• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Alert! Houston PD unlawfully arrests OCer and attempts to erase evidence from phone

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Thankfully, this thug was too stupid to figure out how to work the phone.

1. Sign up with some sort of legal protection program if you intend to defend yourself if needed, OR, as in this case, if you intend on engaging in political activism.
2. ALWAYS RECORD, USING AN APP THAT STREAMS AND SAVES OFFSITE. Set your phone to lock and require pin every time you turn the screen off, and verify that whatever app you use continues recording while the screen is off. Additionally, phones withOUT removable batteries are advantageous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S74zInF3XMA&feature=youtu.be
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
"WHURS YER I-DEE?"

"I don't have it with me, but I can tell you who I am."

"YUR UNNER ARREST FOR FAILURE TO I-DEE!"

What a moron.
 

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
Does Texas have a law requiring all subjects to carry state issued papers??

The Failure to ID is Penal Code 38.02. Many cops have trouble understanding it. I have a lot of experience enforcing this.

If you are not legally detained you are not committing an offense if you either refuse to identify or lie about your identity (i.e. name, date of birth or address)

If you are legally detained you are committing a class B misdemeanor (or if you have a warrant a class A) if you lie about your name, DOB or address. Even if you are legally detained refusing to identify yourself is not an offense.

After you were arrested if you refuse to identify yourself that is a crime, but only a class C misdemeanor (i.e. a ticket)

The bottom line is if you are legally detained don't lie about who you are. If you want to remain silent that is O.K.

The first question you want to ask in a police counter is if you are being detained or you are free to go. Cops are allowed and do start consensual encounters.... i.e. chatting with you and if you go along without objections that is acceptable.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
What Count ^^ said.

But save yourself some time and skip the "Am I being detained?" mumbo-jumbo. Skip right to "Am I free to leave?"

If you are not free to leave the cop will get around to letting you know what your status is - temporarily detained (as in being suspected of committing a crime and they are actively trying to gather PC) or arrested (as in they now have PC). It used to be you could tell the difference by whether or not you were given a set of matching steel bracelets by the cop (and often on the very first date!), but that seems to have changed to "everybody gets some".

SCOTUS has pretty much clarified that if you are not free to leave you are arrested, regardless of what the cop wants to call it. They also have said, repeatedly, that the cops do not have to "read you your rights" until and unless they start interrogating you about the crime. Asking who you are and where you live is not evidentiary interrogation.

If the cops decide they want to know who they have just arrested and you decline to provide that information voluntarily they will most likely take you to the lockup, collect your fingerprints, and make you wait until the FBI gets back to them about if your prints are on file, why they are on file, whether or not there are any known outstanding wants/warrants, and they get around to reading that response from the FBI. It has been known that some departments claim to have only one person authorized to read the responses from the FBI (and in some places only one person authorized to send inquiries to the FBI), and it just might could be that the authorized person is not on duty at the moment. You can hire a lawyer and discuss that in court, but that's not going to happen until after you are released.

Check your state law carefully to find out just what "identifying" means. Where I'm from it means stating name and place of residence (not address - name of the city/county is sufficient).

Off hand I can't think of any state that requires "official papers" - if that were so we would not have the Voter ID discussions, would we?

stay safe.
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
OK, lets try this again.

The offending cop should be charged with Kidnapping and conspiracy to destroy evidence. He should NEVER be given any form of "authority" over another human being again in his life.

Yes davidmcbeth, he would have been Murdered and the crime would have been found "justified" with in the SYSTEM.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Just another bad apple(s)

Almost all of our federal overlords are insulated from the evil "laws" they make by virtue of their tremendous wealth and power. State pols, not so much. When they and their kids start getting harassed by *** *****, maybe things will change? I'm starting to see more middle class TV heads express hatred of the "heroes" in blue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HeroHog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
628
Location
Shreveport, LA
I wish he would go back and edit that video for spelling and use of wrong words... makes him look like a goober!
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa

FattyKrack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
86
Location
Bainbridge Island, Wa
The Failure to ID is Penal Code 38.02. Many cops have trouble understanding it. I have a lot of experience enforcing this.

If you are not legally detained you are not committing an offense if you either refuse to identify or lie about your identity (i.e. name, date of birth or address)

If you are legally detained you are committing a class B misdemeanor (or if you have a warrant a class A) if you lie about your name, DOB or address. Even if you are legally detained refusing to identify yourself is not an offense.

After you were arrested if you refuse to identify yourself that is a crime, but only a class C misdemeanor (i.e. a ticket)

The bottom line is if you are legally detained don't lie about who you are. If you want to remain silent that is O.K.

The first question you want to ask in a police counter is if you are being detained or you are free to go. Cops are allowed and do start consensual encounters.... i.e. chatting with you and if you go along without objections that is acceptable.
Good info, but re-educate me for I seem to have a gray area in my mind (one of many!) regarding legal detainment.
This particular case does not apply, I am assuming, because no legal detainment was applied, since no crime was committed...?
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Good info, but re-educate me for I seem to have a gray area in my mind (one of many!) regarding legal detainment.
This particular case does not apply, I am assuming, because no legal detainment was applied, since no crime was committed...?

IMO, not being a lawyer, whether or not a detainment was legal will probably be decided later in a court, if it goes that far, possibly with consideration of facts that you were unaware of at the scene, or that were made up after the fact. I would not bet on a detainment being unlawful to the point that I'd lie about my identity, there's just no need to do that. Even if you are legally detained, though, you don't have to identify yourself, you're just prohibited from falsely identifying yourself. So, basically, if you're detained and not arrested, feel free to decline to give identification, just don't lie and give false identification.

In this case, it's pretty clear the detainment (and subsequent arrest) was unlawful.

There are cases, though, theoretically, where you could be lawfully detained even though you've committed no crime. That's why I say, you probably shouldn't bet on whether or not the detention is unlawful just because you know that you haven't committed a crime.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Thankfully, this thug was too stupid to figure out how to work the phone.

1. Sign up with some sort of legal protection program if you intend to defend yourself if needed, OR, as in this case, if you intend on engaging in political activism.
2. ALWAYS RECORD, USING AN APP THAT STREAMS AND SAVES OFFSITE. Set your phone to lock and require pin every time you turn the screen off, and verify that whatever app you use continues recording while the screen is off. Additionally, phones withOUT removable batteries are advantageous.

This. I would add that adhering to the buddy system could help as well (two different camera angles which would overlap to show the actions of all those involved, lest someone get "creative" while writing a report.

Without the recording, it would be the word of an "extremist" :)rolleyes:) against a "heroic and courageous man with a shiny badge who's sworn to protect and to serve".:rolleyes:

Hopefully the thug is sanctioned, along with the fellow officers who gave tacit consent to his handling of a Lawfully Armed Citizen. Accomplices, the way I see it. Then again, maybe one of them will display some courage and regard for their oath by testifying against the thuggish Opinion Enforcement Officer.

That was pretty decent (for the most part). Good on the reporter, showing a bit of solidarity. :)

Cue the feinting horses and stampeding women in 3, 2, 1...:lol:
 
Last edited:

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
Good info, but re-educate me for I seem to have a gray area in my mind (one of many!) regarding legal detainment.
This particular case does not apply, I am assuming, because no legal detainment was applied, since no crime was committed...?


Excellent question: It seems this cop recognized the guy and knew that he did that before.... This to me points to the fact that he didn't have reasonable suspicion that he just committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, in fact he knew that the guy with the rifle was just exercising his first and second amendment rights at that corner. In Texas you need reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain.... That is more than just a mere suspicion or a hunch and less than a probable cause (which is the arrest threshold....)
With that said let me give you this scenario. You are at a street corner with a rifle openly and maybe talking to people or just giving out pamphlets or whatever. Some genius calls cops (mistakenly or maliciously) and states you have a gun and you're about to hold up the convenience store next door. You even have an accomplice and you're planning right now (maybe talking to a guy and giving him a pamphlet). That cop will arrive which a bunch of backup and instead of the hey what's up or show me an I.D. you'll have a bunch of guns in your face. In the cops' mind they are justified in detaining you since the caller called you're about to rob a store and have a rifle and an accomplice..... Suddenly what the cop thinks it is going on is totally different of what you know to be the truth. Moreover the cop has a good faith argument that he had to detain you...... But even like that once he gets the story straight he should abandon the detention. But if he wants to ID you and you lie during that detention...... See where I'm going..... These calls have happened before and you're only hope is that experienced good cops answer that call......
 

flintknapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
31
Location
Deep East Texas, , USA
All that 'Count' has posted is legally correct and accurate. However, the REAL problem with this incident is not the questionable legal detention/arrest of the subject, but the 'charge' of "failure to I.D." to begin with.

The Officer demanded physical I.D. (I.E. a drivers license/photo I.D.). As soon as he (the officer) was informed no such physical I.D. was available, he immediately admonished the man and then made the charge of "failure to I.D." even though the man offered to tell officer who he was.

Texas Law does not require you to carry physical proof of your I.D., ONLY that you provide I.D. (orally or otherwise) when lawfully ordered to do so. IF the officer had taken his name, date of birth, address, etc....he could have 'run it' (which is his job) and quickly determined that the man was NOT "a felon in possession of a gun". Lacking clear evidence or reasonable suspicion otherwise, the officer(s) is/are duty bound to assume no laws have been broken.

The attempt to erase the recorded altercation speaks volumes...and tells us just about everything we need to know about these cops. I stand behind law enforcement every way that I can, but this was ignorance of the law (at best), abuse of power...at worst.

Needs to be corrected.
 
Top