TexasCHLforum.com

About a month ago, a buddy of mine was having a few beers at our typical watering hole. Its a well known establishment in Houston and the bartenders and owners know us both. He has never had any issues or anything there. He had a few beers and decided it was time to go home. As he was walking out, someone stopped him and asked him for his ID. They DID NOT identify who they were or anything. Not thinking, he gave the person his id because he assumed it was a bouncer at the bar. Turns out, it was an undercover TABC officer and they arrested him for public intoxication. They didnt ask him to blow, ask him questions, or anything. They just said you are intoxicated and under arrest. They just took him to the station and it was there they let him go with a PI and he didnt have to spend the night. So my question is, if someone asks you for your ID and if they are in fact a LEO but fail to state that prior to asking for your ID, are you required to show them your id? What should you do in these kinds of situations? They let him go probably because he works for a law firm and it popped up in the system when they were taking him in. I was so mad when he told me this because he never causes trouble and i feel they were totally violating his rights.

I wouldn't show my ID to a presumed bouncer if I was leaving.

cubbyjg wrote:So my question is, if someone asks you for your ID and if they are in fact a LEO but fail to state that prior to asking for your ID, are you required to show them your id?

If they are in plain clothes, I would think that you don't have to show yours
unless you see theirs first confirming they are in fact a LEO.

cubbyjg wrote: They let him go probably because he works for a law firm and it popped up in the system when they were taking him in.

That's funny. I can almost guarantee that is not why he was let go. He was probably cited and then released. It is done all the time for some misdemeanors.

It's amazing how many problems are related to drinking

The TABC must have some kind of spooky crystal ball thing going...imagine that there are intoxicated people in a BAR.

I assume your buddy wasn't being rowdy or beligerent? So what was the deal?

Why do I get the feeling that my tax dollars are being used to criminalize the general populous in order to disarm and control them. .... whoops I guess I can expect a knock at the door now for forum intoxication!

Nope he was not being rowdy or anything. They took him and a couple of other individuals, including the actual bartender. The bartender had to go to court with a lawyer. He only had two beers and was actually talking to the UC in the bar. This was a first for the bar from what i have been told. I spoke with the owner and he thinks someone probably complained about noise in the area which i find odd because that area is a shopping area with multiple bars. I truly feel that they were out to meet some quota or waste taxpayers dollars. This bar is a place where people bring their pets, play board games, etc and there never has been any kind of trouble from what i have seen all these years. The only reason i said maybe him working for a law firm might have played in his favor was because within a few hours, the owner of the law firm called him to see what was going on since he received notification that an employee of his was arrested. His boss is representing him and will probably have a field day with this incident.

Normally i would ask, "who are you and please identify yourself" or "unless you are a LEO, i do not have to show you my ID" and walk away. However, i feel they would automatically think im being smart and give me even more problems since i already had a beer. Its like they set him up to be in a position where asking questions will only dig a deeper hole or something. I have no problem showing my ID to someone if they identify themselves as a LEO whether i am drinking or not because they are the only ones in my book who have a right to ask.

I'll defer to the judgment of others who work in law enforcement, but it would seem to me from a legal standpoint that you are not required to show your ID unless the person identifies themselves as an LEO. If they are in plain clothes, that would mean they produce a badge, or I don't show them my ID. Period.

That said, I also recognize that a bartender or waitress has the right to ask to see my ID (which would be hilarious, considering my appearance). But the difference is that, if I do not want to show my ID, then I am free to leave without any legal consequences.

If a plain clothes police officer asks to see your ID, which automatically infers legal consequences if you fail to comply, then that officer should have a legal obligation to reveal his/her status as an LEO before you can be compelled to comply with the request. Otherwise, how is a citizen to know whether this is a lawful request with which they may either comply or decline depending on who's asking? If the plainclothes LEO is not required to identify themselves as such, then the citizen is no longer a citizen, but a subject.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'll defer to the judgment of others who work in law enforcement, but it would seem to me from a legal standpoint that you are not required to show your ID unless the person identifies themselves as an LEO. If they are in plain clothes, that would mean they produce a badge, or I don't show them my ID. Period.

That said, I also recognize that a bartender or waitress has the right to ask to see my ID (which would be hilarious, considering my appearance). But the difference is that, if I do not want to show my ID, then I am free to leave without any legal consequences.

If a plain clothes police officer asks to see your ID, which automatically infers legal consequences if you fail to comply, then that officer should have a legal obligation to reveal his/her status as an LEO before you can be compelled to comply with the request. Otherwise, how is a citizen to know whether this is a lawful request with which they may either comply or decline depending on who's asking? If the plainclothes LEO is not required to identify themselves as such, then the citizen is no longer a citizen, but a subject.

TAM, We are already subjects. Government has be come King. (see Avery vs. GBRA) Immune to prosecution and tort. With the ability to seize, destroy property with impunity, impose taxation on taxes, force purchases of unwanted insurance, control of what you can or can not eat, even. Yes I'd say we are a lot closer to King George's idea of government in the Colonies than that of the Founding Fathers.

may i ask what bar and what side of town this was on?

god bless.

Sounds like the TABC's SIP (Sales to Intoxicated Persons) program is rearing it's ugly head again.

Odds are that the bar management did something to cheese off their TABC officer during an inspection.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'll defer to the judgment of others who work in law enforcement, but it would seem to me from a legal standpoint that you are not required to show your ID unless the person identifies themselves as an LEO. If they are in plain clothes, that would mean they produce a badge, or I don't show them my ID. Period.

If you're not driving and not carrying, I don't think you have to carry ID, much less show it.

SwimFan85 wrote:If you're not driving and not carrying, I don't think you have to carry ID, much less show it.

Even assuming you're right, I would probably show my ID to an LEO outside of those two circumstances anyway if asked, just as a matter of courtesy. But I would have to know he/she is an LEO. Absent the officer's identifying him/herself first and produce a badge, I'm not showing my ID.

TABC was doing that here is Dallas a few years ago. They were arresting people inside hotel bars that were just walking to the elevators to go up to their rooms. Public Intoxication has no legal limit it is a judgement call. It was getting bad enough to where it hurt the convention business for a little while as the bigger groups did not want to book events in Dallas as the word had spread on the issue.