Arrested for no DL or ID?

[Doug.38PR]

I've been told by two CHL instructors and former LEOs that if you are walking down the street and a policeman walks up and asks for ID that if you don't produce a DL or a Texas Issued Id Card that you can be arrested for failure to identify.

Is this true?

This blew me away. What ever happened to the Bill of Rights of illegal search and siezures in the U.S. and Texas constitutions?

That's the kind of thing they require in Communist and Facist states

[chewy555]

I am not an LEO, but from what I remember, if you give them your name and DOB they can run you with that. And that you only need the DL if you are driving.

If I am wrong please let me know.

[NcongruNt]

Here's the law:

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.

It's simply failure to identify yourself truthfully and properly in an arrest or detainment. It doesn't mention having to have an identification card. I'm not a lawyer, though, I'm sure someone more in the know will clarify this.

Thinking about it, you could probably get busted for refusing to identify, as the request for identification is a lawful order. I don't have a reference for that one, though - I may be wrong

[KBCraig]

NcongruNT has the law right.

But more importantly, we're not (yet) at the point of "Your papers, please!" while walking down the street. LEOs must have a valid reason to demand ID. They're free to ask the name of anyone they see, but those people are free to decline and walk away. If they're under arrest or temporary detention, the officer will quickly make that apparent. Asking someone's name is not "demanding identification". At the moment he asks you to produce ID, then (assuming you're carrying), you're also required to show the CHL.

Doug's instructors either misunderstood the law, or explained it poorly.

And just to make it clear: if an officer asks your name in any official capacity, if you answer, you are required to answer truthfully.

Kevin

[CHL/LEO]

I've been told by two CHL instructors and former LEOs that if you are walking down the street and a policeman walks up and asks for ID that if you don't produce a DL or a Texas Issued Id Card that you can be arrested for failure to identify.

Not true - you don't have to carry any type of ID on you but if you did it sure doesn't have to be TX only ID. The exception to that is if someone is on parole then the law requires that person to have their TDCJ ID card with them at all times AND present it to a LEO whenever they request their ID. If they fail to do either then that is a parole violation.

The section of the Penal code that NcongruNt posted pretty well explains "Failure to ID" as a criminal violation.

[Mike1951]

Anyone old enough to remember vagrancy laws should remember that this used to happen.

I think there was a SCOTUS ruling back in the dark ages declaring that arresting for not providing ID was unconstitional.

Or maybe my failing memory is at it again.

[KBCraig]

I think there was a SCOTUS ruling back in the dark ages declaring that arresting for not providing ID was unconstitional.

The most recent ruling was the Hiibel case. In their ruling, SCOTUS said that if state law requires someone to identify themself upon demand of police, they must do so. In states that do not have that requirement in state law, there is no duty to reply in any way.

Kevin

[Mike1951]

I was reaching back a lot further than that.

I was thinking back in the '70's or even the '60's.

Maybe even in the old PC that was overhauled around 1964.

[txinvestigator]

Agree with KB and CHL/LEO

There are but a few circumstances where a person must carry ID. The operator of a motor vehicle on a public roadway or public beach must have a Driver License.

A person who is carrying a handgun under his CHL must display his CHL AND either a Texas DL or Texas ID to a peace officer or magistrate if demanded to ID himself.

I imagine hunters and Fishermen are required to carry some type of license as ID. (I don't hunt or fish).

Other than that, as already pointed out, I have no legal requirement to carry any ID, or to tell a LEO who I am, unless I have been arrested.

If I have been detained, I just can't lie about who I am, I can legally refuse to answer. If the LEO has good cause to believe I was a witness to to a crime, I can refuse to answer, but not lie.

[Doug.38PR]

Well, that's good to know. Glad to have that cleared up.

Thank y'all.

[gregthehand]

Probablt what your CHL instructor was refering to was a recent ruling involoving name disclosure. It was ruled that if a peace officer walks up and simply asks your name you have to tell it to them.

[stash]

TXI has it right about not having to carry ID or tell LEO who you are unless you have been arrested. There was an article in the newspaper about two weeks ago about this exact thing. The jest of the article was that a state rep had introduced a bill to negate that aformentioned and make it law to ID yourself to LEO even if you have not been arrested.

[txinvestigator]

Probablt what your CHL instructor was refering to was a recent ruling involoving name disclosure. It was ruled that if a peace officer walks up and simply asks your name you have to tell it to them.

ONLY IN STATES THAT HAVE A LAW THAT REQUIRES YOU TO ID TO A PEACE OFFICER REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Texas has no such law. The Supreme Court does not make law. Since Texas has no such law, NO ONE is required to tell a police officer their name except as noted in the posts above.

[Renegade]

I've been told by two CHL instructors and former LEOs that if you are walking down the street and a policeman walks up and asks for ID that if you don't produce a DL or a Texas Issued Id Card that you can be arrested for failure to identify.

The truth detector should have went off instantly. Think of the millions of illegals that do not have either, plus all of the tourists and visitors, as well as children that cannot meet this....

[gregthehand]

Well TXI I'm not going to get into what law says what about giving your name upon request, but I was taught at the academy and at my department that people were required to give us just their name when we asked. I honestly am just too busy with finals and work to go look up the law. I've also heard this from a SAPD officer I know one day when we were talking about stuff like this. So if they've been told it, and I've been told it, maybe it would just be a good idea to do it. Then again maybe if it's that far spread it's not just a "cop" myth.