Detained while carrying a long gun (Buda, TX)

[SIG_Fiend]

I'm not sure who this guy is or if he's a forum member but, I thought some of you might want to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPIUNXI0mho

The law as relates to identification:

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 is1) 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 is1) 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.

So the real point of contention in this situation is whether the officer had probable cause to lawfully detain or arrest the guy. If he had probable cause and lawfully detained or arrested him, as we can see in the penal code above, then by law the guy would be required to ID himself to the officer. If the officer did not have probable cause to detain him, and if the guy was not lawfully detained or arrested, then technically he would not be required by law to ID. What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Acera]

What are your thoughts on the matter?

I hope every department in the nation is aware of this growing type of encounter and is providing supplemental training to every officer that may face a situation similar to this one.

I hope that when it is taught, it is being done so in accordance with the law by someone competent enough in the legal system and statutes to teach such a class.

 

[LJH]

As to the legality of the detention I have no idea. The law is interpreted differently depending on your view point. As to this type of behavior I find it dull and dross. No good comes from instigating contact with the police, ever.

 

[txinvestigator]

I'm not sure who this guy is or if he's a forum member but, I thought some of you might want to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPIUNXI0mho

The law as relates to identification:




So the real point of contention in this situation is whether the officer had probable cause to lawfully detain or arrest the guy. If he had probable cause and lawfully detained or arrested him, as we can see in the penal code above, then by law the guy would be required to ID himself to the officer. If the officer did not have probable cause to detain him, and if the guy was not lawfully detained or arrested, then technically he would not be required by law to ID. What are your thoughts on the matter?

He is not required to ID if detained. Re-read the law you posted.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

link no workie....

 

[matefrio]

Officer seems to have answered the question himself.

Link worked for me.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It just jumped up & down when I clikd it, lol...thanks.

 

[vmax]

Again, I think it's good to see people peacfully doing this. It lets us know where the boundaries to our rights are.

 

[scgstuff]

I see TXI's point that it does not say you need to ID yourself unless being arrested, not detained. It is illegal to give a fictitious name if being detained.

Videos like these just irritate me because it makes gun rights activists look bad as well. The officer finally backed off and was trying to explain why he was letting him go and the person just kept trying to push his buttons. Really? The officer called in for support, was given additional information and was trying to cut him free.....just be quiet, respectful and let him talk......Calling him a liar isn't helping the cause....he was wrong, sought clarification and reversed his position. Done Deal, move on.

 

[Renegade]

I have encountered more than 1 TX/LEO who does not understand Texas ID law. Texas is still a relatively free state in that regard.

1) You never have to show physical ID unless engaged in licensed activity.
2) Do not lie.
3) You only have to provide Name, Residence Address, DOB if arrested.

 

[matefrio]

Videos like these just irritate me because it makes gun rights activists look bad as well.

Once upon a time I thought so as well. Now not so much. It's a process. 5 or so years ago and that guy would have been in jail just for doing what he did. Now it's better, LEOs and staff have a better understanding what's going on.

Folks have video of what to expect and can ask questions like "When do I need to provide ID" and learn. Each encounter we learn more.

 

[matefrio]

I have encountered more than 1 TX/LEO who does not understand Texas ID law. Texas is still a relatively free state in that regard.

1) You never have to show physical ID unless engaged in licensed activity.
2) Do not lie.
3) You only have to provide Name, Residence Address, DOB if arrested.

As an example (correct me if I'm wrong): If he had a handgun on him concealed, he was engaged in a licensed activity and should identify with his CHL.

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

But my question is why cant one just id him-her self explain whats up and move on?
You must be legal doing these types of things. Or really stupid,
Id check! Legal check! Move around!! Imo how would you feel if i came into your place of
Bus and gave you crap, all in the name of legal?

 

[txinvestigator]

I am glad the officer researched before arresting and learned he did not have an offense. He still tried to bluff his way......

 

[gdouthit]

tag so I can watch the video after work

 

[matefrio]

I am glad the officer researched before arresting and learned he did not have an offense. He still tried to bluff his way......

+1

 

[Renegade]

As an example (correct me if I'm wrong): If he had a handgun on him concealed, he was engaged in a licensed activity and should identify with his CHL.

Figures you would pick that one.

It is unique in that he asks for ID but you are not required to show him any under 38.02 above, but CHL law 411.205 requires you show DL/CHL when asked for ID. WTF. But there is no penalty for not showing it anymore. So if you do not show it nothing happens. Confusing? Yes.

 

[matefrio]

Figures you would pick that one.

It is unique in that he asks for ID but you are not required to show him any, but CHL law is special and requires you show CHL when asked for ID. But there is no penalty for not showing it anymore. So if you do not show it nothing happens. Confusing? Yes.

I just wanted to point that out as there'll be someone who tries this next who has a CHL and is also packing a handgun.

I like the fact there is no penalty for not showing your CHL. I think, as the current laws stand, I've agreed to ID myself as part of the license and as such should even though there are no legal penalties.

Watching the Zimmerman closing statements I don't want the prosecutor saying "He was required by law to show his CHL and didn't so he must have had something to hide. He intended to cause alarm and when stopped the defendant unlawfully didn't provide his CHL to the officer to identify."

 

[Renegade]

I just wanted to point that out as there'll be someone who tries this next who has a CHL and is also packing a handgun.

I like the fact there is no penalty for not showing your CHL. I think, as the current laws stand, I've agreed to ID myself as part of the license and as such should even though there are no legal penalties.

Watching the Zimmerman closing statements I don't want the prosecutor saying "He was required by law to show his CHL and didn't."

+1

I am all for exercising rights to the fullest. But there is no need to antagonize LEOs. Good job on this LEO for verifying.

 

[DubiousDan]

+1

I am all for exercising rights to the fullest. But there is no need to antagonize LEOs. Good job on this LEO for verifying.

Have to agree, the officer was trying real hard not to arrest him but the guy was being a dick. The guy may have been in the right and may beat the rap in the end but how much is it going to cost him just because he didn't want to show his ID just to prove some sort of point.