Bill Would Require You to Identify Yourself At All Times[TX]

WOAI ^ | 16 Apr 2009 | Jim Forsyth

[BGHater]

Any 'peace officer' can demand i.d. any time, doesn't say exactly who qualifies as a 'peace officer.'

Papers please!!

The Texas Senate has approved a bizarre measure which would require citizens to show some sort of identification to any police officer who demands it, at any time, for any reason, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Currently, it is illegal for a person to give a false name to police, but there is no law rewiring a person to provide i.d. at an officer's whim. And State Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) doesn't like the sound of this bill.

"We still live in a free society," he said. "I don't want police officers to be able to pull you over and ask that you identify yourself."

The bill would also require individuals to provide their date of birth and 'residence address' to police.

Supporters of the bill, like State Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) says there are safeguards.

"A police officer would not have the discretion just to come over and ask for i.d. on just anybody," he said.

Hinojosa said the officer would have to have a 'good reason' to demand identification.

The bill is sponsored by State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston), who is a strong supporter of individual rights.

"It is illegal for them to falsely identify themselves, but it is not illegal for them not to tell you who they are," Patrick said. "In this era of national security issues, if we have a police officer detaining someone at a high profile target, it is in the best interests of the safety of that officer and this community to be able to quickly determine who that person is."

Other lawmakers say if a person is bent on committing a crime, the individual is not likely to be deterred by the possibility of a misdemeanor charge of failure to identify.

Patrick’s' bill does not specify exactly who a 'peace officer' who is authorized to demand papers is. It doesn't say whether it would be limited to TCLOSE certified police officers, or would apply to constables, security guards, or neighborhood watch members. It also doesn't specify what passes for 'i.d' and wither it would have to be a photo i.d.

The bill also does not spell out any safeguards or recource for citizens who are asked at random to identify themselves to police.

[08bil98z24]

There is also a legion that are okay with checkpoints, breathalyzers and a host of other infringements.

Its for the safety of our children. /s

I hear that right HERE on FR sadly sometimes ...

[Stat-boy]

“There’s a legal term called presumption of guilt before establishment of legal fact. The law can only arrest you if you HAVE done something. Allowing them arrest you for what they perceive you MIGHT do makes criminals of us all.”

Are you familiar with the term “Terry stop,” meaning a temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion? It happens all the time, by necessity.

For example, say you are a store owner, and you get robbed. You call the police and describe the robber as “white male, about 6 foot, wearing blue jeans and a red shirt.” [Did you like my PC example?]

Ten minutes later, a cop sees a white male matching that description, running in a direction away from your store. The cop may temporarily detain that person. This is a “Terry stop.” The detention can not be for a longer time than what is necessary to do a quick investigation—say, look around the area to see if this person hid things stolen from your store. Currently, under Texas law the cop can’t require this person, who has been temporarily detained under reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, to give his name.

The Supreme Court in Hiibel clarified that the 4th Amendment allows a state to have a law requiring a person who is the subject of a Terry stop to give his name. That’s all that Partick’s bill does.

[gondramB]

>>What about the passenger? Is he required to show id?<<

Excellent point - so this law would have an effect even on people in cars.

[Arrowhead1952]

I haven’t had time to look at replies, but have you seen this?

[luvie]

Haven’t seen anything about it in our paper, but I don’t like
anything about it. Had to be DIMs who thought this one up...
at the behest of their Master in the white house, I’m sure!

[MeekOneGOP]

A big Texas & General Interest Ping! Ping! Ping!

[GeronL]

dang. I thought Dan Patrick was a good one... this has me mad.

[stevie_d_64]

Did they (Law Enforcement) make a visual search of your vehicle??? I.E. - pear inside without opening a door???

Or did they ask you permission to take a look inside???

You can refuse a search of your person or your property...But be ready for the ride of your life...

I’d never say the word “yes” or “no” to that question...

“I do not concent to a search of my person of property, am I free to go?” (that’s all the stand you need to make, the rest will be up to them)

Of course at which time you may certainly be detained illegally, and the burden will still be on you to either capitulate, or they get tired of waiting on their side to support their illegality...And you’ll be on your way...

Just remember it will be a while...

I personally don’t like to be an a$$ about this with Law Enforcement, and we know some areas around the country are better than others, so all of this kinda depends on where you are...

Just remember, there are very few encounters of this nature that are not taped (recorded)...

Be careful what and how you say things...

Just my opinion...

[stevie_d_64]

I’m still scratching my head on this one...

I agree with you though...

I believe the article is not stating the truth, or whole truth...

This has to be something along the lines of encapsulating a state position on ILLEGAL (law breaking) invading immigrants who do need to feel the pinch from something like this...

Anyway the media can throw a wet rag on something like this, they will do...

It’s not the first time, it won’t be the last...

People like us who do know Dan Patrick personally know this is being tossed out for general consumption based upon shoddy reporting, and other political crapola that does make sense to some (opposite of our political positions) in the long run...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks Meek. From reading this article, one might be led to believe a lawman could ask anybody for their "papers" any time, any where. If this is the same bill it doesn't exactly say that S.B. No. 1175:

	By: Patrick	S.B. No. 1175
	(In the Senate - Filed February 26, 2009; March 13, 2009,
	read first time and referred to Committee on Criminal Justice;
	April 8, 2009, reported favorably by the following vote:  Yeas 4,
	Nays 1; April 8, 2009, sent to printer.)

	A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
	AN ACT
	relating to the prosecution of the offense of failure to identify.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1.  Subsection (a), Section 38.02, Penal Code, is
	amended to read as follows:
	(a)  A person commits an offense if the person [he]
	intentionally refuses to give the person's [his] name, residence
	address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
	(1)  lawfully arrested or lawfully detained the person;
	and
	(2)  requested the information.
	SECTION 2.  The change in law made by this Act applies only
	to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
	An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
	covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the
	former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
	this section, an offense is committed before the effective date of
	this Act if any element of the offense occurs before that date.
	SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.
	* * * * *

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Why not just implant everyone with a computer chip so everyone is "under control."

Don't worry- that will be here shortly.

[VRWCmember]

Imagine if someone in our founder's day had decided people should be required to have a license in order to ride a horse? It is unthinkable.

OTOH, if you were riding a horse and lost control of it the horse didn't have a tendency to cause thousands of dollars of damage to someone else's property along with severe injury and/or death to others.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, imagine if they had required a license in order to own a gun.

[boxlunch]

Ping! You might get on MeekOne’s ping list if you aren’t already