Showing ID to police

[color of law]

Only reason I ID people that call is if they want to make a formal report, to get their contact info for follow up on the case, again if it's not related to our business together I don't care if you are carrying.

As far as test case officer, you never know how someone is going to react or conduct themselves until they do it, cops make mistakes, some are minor some are royal screw-ups that end up costing agencies and municipalities money.

Let alone the citizen that does Not have the deep pockets of the taxpayer.

 

[radio3579]

Let alone the citizen that does Not have the deep pockets of the taxpayer.

LE is a reflection of the society in the area they serve, look at the areas that have a lot of problems. The police forces are made up of people from that area with the same or similar upbringing and biases, some people on both sides (LE and citizen) have not learned to put aside bias and focus on problem solving instead of problem causing.

Every group has it's bad apples, right now we are the focus of media attention. Mind you, media look for the sensational story, and in the age of 24/7 in your face exposure it gets beat to death. For every 1 bad cop that does something wrong, 10's of thousands of officers on duty that day did their job- doing the right thing doesn't attract attention and certainly doesn't sell ad space.

My license says Peace Officer, not Law Enforcement Officer........ taking people to jail or writing tickets is not always the answer, thinking outside the box and using what discretion we have in most situations solves problems. There are some times when it is written "shall arrest" in which case we have a duty to remove that person from society so that they are no longer a threat to others or themselves, even if it is just a night in the drunk tank. A lot of people locally have my personal cell number and call me, because I am fair and try to work with them as much as I can.

I support and encourage people to carry, who knows one day I may be getting my butt kicked on the side of the road and one of you will be the one that steps up and saves my life.

 

[HPmatt]

As far as test case officer, you never know how someone is going to react or conduct themselves until they do it, cops make mistakes, some are minor some are royal screw-ups that end up costing agencies and municipalities money.

I was talking w Kaufman County DA last week and she said the voters, being Scotch-Texans, have not approved bonds to build a mammoth new Police/Court building, so all of their county business is being conducting in one building, including licensing, tax payments, permits, etc, so I expect to see a 'test case' come out of there in the next year.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

My license says Peace Officer, not Law Enforcement Officer........

I've said before that we need more peace officers and fewer law enforcement officers. I applaud you for making a distinction yourself and adopting the perspective of someone pursuing peace and resolution as opposed to iron-fisted enforcement of every minor technicality.

 

[radio3579]

I was talking w Kaufman County DA last week and she said the voters, being Scotch-Texans, have not approved bonds to build a mammoth new Police/Court building, so all of their county business is being conducting in one building, including licensing, tax payments, permits, etc, so I expect to see a 'test case' come out of there in the next year.

If they post it 30.06 and .07 contact the Attorney General's Office, they can investigate and determine if the county is in violation of the law, there are fines and such for those governmental entities that do so without a legitimate purpose.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP...say for example I stop you for a traffic violation (speeding, improper lane change, etc.) after I make contact with you and identify myself and the reason for the stop, I am going toaskfor your DL, I will already know the registration and insurance status of your vehicle here so at that point I guess you could consider that the "demand" requiring disclosure. To me the word "demand" is confrontational, as it is not really what I am doing, I am asking you to comply with my request.

Trust government to play around with word meanings.

In a conversation where refusing to provide the wanted information will result in enforcement action, (see the word comply), the driver is only being "asked" for his DL. It is merely a "request." As if it really can be declined or refused. Suuuure.

No matter how nicely the agent makes the demand, now matter how sweet the tone, if refusal is followed by force or a threat of force, then it really was not a request. It was a demand from the beginning. It was just covered up with a false civility.

Another of this species is the police "checkpoint". I am old enough to remember when police didn't cover up the actual intent to make them sound nicer than they were--roadblocks. Checkpoint sounds so much nicer, no coarseness. Just looking out for everyone's safety--rainbows and ponies. Yeah, until you decide not stop. Then you find out real quick that it really was a roadblock.

 

[radio3579]

Trust government to play around with word meanings.

In a conversation where refusing to provide the wanted information will result in enforcement action, (see the word comply), the driver is being asked for his DL. It is merely a "request." As if it really can be declined or refused. Suuuure.

No matter how nicely the agent makes the demand, now matter how sweet the tone, if refusal is followed by force or a threat of force, then it really was not a request. It was a demand from the beginning. It was just covered up with a false civility.

Another of this species is the police "checkpoint". I am old enough to remember when police didn't cover up the actual intent to make them sound nicer than they were--roadblocks. Checkpoint sounds so much nicer, no coarseness. Just looking out for everyone's safety--rainbows and ponies. Yeah, until you decide not stop. Then you find out real quick that it really was a roadblock.

You do realize that driving is not a necessity correct? The license belongs to the state, it is issued to you based on your acceptance of the terms and conditions outlined by your state and the issuing authority, here it is the Department of Public Safety (State Police). If you rack up too many violations or don't pay your tickets you get your license suspended or revoked. I am asking you to show me your license, you always have the choice not to do so, but you also agreed to what the penalty for not doing so is to be when you accepted your license.

It is a contract you made with the State, not me and it's not personal.

It's not the same as say a search. if I ask you if I may search your vehicle you absolutely can say no, the 4th Amendment says so.

Texas Law on this subject- Transportation Code, Title 7, Chapter 521

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:

(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and

(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that:

(1) for a second conviction within one year after the date of the first conviction, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200;

(2) for a third or subsequent conviction within one year after the date of the second conviction the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by:

(A) a fine of not less than $25 or more than $500;

(B) confinement in the county jail for not less than 72 hours or more than six months; or

(C) both the fine and confinement; and

(3) if it is shown on the trial of the offense that at the time of the offense the person was operating the motor vehicle in violation of Section 601.191 and caused or was at fault in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in serious bodily injury to or the death of another person, an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section if the person charged produces in court a driver's license:

(1) issued to that person;

(2) appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and

(3) valid at the time of the arrest for the offense.

(e) The judge of each court shall report promptly to the department each conviction obtained in the court under this section.

(f) The court may assess a defendant an administrative fee not to exceed $10 if a charge under this section is dismissed because of the defense listed under Subsection (d).


Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027 (H.B. 1623), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 195 (S.B. 1608), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.


===== But we are drifting from the intent of this thread.

 

[radio3579]

The threads OP, Showing ID to police

I may be wrong but I think the intent of the OP was presenting ID in relation to Open Carry, not presenting ID in general.
We have drifted away from that.

My take on it........... if you are OC, no I am not going to just stop you for ID, I may observe you, but knowing that OC is legal here, if you are carrying in a shoulder or belt holster as the law states and are not acting in anyway that would create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity then there is absolutely no reason to stop you.

Carry, act naturally and go on with your business. Like I said including today I have seen a total of 5 people OC'ing since January 1st.

It's not a common practice, the main benefit of the OC law is that people that are CC and accidentally expose the weapon or print are not in violation of anything anymore.

Can an officer stop and ID, probably and here is why I say that......... PC 46.02 states that carrying a handgun on or about your person is illegal, but provides that being licensed under GC 411Subchapter H is an exception to that. So could someone see a firearm and believe a violation of 46.02 has occurred, yes. However given that we know GC411 Subchapter H exists then what are the totality of the circumstances under which you observe the individual carrying the weapon? If there is no indication that there is a crime, then no interaction is necessary.

But showing the DL/LTC is instant verification that there is in fact no criminal violation of Penal Code 46.02, I can see both sides of the argument because I live on both sides of the argument. As both an officer and as an LTC holder.

 

[MAC702]

...Like I said including today I have seen a total of 5 people OC'ing since January 1st.

It's not a common practice, the main benefit of the OC law is that people that are CC and accidentally expose the weapon or print are not in violation of anything anymore...

It's not a common practice because Texas has fomented an anti-gun culture based on racism for 150 years.

The main benefit is not accidental exposure. That was already cleared up a couple years ago by a purposeful rewording of the concealed carry laws, though I would believe you if you said that the typical cop didn't know that.

This law was specifically to restore open carry (albeit it now as a privilege and not a right) because the state should not be dictating to the citizens how to dress.

 

[radio3579]

It's not a common practice because Texas has fomented an anti-gun culture based on racism for 150 years.

The main benefit is not accidental exposure. That was already cleared up a couple years ago by a purposeful rewording of the concealed carry laws, though I would believe you if you said that the typical cop didn't know that.

This law was specifically to restore open carry (albeit it now as a privilege and not a right) because the state should not be dictating to the citizens how to dress.

Yes I agree with the statement most cops didn't know of the 2007 and 2009 changes, and neither did most citizens.
Of the roughly 26 million residents approx. 900,000 have licenses to carry. Most businesses and general sheep did not know or care about changes to CHL laws. So sometimes you get MWAG calls for accidental exposure still, but now that open carry is legal and it was huge news for almost a year, campaign promise of Greg Abbott almost everyone has heard of open carry even if they don't know exactly what it is or what the law says.

Accidental exposure was not main focus but it is a benefit, since reports from around the state are that very few actually are open carrying still. That may change as summer gets here though.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

I see a disparity in thes laws?

You do realize that driving is not a necessity correct? The license belongs to the state, it is issued to you based on your acceptance of the terms and conditions outlined by your state and the issuing authority, here it is the Department of Public Safety (State Police). If you rack up too many violations or don't pay your tickets you get your license suspended or revoked. I am asking you to show me your license, you always have the choice not to do so, but you also agreed to what the penalty for not doing so is to be when you accepted your license.

It is a contract you made with the State, not me and it's not personal.

It's not the same as say a search. if I ask you if I may search your vehicle you absolutely can say no, the 4th Amendment says so.

Texas Law on this subject- Transportation Code, Title 7, Chapter 521

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:

(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and

(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that:

(1) for a second conviction within one year after the date of the first conviction, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200;

(2) for a third or subsequent conviction within one year after the date of the second conviction the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by:

(A) a fine of not less than $25 or more than $500;

(B) confinement in the county jail for not less than 72 hours or more than six months; or

(C) both the fine and confinement; and

(3) if it is shown on the trial of the offense that at the time of the offense the person was operating the motor vehicle in violation of Section 601.191 and caused or was at fault in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in serious bodily injury to or the death of another person, an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section if the person charged produces in court a driver's license:

(1) issued to that person;

(2) appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and

(3) valid at the time of the arrest for the offense.

(e) The judge of each court shall report promptly to the department each conviction obtained in the court under this section.

(f) The court may assess a defendant an administrative fee not to exceed $10 if a charge under this section is dismissed because of the defense listed under Subsection (d).


Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027 (H.B. 1623), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 195 (S.B. 1608), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.


===== But we are drifting from the intent of this thread.

I may be wrong but I think the intent of the OP was presenting ID in relation to Open Carry, not presenting ID in general.
We have drifted away from that.

My take on it........... if you are OC, no I am not going to just stop you for ID, I may observe you, but knowing that OC is legal here, if you are carrying in a shoulder or belt holster as the law states and are not acting in anyway that would create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity then there is absolutely no reason to stop you.

Carry, act naturally and go on with your business. Like I said including today I have seen a total of 5 people OC'ing since January 1st.

It's not a common practice, the main benefit of the OC law is that people that are CC and accidentally expose the weapon or print are not in violation of anything anymore.

Can an officer stop and ID, probably and here is why I say that......... PC 46.02 states that carrying a handgun on or about your person is illegal, but provides that being licensed under GC 411Subchapter H is an exception to that. So could someone see a firearm and believe a violation of 46.02 has occurred, yes. However given that we know GC411 Subchapter H exists then what are the totality of the circumstances under which you observe the individual carrying the weapon? If there is no indication that there is a crime, then no interaction is necessary.

But showing the DL/LTC is instant verification that there is in fact no criminal violation of Penal Code 46.02, I can see both sides of the argument because I live on both sides of the argument. As both an officer and as an LTC holder.

Sooo, Im seeing that in Texas its OK to stop a driver, just to check for a Driver license?
That wont fly in most states..
Aaaand, I dont think most states will allow a detention just to check for a Concealed license either!

 

[WalkingWolf]

What is the difference between God and some police officers?

God knows he is not a cop...

 

[HPmatt]

It's not a common practice because Texas has fomented an anti-gun culture based on racism for 150 years...

Most Texans aren't 150 years old and with huge migration to Texas since the 60s - any cultural biases are not native (unlike the racist democrats of old Texas). Have not seen any chain gangs cleaning weeds from creek bottoms since my childhood...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Impersonating a police officer is a crime, even in Texas. This would mean that citizens have a right to demand the ID of every police officer they encounter.

Stupid is, as stupid does, twisted logic that we have already heard from Primus, and debunked. The courts have recognized that there must be RAS to make a stop, and demand ID.

 

[OC for ME]

Let me start by stating that you did not address my question regarding test case cops. I don't know about you but I can fairly easily spot "bad apples" in my workplace and I will inform "management" and use current policies to have the "problem employee" removed from the my workplace. These problem employees make for a undesirable workplace environment for all employees. It is obvious that you hold a different view point.

I... Carry, act naturally and go on with your business. ...

Who decides what is "acting naturally." The totality of the circumstances?

Does location influence acceptable acting naturally vs. unacceptable acting naturally?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that:

Sooo, Im seeing that in Texas its OK to stop a driver, just to check for a Driver license?
That wont fly in most states..

No, I don't think it will fly in Texas, either. That's just another example of statute that needs to be cleaned up and the unconstitutional nonsense taken out. As far as I know that statute sits there practically unused. Even cops in Texas will warn their rookies to NEVER rely on that statute to stop someone, and ALWAYS have actual RAS or PC of a crime.

 

[OC for ME]

No, I don't think it will fly in Texas, either. That's just another example of statute that needs to be cleaned up and the unconstitutional nonsense taken out. As far as I know that statute sits there practically unused. Even cops in Texas will warn their rookies to NEVER rely on that statute to stop someone, and ALWAYS have actual RAS or PC of a crime.

Post Heien ya never know.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Can an officer stop and ID, probably and here is why I say that......... PC 46.02 states that carrying a handgun on or about your person is illegal, but provides that being licensed under GC 411Subchapter H is an exception to that. So could someone see a firearm and believe a violation of 46.02 has occurred, yes. However given that we know GC411 Subchapter H exists then what are the totality of the circumstances under which you observe the individual carrying the weapon? If there is no indication that there is a crime, then no interaction is necessary.

You could say the exact same thing for every police officer you run across, as their exception to 46.02 is made in the exact same manner as an LTC holder's. Anyone can buy a badge and a uniform. If one was to stop every OCer to check LTC they should stop every supposed cop and validate their ID as well.

The question is not whether or not you can simply believe or imagine that a violation could potentially be occurring, as we could easily believe that of anyone at any time, but the question is whether or not you have actual reason to believe one is occurring, so that the belief is reasonable. I think you already believe and operate this way, so I guess I'm preaching to the choir a bit here.

 

[color of law]

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=21350#more-21350

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=477472

OPINION BY: Smith, P.J.
Lumpkin, v.p.J.: CONCUR
Johnson, J.: CONCUR
Lewis, J.: CONCUR
HUDSON, J.: CONCUR

All the above judges need to removed from the bench. Once Dean Feeken stated that he was just "taking a break," in effect, had no problems the officer had no RAS of any crime. The demand for Feekin's license was beyond Terry v. Ohio, period. The Massachusetts supreme court just got a tongue lashing that they will never forget over a stun gun. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...upreme-Court&p=2185170&viewfull=1#post2185170 They intentionally twisted USSC rulings to fit their intend outcome. And that is what the OKLAHOMA, Appellant court judges just did.

 

[davidmcbeth]

OPINION BY: Smith, P.J.
Lumpkin, v.p.J.: CONCUR
Johnson, J.: CONCUR
Lewis, J.: CONCUR
HUDSON, J.: CONCUR

All the above judges need to removed from the bench. Once Dean Feeken stated that he was just "taking a break," in effect, had no problems the officer had no RAS of any crime. The demand for Feekin's license was beyond Terry v. Ohio, period. The Massachusetts supreme court just got a tongue lashing that they will never forget over a stun gun. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...upreme-Court&p=2185170&viewfull=1#post2185170 They intentionally twisted USSC rulings to fit their intend outcome. And that is what the OKLAHOMA, Appellant court judges just did.

Cops had no reason to encounter him; a vehicle on private property should not need insurance; cops have no jurisdiction on private land w/o the owners prior consent.

ALL gov't agencies read opinions as they see fit. That's why I really don't care what courts think in respect to my rights...and they cannot vote on a right in any event.