TexasCHLforum.com

WHY IS AN ARKANSAS CITY DEPLOYING POLICE WITH AR-15S TO DEMAND CITIZENS SHOW I.D. ON THE STREETS?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-is- ... e-streets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A test case for the rest of the USA!

“They may not be doing anything but walking their dog,” he said. “But they’re going to have to prove it.”

We have no country.

Is there any law on the books in Texas to prevent this sort of thing (or at least make it harder) ?

ghostrider wrote:Is there any law on the books in Texas to prevent this sort of thing (or at least make it harder) ?

I don't know about Texas state law, but the 14 Amendment comes to mind as maybe being applicable. But I'm no constitutional scholar and please don't take this as legal advice because it's not. Just my personal opinion on the matter.

I think it's as illegal and unconstitutional in Arkansas as it is here in Texas.

This shall be interesting . . . I know some folks who are planning to go see for themselves . . .

lets see
no ID to vote
but ID needed to walk around

I can see if your near a CRIME or call for service maybe a leo asking hey you buddy....


do we as US citizens have to have ID on our persons at all times?

powerboatr wrote:lets see
no ID to vote
but ID needed to walk around

I can see if your near a CRIME or call for service maybe a leo asking hey you buddy....


do we as US citizens have to have ID on our persons at all times?

Most states do not require you have an ID, nor routionely give SSN's and such. You are typically required to honestly give your name, birth date and address if applicable. Perhaps one of our resident LEO's can provide more Texas specific information.

http://www.alice24-7.com/main.asp?Secti ... M=54291.72" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What about this?

VoiceofReason wrote:http://www.alice24-7.com/main.asp?Secti ... M=54291.72

What about this?

There have been several cases across the country involving identifying oneself, and mostly, unless there is something else, the cops lose. Videoing in a public place has been approved, even in Maryland which had a specific statute which was struck down. http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/28/ma ... in-public/

See also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177

You don't have to carry ID. You don't have to identify yourself, in California AFAIK.

An officer can't come onto private property willy-nilly unless he sees a crime being committed etc. which video taping isn't.

My guess is this is a bad bust, unless some state specific law exits, and that may be susceptible to Constitutional challenge.

JALLEN wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:http://www.alice24-7.com/main.asp?Secti ... M=54291.72

What about this?

There have been several cases across the country involving identifying oneself, and mostly, unless there is something else, the cops lose. Videoing in a public place has been approved, even in Maryland which had a specific statute which was struck down. http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/28/ma ... in-public/

See also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177

You don't have to carry ID. You don't have to identify yourself, in California AFAIK.

An officer can't come onto private property willy-nilly unless he sees a crime being committed etc. which video taping isn't.

My guess is this is a bad bust, unless some state specific law exits, and that may be susceptible to Constitutional challenge.

Mrs. Anygunanywhere and I lived in Kalifornia for over 8 years. It was my understanding that it was a crime to not have your ID on you and you must produce it when demanded by LEO.

I do not have the statutes handy, but that is what I was told.

YMMV.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:
Mrs. Anygunanywhere and I lived in Kalifornia for over 8 years. It was my understanding that it was a crime to not have your ID on you and you must produce it when demanded by LEO.

I do not have the statutes handy, but that is what I was told.

YMMV.

Anygunanywhere

Not that I know of. I've lived here 44 years and been a lawyer for 38 of them. I have been asked for ID by law enforcement only rarely, and at least once that I can recall, I didn't have any and that was that. Being an inordinately placid, jovial and dignified family man, I have intentionally arranged my life so as to avoid situations where LEO's worry about who I am.

You must have ID if you are engaging in certain activities, like driving on public roads, buying a weapon, not to include voting, of course. I rode my bicycle thousands of miles over the years in California never carrying an ID, but nobody ever asked for it either. That was probably foolish, since if I had been smacked by a car, nobody would know who I am, errr, was.

If you recall what the statute is, I'd love to know about it.

“An example of where this will be helpful is if a crime (i.e. burglary, breaking or entering) is reported the next morning. We then have a list of “go-to” suspects to question regarding that incident or incidents,” the statement read.

That quote just seems disturbing to me.

MechAg94 wrote:

“An example of where this will be helpful is if a crime (i.e. burglary, breaking or entering) is reported the next morning. We then have a list of “go-to” suspects to question regarding that incident or incidents,” the statement read.

That quote just seems disturbing to me.

Maybe even more helpful would be to photograph, fingerprint and collect DNA from everyone they stop. They'll be able to find the perp lickety split that way.

MechAg94 wrote:

“An example of where this will be helpful is if a crime (i.e. burglary, breaking or entering) is reported the next morning. We then have a list of “go-to” suspects to question regarding that incident or incidents,” the statement read.

That quote just seems disturbing to me.

Guess they should just "round up the usual suspects"!