Jumping Frog wrote:I'd like to discuss further one aspect of your response regarding identification.
srothstein wrote:You do have to identify to a peace officer (Texas peace officer as defined in Article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - this does not include federal officers) or magistrate (as defined in Article 2.09 of the CCP - note the inclusion of mayors and city recorders) if he asks. The law says:
Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. 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.
I do not read that the same way as you.
There are two pre-conditions:
- 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,
With one resulting requirement:
- 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.
There are limited circumstances when a peace officer can
demand a person to display identification. As you noted, incident to arrest. The way I read it, if they do not have the authority to demand identification, then they do not meet the requirements to display the CHL in addition to the Texas DL/ID.
Of course, as I noted previously, if a peace officer has reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigative detention because the LEO believes someone carrying, and that person refuses to identify himself, then that will play out with a frisk and arrest. A CHL is simply better off identifying himself and avoiding the whole drama.
Also, you seemed to view an officer asking me for my name as the same as demanding identification. Maybe that is how an LEO views it, but I wouldn't. If someone asked me for my name, I would not assume that I need to provide my CHL and DL. If someone asks for my drivers license, then I would certainly provide both.
Sorry to post the whole thing like this instead of just part, but it seemed that it might confuse people if I tried to snip it to answer.
Part of my logic in saying it is any demand instead of just when it was legally authorized demand is who the law says you must identify to. Note that it says magistrate or peace officer. To me, this is important and why I think it is any request for ID. The failure to identify law is pretty specific that you only have to respond to a peace officer when you are under arrest. This is important in a different way. There is no time that I am aware of that the law requires you to ever identify to a magistrate other than the Government Code section we are discussing. And this is also why I referenced who magistrate's are. They include the judges we all think of, even municipal court and Justice of the Peace judges. But it also includes mayors of incorporated cities and city recorders. This section says you must display in response to their demand for ID.
One of the principles used in interpreting the law is that it makes sense (well, sort of). The principle that all sections of it have meaning is what I am referring to. So, if the only time you must display is when they can legally require you to identify for some other reason, this clause would not have meaning. There is no time you must identify to magistrates. So, it cannot be just when the failure to ID law comes into play which means it is what it says. If they demand ID, you must display, even if you would not have to otherwise.
I freely admit that I could be wrong on this and you should feel free to disagree. Until there is some case law on this, we will never know for sure. And now that we are without a penalty for not showing the CHL, I don't see any cases coming up. But now you have my logic on why I feel this way.
The same concept goes for the question of when an officer asks for your name versus asking for your ID. This certainly is more vague and could be argued either way. I may have implied it meant any time they even ask you name, but that might be carrying it too far. Circumstances would come into play, such as if they were asking to identify you for a formal report or just getting your name to hold a conversation that was much less formal. I think the first case (identify for formal report) would be taken by a court as a demand for ID even if the officer did not word it that way. The second case (conversation like what is your name, Steve, well Steve, I think...) would be much less likely to be taken as a demand for ID. And even in the first case, I could see the argument that he did not ask for ID so you would have a better chance at a defense. Given the way the law is worded and how courts tend to go, you would probably win a case like that on an appeal where they look much more specifically at the wording while losing the original case where people testify and emotions come more into play.
or at least most LEO's I have encounterd intimated it was.
