TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:By the way, everyone, please note a key point in the statute. You can be arrested for intentionally refusing to give your name/address/DOB upon arrest. However, the statute does not require providing a driver license or other form of identification documents. It simply requires you to provide the requested info without lying.

Furthermore, until the guys videotaping at Walmart are arrested (or detained) they aren't required to even provide that information.

apostate wrote:Furthermore, until the guys videotaping at Walmart are arrested (or detained) they aren't required to even provide that information.

Note that it is an offense to provide false information when detained under § 38.02(b), but you are not required to provide any information. If you are detained, you have the right to keep your mouth shut.

Correct. They only need to provide the information if arrested.

this ruffles feathers, but I truly don't think it's right for a police officer to work off duty as a police officer.

His police powers should rest complety in the agency that employs him/her and even then only when on the clock with that agency.

I don't think it's right to take police powers and use them for your own personal benfit (independant contractor).

A police officer should be on duty and in his jurisdiction when wearing the uniform and acting as a police officer.

There are armed security companies to handle security issues.

Then you won't have issues with this. "he's not an officer for Houston PD" Then why is he there in the first place?

I will never agree with this practice.

If he's working for Walmart then he shouldn't have any more government authority than any other Walmart employee.

I also think it should be illegal for LEO to carry a handgun while drunk as a skunk, same as CHL, but apparently that discriminates against alcoholics or something like that.

Scott in Houston wrote:Thanks!! You found the detail that I was looking for.


Can you or anyone elaborate on what it takes for an officer to detain you?

"Hey You. I want to talk to you!" is all it takes. Unless arrested or on a traffic stop, you do not need to produce ID, but you must Identify yourself by giving your name.There are a few exceptions to that also.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:Thanks!! You found the detail that I was looking for.


Can you or anyone elaborate on what it takes for an officer to detain you?

"Hey You. I want to talk to you!" is all it takes. Unless arrested or on a traffic stop, you do not need to produce ID, but you must Identify yourself by giving your name.There are a few exceptions to that also.

That may be what it takes to be in detainment, but you don't have to say who you are according to the law until actually arrested. You can't lie about who you are, but you don't have to indentify yourself at all. (verbally or with ID)
If being unreasonably detained, I may not say anything other than "am I free to go?" until I'm let go. (from what I've learned here)



§ 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.

Sad the LEO needs 60 days of Restroom cleaning duty, Anger issue classes and on a short leash for a year.

Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

johnson0317 wrote:Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

Scott in Houston wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

This question has been asked many times and I don't know there has been a clear-cut definition of arrest. I don't think the penal code has a definition.

If a traffic stop was an arrest, then you would have to list it on your CHL application. I believe that you have to be fingerprinted and booked to be an "official arrest" but don't know where the line is drawn. But IANAL or LEO.

Scott in Houston wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

Actually, there is a separate law requiring the presentation of a DL when asked by a peace officer if operating a motor vehicle. It does not come under the failure to identify law in the penal code. I think there are a couple other similar special laws in various codes, like presenting a hunting license to a game warden.

But a traffic stop is definitely an arrest. The laws make this very clear and it was further clarified by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Part of the court's logic was that Chapter 543 authorizes an arrest and specifies that the person will be released on a signed promise to appear (ticket) in certain cases and taken to a magistrate in others.

And it is confusing enough that even some LEOs will argue that it is a detention, despite the court ruling. They did specify that it was not a custodial arrest high enough to trigger other rights though, which is part of the confusion. The case was primarily a jurisdiction case, but the law used for the question was where an officer had authority to make an arrest.

As for the definition of an arrest, we need to look at SCOTUS cases because it is not defined elsewhere. Perhaps the closest they come is in Terry v Ohio, when they decided to allow a stop without calling it an arrest. Until then, if a cop stopped you and you were not free to move on, it was an arrest - whether you get booked or not. That case created the detention, recognizing it as a seizure that came under the Fourth Amendment but was not a full blown arrest. They sort of refer to an arrest to include booking (calling it a "traditional arrest") but don't quite define it fully either.

If youa re not sure, don't worry about it. Neither are the cops, as it continually comes up in court.

WildBill wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

This question has been asked many times and I don't know there has been a clear-cut definition of arrest. I don't think the penal code has a definition.

If a traffic stop was an arrest, then you would have to list it on your CHL application. I believe that you have to be fingerprinted and booked to be an "official arrest" but don't know where the line is drawn. But IANAL or LEO.

I understand that an arrest, as it pertains to CHL applications and as the DPS defines it, requires that pictures and fingerprints be taken.
if that didn't happen, they don't consider it an arrest. This would exclude normal traffic stops.
This is not meant to contradict srothstein's statements.

WOW. That's Deep! That officer probably has his feet hurting standing and his pride from getting hurt earlier . But Sad thing he a finger pull away from killing some kid with a Tazzer off duty. Be even worse if it was not in jurisdiction. We wont even talk about the Walmart and how they can be sued. I had LOE friend that got fired cause he pulled his Weapon out like that. The officer never should have made contact. You don't have To show your papers this is not Nazi Germany. People are Brain washed to want to talk to the police Dent talk to the police unless you have a lawyer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DarkSide wrote:WOW. That's Deep! That officer probably has his feet hurting standing and his pride from getting hurt earlier . But Sad thing he a finger pull away from killing some kid with a Tazzer off duty. Be even worse if it was not in jurisdiction.

Why do you think the TASER would have killed the young man? Also can you explain how you know the cop didn't have any authority as a Texas peace officer at that location? Much obliged.