Makes me sick. Arrested for "failure to show ID" while standing on the corner

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/robert-farago/cops-arrest-open-carry-houston-member-try-erase-cell-phone-video/

Texas Cops are being taught the "Catch 22" method of asking for ID.

1.  Cop asks for ID, but has no reasonable suspicion you committed any crime, and you are not under arrest.

2.  You respectfully decline to ID yourself because the law gives you the right to decline.

3.  Now the Cop arrests you because the ACT OF REFUSING TO ID YOURSELF is reasonable suspicion, making ID mandatory.

4.  So, to avoid being arrested for failure to ID, you have to ID yourself even if they don't already have cause to require it.

Kind of like saying if you plea the 5th, you are making an admission of guilt.

https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/texas-failure-to-identify-law-what-it-says-vs-what-police-think-it-says/

Does Houston have similar "ID" laws like in Arizona?

Does Houston have similar "ID" laws like in Arizona?

You must not have gone to the link I posted 

Sad to have to say, but cops should be made to wear cameras. Too many LEO's are taught to lie to get what they want from citizens, and too many citizens don't know any better. I've been told this same lie here in Honolulu, virtually verbatim. Cameras would protect citizens from false arrest and entrapment and LEO's from false accusations.

Its the same with HPD making up their one rules.

Welcome to the New America , "Youz Paperz!"

rofl  they didn't  know how  to delete the video

Texas Cops are being taught the "Catch 22" method of asking for ID.

1.  Cop asks for ID, but has no reasonable suspicion you committed any crime, and you are not under arrest.

2.  You respectfully decline to ID yourself because the law gives you the right to decline.

3.  Now the Cop arrests you because the ACT OF REFUSING TO ID YOURSELF is reasonable suspicion, making ID mandatory.

4.  So, to avoid being arrested for failure to ID, you have to ID yourself even if they don't already have cause to require it.

Kind of like saying if you plea the 5th, you are making an admission of guilt.

https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/texas-failure-to-identify-law-what-it-says-vs-what-police-think-it-says/

Kinda like getting arrested at a DUI checkpoint for refusing to blow.

Kinda like getting arrested at a DUI checkpoint for refusing to blow.

I thought they only asked that of female drivers?

 

Sad to have to say, but cops should be made to wear cameras. Too many LEO's are taught to lie to get what they want from citizens, and too many citizens don't know any better. I've been told this same lie here in Honolulu, virtually verbatim. Cameras would protect citizens from false arrest and entrapment and LEO's from false accusations.

Except, that there doesn't seem to be a rash of legal actions by those who had their rights violated. All you have to do is search You Tube and see how often these situations occur and how infrequently any legal action is taken. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Except, that there doesn't seem to be a rash of legal actions by those who had their rights violated. All you have to do is search You Tube and see how often these situations occur and how infrequently any legal action is taken. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

I can't say how many of these people follow up and press charges. I've seen a few dealing with wrongful arrest, I think the reason is that the court process is SOOO boring that it doesn't make for good You Tube fair. That and the probability that these incidents are covered up as quickly as possible through out of court settlements to avoid bad publicity. Unlike here, a lot of municipalities elect their Chief of police. It wouldn't be good for the incumbent.

An excellent point nonetheless.
How often do victims of wrongful arrest pursue legal action against the officer{s} or department that violated their rights? How many just let it go, and consider themselves lucky not to be in jail?

I can't say how many of these people follow up and press charges. I've seen a few dealing with wrongful arrest, I think the reason is that the court process is SOOO boring that it doesn't make for good You Tube fair. That and the probability that these incidents are covered up as quickly as possible through out of court settlements to avoid bad publicity. Unlike here, a lot of municipalities elect their Chief of police. It wouldn't be good for the incumbent.

An excellent point nonetheless.
How often do victims of wrongful arrest pursue legal action against the officer{s} or department that violated their rights? How many just let it go, and consider themselves lucky not to be in jail?

Besides boring and long, the process is expensive and emotionally draining. And it doesn't have to be just an arrest. For example, if you are open carrying (where legal) and the police stop and detain you ("Am I being detained officer" and the answer is yes or they won't let you leave) solely because you are open carrying, that is technically an illegal detainment. The police can try to frame the stop as "folks are concerned/calling about a man with a gun" or "we need to ID you to make sure that you are not a felon" but the exercise of a legal activity can never be the basis of a non-consensual stop. But, as you can see from any number of You Tube videos, that happens all the time. I would imagine that most folks who suffer through this type of illegal detainment will never seek legal redress.



Obviously the cop that stopped this open carrier either didn't know the law or was lying to try to get the actor to ID himself. And, to make (legal) matters worse, he seized the gun (legal private property) without a warrant or due process. Both actions were technically illegal. Should the actor have sued in this instance?

But, some do:

Besides boring and long, the process is expensive and emotionally draining. And it doesn't have to be just an arrest. For example, if you are open carrying (where legal) and the police stop and detain you ("Am I being detained officer" and the answer is yes or they won't let you leave) solely because you are open carrying, that is technically an illegal detainment. The police can try to frame the stop as "folks are concerned/calling about a man with a gun" or "we need to ID you to make sure that you are not a felon" but the exercise of a legal activity can never be the basis of a non-consensual stop. But, as you can see from any number of You Tube videos, that happens all the time. I would imagine that most folks who suffer through this type of illegal detainment will never seek legal redress.



Obviously the cop that stopped this open carrier either didn't know the law or was lying to try to get the actor to ID himself. And, to make (legal) matters worse, he seized the gun (legal private property) without a warrant or due process. Both actions were technically illegal. Should the actor have sued in this instance?

But, some do:

In the first instance I certainly would have spoken to a lawyer. The officer was certainly violating the mans rights, whether the officers actions were "technically" or blatantly illegal is irrelevant, the officer was breaking the law. A citizens rights were violated. No crime had been committed and the officer had no reasonable suspicion that one was about to occur.
OK, the guy eventually got his property back and was allowed to go on his way. The key word here is allowed. Since when do we, as free people, have to tolerate harassment by LEO's in order to exercise our Constitutional rights? The problem is that LEO's get away with this so often that it's become accepted practice, they feel entitled to get information from you, whether or not you've broken the law. This needs to change.

In the second instance, that guy did the right thing, at a cost of two years of his time and probably no small amount of money. I only hope that the $15,000 was in addition to his attorney's fees.
The interesting thing, to me, was how, even through a third party { the TV anchor person } you feel how pissed off the police chief was that he had to do this. Not so funny when you stop to think that he's paid to ensure that our rights are not violated.
I'm sure this would have come to light in a very different manner had the officer simply shot this man
Something like, "Crazed gunman shot after attacking policeman in park."

I appreciate the difficult job the police do for us. That doesn't mean they get to break the laws they're paid to enforce. They should know better.

Simple question to a question. Voluntary or terry stop. Voluntary thank you but I'd like to terminate. Terry yes sir no sir