TexasCHLforum.com

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.

I would think that unless he's wearing a badge, he's just a guy in a blue shirt with a gun.

I would not have identified myself in those circumstances. Of course, I'd never be in those circumstances because I am never unarmed in public so I must then comply with the CHL identification requirements.

bulinm wrote:I would think that unless he's wearing a badge, he's just a guy in a blue shirt with a gun.

He does not have to hqve a badge on.

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

It was one of those outlet type locations. He works for the outlet, and the lady was from one of its businesses.

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.

Nice explanation thank you!

jbarn wrote:

bulinm wrote:I would think that unless he's wearing a badge, he's just a guy in a blue shirt with a gun.

He does not have to hqve a badge on.

That's how a woman in Carrollton ended up in the backseat of a fake cop car being molested by a fake cop. Without the full legitimate uniform, how are we supposed to know?

C-dub wrote:

jbarn wrote:

bulinm wrote:I would think that unless he's wearing a badge, he's just a guy in a blue shirt with a gun.

He does not have to hqve a badge on.

That's how a woman in Carrollton ended up in the backseat of a fake cop car being molested by a fake cop. Without the full legitimate uniform, how are we supposed to know?

I didnt say to get in the backseat with him........

Regardless, if you fall under the requirment to ID and you violate that law, it could be very expensive to try to assert the defense that he did not have a badge on.

jbarn wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jbarn wrote:

bulinm wrote:I would think that unless he's wearing a badge, he's just a guy in a blue shirt with a gun.

He does not have to hqve a badge on.

That's how a woman in Carrollton ended up in the backseat of a fake cop car being molested by a fake cop. Without the full legitimate uniform, how are we supposed to know?

I didnt say to get in the backseat with him........

Regardless, if you fall under the requirment to ID and you violate that law, it could be very expensive to try to assert the defense that he did not have a badge on.

Maybe. And in this case there was no legitimate reason to have to comply with the request.

Skaven wrote:

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.

The misunderstanding was that I went in to request a refund. The manager didn't like it, got mad, and threw me out.

The officer referred to it as a "disturbance", as the manager alleged I raised my voice (again according to the recording, I didn't)

He said / She said and I'll guess officer wasn't there when the incident occurred. He has authority to intervene on a breach of the peace and asking for ID would be part of that. His badge was probably on his jacket that he had taken off.

texanjoker wrote:

Skaven wrote:

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.

The misunderstanding was that I went in to request a refund. The manager didn't like it, got mad, and threw me out.

The officer referred to it as a "disturbance", as the manager alleged I raised my voice (again according to the recording, I didn't)

He said / She said and I'll guess officer wasn't there. He has authority to intervene on a breach of the peace and asking for ID would be part of that.

During the event that would be a no brainer, but after the fact out in the public parking lot?

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

Skaven wrote:

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.

The misunderstanding was that I went in to request a refund. The manager didn't like it, got mad, and threw me out.

The officer referred to it as a "disturbance", as the manager alleged I raised my voice (again according to the recording, I didn't)

He said / She said and I'll guess officer wasn't there. He has authority to intervene on a breach of the peace and asking for ID would be part of that.

During the event that would be a no brainer, but after the fact out in the public parking lot?

If he is investigating an incident or disturbance, and one half is loitering in a car after being told to leave I don't see an issue. He is investigating the alleged crime / incident as reported by the manager aka reporting party. Depending on what transpires he may develop PC for an arrest or issue a criminal trespass warning or determine it's unfounded as it appears he did in this case. Also lets not forget that a LEO is a LEO 24/7.

texanjoker wrote:

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

Skaven wrote:

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.

The misunderstanding was that I went in to request a refund. The manager didn't like it, got mad, and threw me out.

The officer referred to it as a "disturbance", as the manager alleged I raised my voice (again according to the recording, I didn't)

He said / She said and I'll guess officer wasn't there. He has authority to intervene on a breach of the peace and asking for ID would be part of that.

During the event that would be a no brainer, but after the fact out in the public parking lot?

If he is investigating an incident or disturbance, and one half is loitering in a car after being told to leave I don't see an issue. He is investigating the alleged crime / incident as reported by the manager aka reporting party. Depending on what transpires he may develop PC for an arrest or issue a criminal trespass warning or determine it's unfounded as it appears he did in this case. Also lets not forget that a LEO is a LEO 24/7.

Maybe. I don't know. One of the issues at the crux of a situation like this is identifying whether or not someone is actually a LEO. This LEO was not in full uniform and it was not plainly clear that he was one.

Secondly, the OP was not still in the store or on store property. If he had not been sitting in his car still in the public parking lot, could someone "on duty" have been called and stopped him for questioning?

Perhaps one of our LEOs can tell us how an off duty officer can be identified as being a LEO and not just a security guard. I am assuming that there is no obligation in this case to show ID to a security guard and it appears doubtful from the explanation that even if the security guard was an LEO that the showing of ID was required since the person was not under arrest.

rotor wrote:Perhaps one of our LEOs can tell us how an off duty officer can be identified as being a LEO and not just a security guard. I am assuming that there is no obligation in this case to show ID to a security guard and it appears doubtful from the explanation that even if the security guard was an LEO that the showing of ID was required since the person was not under arrest.

The short answer is, you can't tell the difference. You can say all you want about posture, attitude, stance, head-on-a-swivel, haircut, Oakley shades, etc., but there's plenty of non-LEO folks with all the above. Visually, without a badge (uniform or plain clothes), one -cannot- tell if someone is a cop. Even the uniform is a iffy proposition; as has been brought up before, fake and wanna be cops have perpetrated dastardly deeds while wearing surplused, second-hand, or imitation uniforms. Some of the copies are quite good.

The long answer is, if he's a cop and he's carrying a pistol, he -ought- to have his badge and/or credentials somewhere about his person. Usually, they're both in a pocket somewhere if he's in plainclothes, or in-uniform, he may just have the creds in his wallet with badge on his shirt. In this case, he probably took the badge off and stuck it in his pocket as a nod to his "off-duty / extra-duty" security guard gig, but if he was carrying under the auspices of "I am cop" instead of "I have CHL," he should have had creds and badge -somewhere- on his person.

Practical answer? If you're in doubt, ask to see his badge and/or credentials.