TexasCHLforum.com

I have done a little searching on the web but only thing I can find says that the Stop and Identify laws were shot down in 1979 with Brown vs Texas Does anybody have any better links. Reason is a leo told me he could arrest my son for refusing to give his name and address.

suthdj wrote:I have done a little searching on the web but only thing I can find says that the Stop and Identify laws were shot down in 1979 with Brown vs Texas Does anybody have any better links. Reason is a leo told me he could arrest my son for refusing to give his name and address.

"Papers Comrade?"

I don't know where to even start looking for this, perhaps some other member has an idea.

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.

That's what I found also, albeit a little late to post.

But, if you have a CHL and are carrying, you must identify AND produce both TDL and CHL, correct? Just clarifying.

That isn't a "stop and identify" law, it's a "must identify when arrested" law. Texas doesn't have any law authorizing police to demand ID without some other cause.

Or when lawfully being detained or when a witness to a crime.

C-dub wrote:Or when lawfully being detained or when a witness to a crime.

Actually, according to the above, under (b), you still don't have to give them a name.
It's only a crime to give them a Fake one

Aren't we being lawfully detained when stopped and questioned by an LEO in the first place?

Purplehood wrote:Aren't we being lawfully detained when stopped and questioned by an LEO in the first place?

You're being detained if a reasonable person would perceive that they're not free to leave. Whether it's lawful or not depends on a variety of factors, but a lawful detention requires, at a minimum, a reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Many police encounters are consensual encounters, or at least they start that way. If the person reasonably perceives they're not free to break off the encounter and leave, they're being detained. If the officer doesn't have justification, it's an unlawful detention.

Dicion:
Thanks. I missed that part.

Purplehood:
I would have also thought that most encounters where an officer asked for identification were lawful and we would be required to identify ourselves.

Austinrealtor:
Just because one has a CHL does not automatically mean we have to identify for the same reasons, right? Doesn't it just mean that when we are required to identify that we also display our CHL?

Your walking down the street a leo stops and asks you for your name and address. you have done nothing wrong and he has not said why he needs to know. This is happening in my neighbor hood now because of vandals doing stuff at our park so the police seem to be harassing the kids regardless of weather anything has happened.

jbirds1210 wrote: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.

Thats also what I have found. The problem now is we need a definition of a lawful arrest/lawful detention. IMO a LEO cannot stop you just to "see your papers". He has to have probable cause...seen you committing a crime, fit the description of a suspect or thinks you are a witness.

My $0.02

I concur. Of course he can completely say 'hey buddy, whats up? whatcha doing around here?'
And you have the right to completely ignore him and keep walking.

dicion wrote:
I concur. Of course he can completely say 'hey buddy, whats up? whatcha doing around here?'
And you have the right to completely ignore him and keep walking.

And if you do that in an area where there has been some stuff going down i.e. vandals, drug trades, etc, then would that give him a reason to question you further? If the officer explained himself in a calm manner and explained the situation, I would probably be willing to support my cause by either ID or explination.