TexasCHLforum.com

Xander wrote:

sivart-dod wrote: As for the guy at the end, i would say that is complete bull! that's uncalled for, he was unarmed. ( from what I can see in the video )

From the narration, it sounded like he may have been claiming he had a bomb. Impossible to tell without more details on the situation.

That was my take on it as well.

flintknapper wrote:

Xander wrote:

sivart-dod wrote: As for the guy at the end, i would say that is complete bull! that's uncalled for, he was unarmed. ( from what I can see in the video )

From the narration, it sounded like he may have been claiming he had a bomb. Impossible to tell without more details on the situation.

That was my take on it as well.

Since I don't know anything about cops...When someone claims to have a bomb, is it proper procedure to use a taser and an attack dog?

Iggy Pop wrote: Since I don't know anything about cops...When someone claims to have a bomb, is it proper procedure to use a taser and an attack dog?

Only if they're particularly restrained. Otherwise, they might have done this: http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feat ... index.html

Iggy Pop wrote:








Since I don't know anything about cops...When someone claims to have a bomb, is it proper procedure to use a taser and an attack dog?

well you would think by that point they would have already determined that he didn't have a bomb, seeing as he was out of the vehicle. But again, the tape starts at the end of the incident, there is noway we could ever determine the real story.

Although to me, it just looks like they were just having some fun!

Iggy Pop wrote:Typical cops. And they wonder why we don't embrace them.

Don't even try to flame me. This occurs 10,000 times/day in this country.

Forum Rule 9 wrote:9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

No flame, just a forum rule.

Chas.

i knew somehow this was going to be a bad idea

Ok...let me try to turn this around (although I think it will be futile)...

What are our rights during a police checkpoint or even a police stop for speeding?

1) If you are not being charged with anything do you need to identify yourself in TX?
2) If you are NOT being charged with anything and an officer tells you to step out of the car, are you required to do so?
3) If you are ARE being charged with something and an officer tells you to step out of the car, are you required to do so?
4) Are you required to speak in either situation? I know once you are arrested you have the right to remain silent. Does you maintain that right even prior to an arrest? (as in this video....she was not being charged with anything. When he asks her her name does she have the right to remain silent?)

And yes... it burns me up to! Papers please?!

RiveraRa wrote:Ok...let me try to turn this around (although I think it will be futile)...

What are our rights during a police checkpoint or even a police stop for speeding?

Checkpoints are currently illegal in Texas, so that's a non-issue. If you're stopped for speeding, that's technically an arrest, and the associated rules apply.

RiveraRa wrote: 1) If you are not being charged with anything do you need to identify yourself in TX?

Yes. If you're stopped for committing an infraction, you're technically under arrest, and per PC§38.02, you're required to show identification. As a side-note, as I read the law, if you have a CHL and you're carrying, even if you're *not* technically under arrest, you're required to show your license or identification and CHL when a peace officer demands it. Without a CHL, they can only demand that you identify yourself if you've been lawfully arrested.

RiveraRa wrote: 2) If you are NOT being charged with anything and an officer tells you to step out of the car, are you required to do so?
3) If you are ARE being charged with something and an officer tells you to step out of the car, are you required to do so?

I don't really see a clear answer in the P.C., (somebody else, maybe one of our law enforcement members will have a better answer than I, I'm sure) but I'd suspect that if you refused, you could, depending on the situation, be charged with either resisting arrest or interfering with public duties. Maybe something else, but I don't see it.

RiveraRa wrote: 4) Are you required to speak in either situation? I know once you are arrested you have the right to remain silent. Does you maintain that right even prior to an arrest? (as in this video....she was not being charged with anything. When he asks her her name does she have the right to remain silent?)

I suppose. The right to remain silent is at it's heart your right to not be compelled to incriminate yourself. It means that you don't have to confess to a crime. It doesn't mean that if you refuse to talk, they can't haul you off to jail when they have a legal right to insist that you identify yourself. They can, and will.

Thank you Xander for the clear explanation! I have wondered some of those questions myself.

Xander wrote: Yes. If you're stopped for committing an infraction, you're technically under arrest, and per PC§38.02, you're required to show identification.

Its "nit picking" I know....but I don't think you are required to produce "identification" (except a CHL), but you ARE required to provide (if asked to) your correct Name, Address and Date of Birth. My understanding is that this can be done verbally and does not have to be conveyed via a drivers license.


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 Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(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 a Class B misdemeanor.

flintknapper wrote: Its "nit picking" I know....but I don't think you are required to produce "identification" (except a CHL), but you ARE required to provide (if asked to) your correct Name, Address and Date of Birth. My understanding is that this can be done verbally and does not have to be conveyed via a drivers license.

Very good point. My intent was to say something along the lines of "provide identification," not explicitly "show identification." I'm in complete agreement that this could be verbal.

Just to add fuel to the fire. There has been several threads of when someone has to display a license and most do not refer to another tool in the Officers toolbox.

§ 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a
motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the
type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate,
court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a
motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as
required by this section.
(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense.
An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a
fine not to exceed $200, except that:
(1) for a second conviction within one year after the
date of the first conviction, the offense is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200; and
(2) for a third or subsequent conviction within one
year after the date of the second conviction the offense is a
misdemeanor punishable by:
(A) a fine of not less than $25 or more than $500;
(B) confinement in the county jail for not less
than 72 hours or more than six months; or
(C) both the fine and confinement.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section if the
person charged produces in court a driver's license:
(1) issued to that person;
(2) appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(3) valid at the time of the arrest for the offense.
(e) The judge of each court shall report promptly to the
department each conviction obtained in the court under this
section.
(f) The court may assess a defendant an administrative fee
not to exceed $10 if a charge under this section is dismissed
because of the defense listed under Subsection (d)

Elvis wrote:Just to add fuel to the fire. There has been several threads of when someone has to display a license and most do not refer to another tool in the Officers toolbox.

§ 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a
motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the
type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate,
court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a
motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as
required by this section.

Fitting for the context of this thread, however...a person that is merely a passenger in the vehicle, a person not operating a vehicle on a public road, or a person just walking down the street is not required to produce a drivers license as a source of identification. They are required by law to provide a "Correct" name, address, and date of birth, thats it. That is what "some" of the other treads were about. Also, you are NOT required to show your CHL if you are not carrying, but I don't want to rehash that. Several threads on that too.

Elvis wrote:Just to add fuel to the fire. There has been several threads of when someone has to display a license and most do not refer to another tool in the Officers toolbox.

§ 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a
motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the
type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate,
court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a
motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as
required by this section.

Good catch! I didn't think to check the transportation code, but that makes sense that this is in there.

But...

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.

So if an officer stops you (walking or as a passenger) but is not placing you under arrest then you have the right to refuse.
If it is a stop for a traffic violation then it is considered an arrest and in that situation you need to identify.

One last question.
Which checkpoints are currently illegal in TX? I knew drug check points were illegal but arent there border patrol checkpoints (miles away from the border) still in effect?