TexasCHLforum.com

Simple solution: Ask for their Credentials, as they are required to show upon request by law if they are a security officer.. If they are a peace officer, they will show you at their discretion, and if they are a security guard, they will show you a PSB ID that says Private Security. Registration in blue, along with the level of their license in blue a few lines lower. You do not have to show a security guard your ID, but he can make you leave if it is required for entry or access to some controlled area. I always tell security guards that the have the right to ask me for ID, and I have the right to refuse. A peace officer is required to have about their person their identification, but not neccisarily show it to anybody upon request. I would like to see that changed, except for undercover ops, which I don't care for much anyway.

Question 1: Some have access, some don't, it depends on a number of variables and how they are set up with the school. I would always assume they do have access. At my old department, we did not have access to CHL, but we could request the information if needed.

Question 2: It is required if they are in fact peace officers. To know for sure, ask for credentials.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:Simple solution: Ask for their Credentials, as they are required to show upon request by law.

I agree that you can always ask for credentials. Many departments require that the officer display them on request, but I am not aware of any law requiring this display. I know Chapter 614 of the Government Code requires officers to have ID cards and specifies what they will look like, but I do not know of anything that requires them to be shown to anyone. I would appreciate a citation to the code if I am wrong.

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:Simple solution: Ask for their Credentials, as they are required to show upon request by law.

I agree that you can always ask for credentials. Many departments require that the officer display them on request, but I am not aware of any law requiring this display. I know Chapter 614 of the Government Code requires officers to have ID cards and specifies what they will look like, but I do not know of anything that requires them to be shown to anyone. I would appreciate a citation to the code if I am wrong.

Thank you for noticing that, I corrected it. I would like to see it a law myself. No telling if that pickup with a lightbar that pulled you over on a backroad is really a cop or not sometimes. I would like that to change for my wife's sake especially. It scared her when she got pulled over my a white F-150 with dash lights on a back road, I worked woth the officer, but anybody can play dress up and impersonate a cop.

Cops stopping people for traffic violations are supposed to be in marked vehicles.

San Antonio has some cars that are marked with markings that are a different shade of the color of the vehicle. It's very hard to see but marked nontheless.

mojo84 wrote:Cops stopping people for traffic violations are supposed to be in marked vehicles.

San Antonio has some cars that are marked with markings that are a different shade of the color of the vehicle. It's very hard to see but marked nontheless.

When a vehicle is in line with yours behind you, can you read decals? Anybody can put dash lights or a lightbar on that car truck or suv.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Cops stopping people for traffic violations are supposed to be in marked vehicles.

San Antonio has some cars that are marked with markings that are a different shade of the color of the vehicle. It's very hard to see but marked nontheless.

When a vehicle is in line with yours behind you, can you read decals? Anybody can put dash lights or a lightbar on that car truck or suv.

Maybe the issue is better markings on the police vehicle so they can be identified from the front. I would rather see that than have a bad guy standing at my wife's car door and her having to demand identification. Also, your wife could have kept driving and called 911 to verify the authenticity of the person stopping her. This too would be better than having her wait until the guy is at her door and her demanding ID.

mojo84 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Cops stopping people for traffic violations are supposed to be in marked vehicles.

San Antonio has some cars that are marked with markings that are a different shade of the color of the vehicle. It's very hard to see but marked nontheless.

When a vehicle is in line with yours behind you, can you read decals? Anybody can put dash lights or a lightbar on that car truck or suv.

Maybe the issue is better markings on the police vehicle so they can be identified from the front. I would rather see that than have a bad guy standing at my wife's car door and her having to demand identification. Also, your wife could have kept driving and called 911 to verify the authenticity of the person stopping her. This too would be better than having her wait until the guy is at her door and her demanding ID.

I agree, it would be nice to have clear legible "rear view" identification on a cruiser, butI know that is a difficult task and possibly expensive, as where do you have but the hood? It's not too practical, but it would be nice. I believe public servants should be overly visible, though there are downsides. And as for my wife, being it was dark, she couldn't see anything other than the blinding LED's strobing. She did continue a ways and parked in the parking lot of a grocery store with a lit parking lot thankfully. She has learned a few things from my paranoia I preach to her.

mojo84 wrote:Cops stopping people for traffic violations are supposed to be in marked vehicles.

San Antonio has some cars that are marked with markings that are a different shade of the color of the vehicle. It's very hard to see but marked nontheless.

And wearing a uniform. Marked vehicle and uniform are required per the transportation code.

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Cops stopping people for traffic violations are supposed to be in marked vehicles.

San Antonio has some cars that are marked with markings that are a different shade of the color of the vehicle. It's very hard to see but marked nontheless.

And wearing a uniform. Marked vehicle and uniform are required per the transportation code.

Yeah, as per the transportation code. If I get approached by somebody not in uniform at a traffic stop, they best show me some ID, and have a good explanation for me, because as far as I'm concerned, they're not a cop walking up to my vehicle.

We are starting to veer off topic, my bad.

One last post on this from me. Here is an article discussing the stealth cop cars.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 789109.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to the ID and showing chl. I want to know I am dealing with a cop before I am close enough to be asking for his ID or handing him mine.

Security guards don't get to see my id or chl.

mojo84 wrote:One last post on this from me. Here is an article discussing the stealth cop cars.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 789109.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to the ID and showing chl. I want to know I am dealing with a cop before I am close enough to be asking for his ID or handing him mine.

Security guards don't get to see my id or chl.

Agreed, I need to know they are are a cop before they approach me.

Nobody gets my info unless I know it's a peace officer.

We are peace officers and have full authority on any property owned, leased, or under our control like traveling to an althelic event. We have full access to TCIC/NCIC as well. As far as I know you cannot carry under CHL because we are an educational institution. I will have to ask our attorney about that.

nightmare69 wrote:We are peace officers and have full authority on any property owned, leased, or under our control like traveling to an althelic event. We have full access to TCIC/NCIC as well. As far as I know you cannot carry under CHL because we are an educational institution. I will have to ask our attorney about that.

Looking back, I can't be certain what he meant by "stopped." He would be lawful if he was pulled over, but not if he was just walking around campus with our current laws. I made the assumption that the OP was talking about getting pulled over by university police.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:We are peace officers and have full authority on any property owned, leased, or under our control like traveling to an althelic event. We have full access to TCIC/NCIC as well. As far as I know you cannot carry under CHL because we are an educational institution. I will have to ask our attorney about that.

Looking back, I can't be certain what he meant by "stopped." He would be lawful if he was pulled over, but not if he was just walking around campus with our current laws. I made the assumption that the OP was talking about getting pulled over by university police.

We can stop anyone for any reason or no reason at all. We are a private university operating on private property. I can tell someone to leave because I don't like the color of his shoes. Public property is a different story, you must have probable cause.

nightmare69 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:We are peace officers and have full authority on any property owned, leased, or under our control like traveling to an althelic event. We have full access to TCIC/NCIC as well. As far as I know you cannot carry under CHL because we are an educational institution. I will have to ask our attorney about that.

Looking back, I can't be certain what he meant by "stopped." He would be lawful if he was pulled over, but not if he was just walking around campus with our current laws. I made the assumption that the OP was talking about getting pulled over by university police.

We can stop anyone for any reason or no reason at all. We are a private university operating on private property. I can tell someone to leave because I don't like the color of his shoes. Public property is a different story, you must have probable cause.

Ummmm... I'm lost, was that a reply, or just simple facts? I understand that completely, but the relevance to my statement is unseen to me.