrested and booked him for failure to identify. I would hate to have been them the next morning when the federal judge was released on bail and calling the media, chief, and mayor.
As a current academy instructor, let me chime in and say that TXI has had it correct all along. The only place you have to identify yourself in the US is in states that say so, based on the Hiible case that was cited. In Texas, identifying yourself means giving your correct name, home address, and date of birth. It does not mean producing ID which is never truly required (even the DL when driving has an out for showing it to the judge later).
I am reminded of a Houston PD case from the mid 90's (IIRC). Two officers were answering a call for a suspicious person in one of the upscale neighborhoods. The description included a young black male wearing jeans and a t-shirt (or something similar). They see a middle aged black male jogging in shorts and a t-shirt and stop him. He refuses to cooperate or answer even what his name is. They arrested and booked him for failure to identify. I would hate to have been them the next morning when the federal judge was released on bail and calling the media, chief, and mayor.
Steve Rothstein
-
NcongruNt
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 2416
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:44 am
- Location: Austin, Texas
Ouch. I'm betting they learned their lesson rather well.srothstein wrote: I am reminded of a Houston PD case from the mid 90's (IIRC). Two officers were answering a call for a suspicious person in one of the upscale neighborhoods. The description included a young black male wearing jeans and a t-shirt (or something similar). They see a middle aged black male jogging in shorts and a t-shirt and stop him. He refuses to cooperate or answer even what his name is. They arrested and booked him for failure to identify. I would hate to have been them the next morning when the federal judge was released on bail and calling the media, chief, and mayor.