TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote:Coming soon, page 3...

Page 3 . .

mojo84 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Abraham wrote:This is an interesting question.

Has anyone as a pedestrian (on the forum) ever been stopped by an LEO and been asked for an I.D. when carrying (or not for that matter) and if so, what transpired?

For the record, it's NEVER happened to me.

I'm going to guess it's a quite rare happenstance...unless you spend time as a public drunk or something akin to it.

When I worked graveyard as a cop I contacted lots of folks on foot, depending on the neighborhood.

"Contact" is one thing. Did you force or coerce them to provide ID even if they they weren't being arrested or suspected of committing a crime?

I stopped people in suspicious places or under suspicious circumstances. At 0200 if I see you walking in an industrial area we were going to visit. I always asked for ID. Didn't matter if I could arrest if they refused, I always asked.

How did you handle it if they refused?

I'll bite.

Depends on how/why they refused, what their history was, where they were, and what they were doing.

There are many fun muni ordinances that help solve problems like park curfews and alcohol in park laws. Also, many of the favorite loitering spots had CT affidavits signed by the owners. Those are useful.

In my experience, when I was working overnight in the rough spots of town, "a large percentage" of the folks refusing to ID had warrants. Not sure exact numbers but I'd guess about once a shift.

Both of you are changing the situation and or premise of the discussion in an effort to find justification. The discussion is about someone walking where they have a right to be. Time of day doesn't matter if they have a right to be there. The post wasn't about when someone was breaking a law or violating a city ordinance. Just walking down the street shouldn't make a cop suspicious of someone.

I'm not sold on the idea it's ok to stop and require ID from citizens just because you may catch a bad guy every now and then.

mojo84 wrote:Just walking down the street shouldn't make a cop suspicious of someone.

It is OK for a cop to be suspicious of anyone. It is OK for a cop to initiate a conversation or ask questions of anyone for any reason.

It is also OK for any citizen to voluntarily engage in conversation or answer questions at any time.

The line gets drawn when it changes from voluntary to coerced, and the case law defining the allowable limits of the 4th and 5th amendment come into play.

No one wants to live under pseudo-martial law where LEO's can with impunity demand to "see your papers".

At the same time, if it's 2:00 A.M. in a high crime area, it's may very well be prudent for law enforcement to determine if a pedestrian is legitimate.

Jumping Frog wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Just walking down the street shouldn't make a cop suspicious of someone.

It is OK for a cop to be suspicious of anyone. It is OK for a cop to initiate a conversation or ask questions of anyone for any reason.

It is also OK for any citizen to voluntarily engage in conversation or answer questions at any time.

The line gets drawn when it changes from voluntary to coerced, and the case law defining the allowable limits of the 4th and 5th amendment come into play.

I understand and agree with your point. Being suspicious of someone is not enough to make them show their ID. To contact someone is allowable. Ask for ID is OK but the cop needs to respect the person's decision if they refuse to provide it. To Demand and coerce them to produce ID when they haven't done anything to cause suspicion other than be present is another. I also don't believe cops should regularly make contact without some ressonable suspicion the person is doing something or has done something against the law. We shouldn't have to be subjected to being contacted by the authorities when without something warrantjng the contact.

It's just my opinion and I'm sure others will have differing opinions and that's fine. I can deal with that.

mojo84 wrote:We shouldn't have to be subjected to being contacted by the authorities when without something warrantjng the contact.

This is hypothetical, of course, because I never leave the house unarmed. I am also well aware if I am pulled over driving or am out hunting, a demand for driver license or hunting license has justification.

But If I run into a cop demanding to see my drivers license when I believe it unwarranted (no crime, not driving, not hunting, etc.), I'll be the first one to say "no".

Training and experience directs a LEO. The 4th amendment and subsequent SCOTUS decisions restricts the actions of the LEO. If you are on foot at 0200 in an industrial area we are having a chat. The contact will direct what happens and how far the LEO demands anything.

You may have a right to be there, but he may have a right to hqve a little chat with you as well.

jbarn wrote:Training and experience directs a LEO. The 4th amendment and subsequent SCOTUS decisions restricts the actions of the LEO. If you are on foot at 0200 in an industrial area we are having a chat. The contact will direct what happens and how far the LEO demands anything.

You may have a right to be there, but he may have a right to hqve a little chat with you as well.

Reminds of the time I followed a known crack dealer around on foot after he denied a consent search. He kept telling me to leave him alone but he didn't go anywhere he had control. He just walked up and down the street, where I had every right to be. I kept talking to him about baseball and global warming...it was great fun.

gigag04 wrote:Reminds of the time I followed a known crack dealer around on foot after he denied a consent search. He kept telling me to leave him alone but he didn't go anywhere he had control. He just walked up and down the street, where I had every right to be. I kept talking to him about baseball and global warming...it was great fun.

That didn't get him to confess?