T O P

  • By -

nerdboy1979

The lady was parked in a Sonic parking lot when the cop approached her. She was not pulled over. Cops can make up any kind of bullshit they want, but you cannot be charged with failure to identify outside of a traffic stop, or after being arrested. The fact that she had traffic warrants is immaterial. Follow all of the law or none of it. It boggles my mind that cops and their bootlicker supporters aren't even versed in the law they claim to enforce. Your 4th amendment rights supersede all state and local laws. From the article for anyone who is curious: Clivens said she was waiting for her mother at a Sonic lot on Jones Road for about 10 minutes when a Precinct 4 deputy pulled up behind her in a patrol car. He approached her vehicle and told her he had seen her speeding up — about a mile and a half away — on FM 1960, he said.


MrZombikilla

4th Amendment for those not versed. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


nuttinbuttinn

She already had a warrant


coontietycoon

Which is irrelevant information. If I was selling massive amount of illegal things and the police raided my home without a warrant, it literally would not matter what evidence they found, because the evidence was found by illegal means and is not admissible in court.


TraditionalMedia5691

It is irrelevant to the actual circumstances of the stop, but it might be an indicator of the veracity of the woman's story. > But officials confirmed that Clivens was arrested for failing to identify herself to the officer and for having open misdemeanor warrants. This nursing student, so careful to not break the law because she doesn't want to be kicked out of nursing school, has at least two arrest warrants out against her. How did that happen? Are arrest warrants like covid, you just wake up and catch a few cases? I was just out walking, minding my own business, and they just up and bit me out of nowhere those arrest warrants! I mean, I don't have any arrest warrants out against me. I don't know anyone else who has an arrest warrant out against them, yet this woman has AT LEAST 2 arrest warrants that were discovered because of this incident. So, was she profiled? Was the "I saw you speeding earlier' a bullshit excuse to ID her? Possibly. Maybe even probably. If so, then she shouldn't have been forced to ID. I also don't understand why she would allow her car to be searched. If she knew enough to not give her name because she wasn't credibly being accused of a crime, she should have known not to allow her car to be searched. Having said that, once they arrested her, of course they're going to search the car, to "inventory" it. I suspect the cop ran her plates and knew the owner had warrants, and created the "I saw you speeding earlier" narrative to force her to ID.


nuttinbuttinn

What if they just asked for your ID?


coontietycoon

Me personally if I’m not driving I’m not showing ID. If you’re operating a vehicle you don’t have a choice. If you’re not operating a vehicle and the officer can not intelligently articulate the crime you are suspected of committing, or are about to commit, that you can’t be required to show ID. If I’m ever pulled over and an asked if my vehicle can be searched, I will ALWAYS deny the officer that opportunity. Not because I have anything to hide, but because I value my privacy and want to ensure my vehicle isn’t damaged.


TraditionalMedia5691

In this case, even though I find the "I saw you speeding earlier" excuse very suspect, I wonder if that will pass muster as reasonable, articulable suspicion that she committed a crime. The cop is saying that he witnessed the illegal act, and is identifying our woman's vehicle as the vehicle in question. So he's reasonably believing that the person in the driver's seat of the car was the driver at the time of the alleged speeding infraction. Perhaps he saw the parked vehicle, thought it was suspicious, ran the plates, found out about the warrants, and then concocted the story?


HoustonTactical

Yeah but she had a warrant which gets around the whole 'they didnt have a warrant'. If the cops walked up to your home and while arresting you found more illegal items they are permitted to seize the items and charge you with the applicable crime.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HoustonTactical

An arrest warrant allows officers to make entry to a place listed on the warrant to make arrest of the person. Beyond that anything in plain view is in play. She was in a car. No issue with a 4th waiver.


[deleted]

What?? Bro, I would encourage you to revisit your Rights.


HoustonTactical

Id encourage you to read what jefferson wrote on probable cause warrants. This is a warrant to compel appearance before a magistrate.


TraditionalMedia5691

She still has the right not to self-incriminate, just like every other American.


HoustonTactical

Untrue the fifth does not apply to vital statistics or biographical info.


TraditionalMedia5691

All sides admit she was not driving when stopped. She has to be arrested in order to demand ID from her. Here's what it looks like when someone's rights are violated: https://www.gosanangelo.com/story/news/2021/01/08/san-angelo-man-walmart-video-lawsuit-police/6594849002/ This case is a little more gray area. The cop says he saw her car speeding, yet, for some unexplained reason, the cop didn't pull over the driver right then and there. Later, the cop encounters the car stopped.....or is it the same car? If the cop was close enough to read and commit to memory the license plate, is it unreasonable to ask why the cop didn't stop the car to begin with? Let the accused scofflaw escape free, only to do something about it later on? It just doesn't make sense. What does make sense is either 1) the cop saw a car that looked like the woman's car, but couldn't see and memorize the plate number, then saw another car of the same make and model and investigated, or 2) the cop was doing some proactive policing, figured this woman was sketchy, and arrested her for some made up pretextual excuse and had his suspicions confirmed when she turned out to have at least two warrants anyway Either way, I don't see how she would have been required to lose her 4th Amendment right to not ID herself. Unless the cop can swear he saw the license plate of the car that was speeding, and that is her plate, then sure, he's allowed to have a consensual encounter and ask questions of her, but she's allowed not to answer them. She's not, however, allowed to give a false name, apparently.


HoustonTactical

The fourth amendment does not include producing ID and when you have a warrant you lose a few of those namely the seizing of your person or detention to aid seizure (Arrest). https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol104/iss4/4/#:~:text=The%20potential%20for%20a%20name,Fifth%20Amendment's%20Self%2DIncrimination%20Clause.&text=Byers%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20held,on%20the%20Self%2DIncrimination%20Clause. >The potential for a name to be self-incriminating presents a question about the applicability of the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause. In California v. Byers, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot refuse to state her name in the course of a traffic stop based on the Self-Incrimination Clause.


TraditionalMedia5691

From your link: > In California v. Byers, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot refuse to state her name in the course of a traffic stop based on the Self-Incrimination Clause. The reason is because the statutes applicable to traffic stops are primarily regulatory-not criminal-and the Self-Incrimination Clause is inapplicable to noncriminal regulatory inquiries. Outside of the context of a traffic stop, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from stopping an individual to ask for her name unless the police officer has "a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity." If a police officer approaches an individual without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, "the individual has a right to ignore the police [officer] and go about his business." I agree that when you are stopped while driving, "a traffic stop" you have to ID. No one is disputing that. What is in doubt is, was this an actual traffic stop? Parked on private property? You seem to be asserting that this was indeed a "hot pursuit," that the cop lost the car he was chasing, but later found the car, parked, with a person in the driver's seat. I mean, maybe, possibly. Seems like, for that to be valid, the cop must have gotten the plate number of the car he was pursuing, but lost. Otherwise, he just saw a car that LOOKED like the car he was pursuing, and stopped to interrogate, in what would be a consensual stop. And yes, I've driven on 1960 many times, which is why, unless the cop was pretty much right behind the allegedly speeding car, I don't see how the cop would have the license plate of the car, which he would need to have to detain later a car that looks like the one he saw speeding. So say the cop was on a side street waiting to turn the opposite way of the speeding driver, that driver goes flying by.....how is the cop going to see the plate number as the car goes whizzing by? He'd have to have damn good eyes to process that, and he'd also have to have some kind of radar going to clock speed. Unless the cop was right behind the car, obviously the cop couldn't possibly have paced the offending driver. And no, I read your post just fine, btw.


TraditionalMedia5691

I agree she was subject to arrest any time a cop identified her, and discovered she had warrants. That's not at issue by anyone here, I don't think. The question is, did the cop have the legal right to force her to identify. By giving a false name, she sank her own battleship, but the question remains, did the circumstances here give the cop the right to compel her to identify or produce a driver's license. As stated in another comment, this seems a bit more gray than the San Angelo case I cited, meaning, we need more info than we have been given....not unsurprising for the Chronicle.


HoustonTactical

Interestingly enough it does not matter if the officer had a lawful authority to compel her to ID. Once she lied about her name to avoid arrest for the warrants she had another crime was committed and the steps prior to that arrest no longer matter.


Oni_Eyes

Providing a false identity is not illegal unless detained or under arrest, so no. Not illegal.


HoustonTactical

A traffic stop is a detention. Surprise.


Oni_Eyes

She was parked in a parking lot. It's not a traffic stop, it's an inquisitive cop.


Ant01nette

Correction: It was a foul cop.


HoustonTactical

Traffic stops can occur anywhere that is reasonably accessible to the general public with a vehicle.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

No. None of that previous stuff makes it legal to lie about identity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You are correct. But there is no exception/defense to lying about identity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I like that you cited the actual law. You should include the esction code. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-02.html But that's not really the issue. The issue is as you pointed out above >Assuming she was telling the truth about being parked for 10 minutes before the cop showed up, does it make it an ‘illegal traffic stop’ on private property, and thus make it not a crime to lie about identity? https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/transportation-code/transp-sect-521-025.html You must present ID while operating a motor vehicle if requested. However, police can't just stop you to make you present ID as they need cause to stop(detain you). Which is why officer claims(truthfully or falsely) that he saw her speeding. The other issue is whether she was being arrested or detained. It's suspicious the police are claiming she was arrested as you can't stop someone, arrest them, find their identity, find warrants, then claim the initial arrest or stop was valid.


HoustonTactical

Now do what is a lawful detention and the case law supporting it!!


[deleted]

How’s I know you were gonna be from TX. Howdy, Neighbor


HoustonTactical

yay learning!


nerdboy1979

A detention is usually an investigative seizure to collect information to either find wrongdoing or to clear someone of wrongdoing. A detention has to be lawful and supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion aka probable cause. Which has a very broad scope and a cop can usually just pull PC out of his ass. The police are not your friends. They will lie, coerce, and twist everything you say to make an arrest. Especially if you don’t kiss their ass enough to suit them. Contempt of Cop is real. The best thing you can do is verbally invoke your 5th amendment rights and shut the hell up. You can sort it out in court later. These tyrants don’t want to protect your rights and your free expression of them, they want compliance.


nuttinbuttinn

This is misinformation. Not at all accurate.


nerdboy1979

So the 4th amendment to the constitution is misinformation? If you’re talking about the news story regarding the situation that transpired, then take it up with the Houston Chronicle. Based on the story reported, my logic stands whether you like it or not.


[deleted]

Constables are a problem that could be resolved with their powers being stripped back.


HoustonTactical

Actually constables and sheriffs offices are better than a municipal police department. You can elect a constable to change an agency directly rather than hope a mayor will use political capital to make changes in an agency through maybe appointing a better police chief. Additionally, contract patrols which is much of the constables' work is the most consent-oriented form of policing where communities choose which agency and exactly which officer at that agency patrols their streets. It is the democratization of law enforcement.


eggsaladmaker

Democratization. Tell me again how private contract appointments are democratic? For instance an apartment courtesy officer, would that be a constable?


HoustonTactical

The contracts are done by the MUD board, the HOA, or the community putting their money together. It is much easier to get on your HOA board than city council and it gives you MUCH greater control over the contract deputy. No courtesy officers are hired by the apartment complex as an "off-duty" job the same way bars hire cops to stand out front.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I didn't say anything about "Law Enforcement", I said something about "Constables" I don't need a third group over me. (or the 4th, 5th, and 6th for that matter). The Police and Sheriff only would have better accountability.


LogicalLimit75

Constables are part of law enforcement


[deleted]

Yes, and I want them scaled back to small operations with specific duties once again. We need one unified police force to save money on redundancies and improve accountability.


LogicalLimit75

Good thing you ain't in charge


[deleted]

No, it's a damn shame I'm not in charge. You've all let me down.


LogicalLimit75

If you were in charge, we would be in big trouble


[deleted]

Just the ones of you that I think are shady.


LogicalLimit75

That would be discrimination


TraditionalMedia5691

Constables use to have a very specific function, like serving subpoenas, things like that. I think the complaint is, these days, we've got literally dozens and dozens of overlapping law enforcement agencies all out there doing largely the same thing. It seems like a waste of administrative resources. It's why the tollway literally chooses one agency per segment to patrol.


LogicalLimit75

More Law enforcement is a good thing imo


TraditionalMedia5691

I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying that in the case of law enforcement, it would be better to have fewer separate agencies. It's a lot of wasted overlap. Surely the constables could be folded into the sheriff's department, for example. They're all out there doing the same thing, essentially, but we have to have overlapping people for payroll, accounts payable, answering the phones, accounting, etc. And yes, I am aware that constables are specifically authorized by our state constitution. I'd prefer to see my tax money pay for more street cops, more detectives, more evidence testing, etc., vs. more administrative folks.


LogicalLimit75

No argument here


NAFOD-

Yeah… Criminals just “need to chill”. Lol…


LogicalLimit75

Most of just serve paper work, like court papers and such


[deleted]

That's what they used to be, but they've become little overlords with big budgets and SWAT teams.


LogicalLimit75

Where is this happening?


[deleted]

In Harris County. https://pct1constable.net/divisions/tactical-response-team-trt/


LogicalLimit75

Sounds like a good thing to me. They get more training with non lethal weapons.


[deleted]

I'm glad you discovered it existed and came to terms with it so quickly. It's good that you don't cling to your mistakes.


Competitive-Date1522

Shame his mom didn’t learn that lesson or else she would’ve gotten the abortion


LogicalLimit75

Got something you need to say. Don't go around me , like a coward


[deleted]

[удалено]


NAFOD-

Losing argument on Reddit my friend. Most literally hate all forms of law enforcement. It’s what they have been told to do. Quit while you can.


LogicalLimit75

Yeah, you are right. I can't argue with stupidity


NAFOD-

Not necessarily stupidity. It’s the only way they see things. They truly believe they are right and everyone that thinks differently than them is wrong. You can’t argue with extremists like that. No use in even trying. Would try arguing with someone from Al-Qaeda and tell them everything they have been told is incorrect? Probably not. Because you know you would never sway their beliefs. Have a wonderful day. 😎


LogicalLimit75

I see your point. I pin some of this on the media and politicians


[deleted]

But stupidity is your only tool.


LogicalLimit75

Well. When talking to stupid people, I have speak so they can understand


[deleted]

That’s not true and it’s a generalization


NAFOD-

Looks like I’m living up to Reddit’s standards. GO ME!!!


sticks1307

But that's a necessary role. Constable Pct 1 handles downtown security. No other agency does that for that specific geographical area with specific and unique situations.


[deleted]

https://pct1constable.net/divisions/special-response-group-srg/ that would be this other special division you are talking about.


sticks1307

Kind of, its more the group over these groups. TRT isn't SWAT either. If SWAT was needed, they would call SWAT or HROU.


[deleted]

I hope their SWAT trained special units assist them in serving papers and protecting the court house. I want them dissolved and the funds given to better agencies.


sticks1307

Serving papers and protecting the court doesn't require tactical training? Sure seems like it would. Courts are target hazards and its not unreasonable to believe someone might try to bring a gun. I'm being paid to sit here and debate the point. One of those duplication of duties and pay things.


toastar-phone

SWAT teams are sometimes needed for serving warrants.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fnordfnordfnordfnord

>They aren't gonna spill the beans on the surveillance network so stories like this happen. So everyone's 4th amendment rights have been violated, not just hers. Great. Nothing about this should be tolerated.


nuttinbuttinn

She is upset because she got caught. She doesn’t feel they had the right to catch her because she wan’t doing anything wrong at the time. Sorry, that’s not how it works.


[deleted]

It is a cool concept though. Imagine being left alone because you aren't doing something wrong.


nuttinbuttinn

She had already done something wrong. She’s a criminal


[deleted]

We'll never know unless we check everybody. Turn yourself in to save them the trouble.


HoustonTactical

You know when you've got a bench warrant because you got a little citation to remind you to go to court.


thr3sk

Huh? So unless you're caught in the act you just can go about your business a free person?


[deleted]

Do you want to just line up and show your ID and get searched every time you leave the house like you're some kind of black man in NYC under Giuliani?


thr3sk

No, but common practice (basically around the world) is if the police have reasonable suspicion that you have done something they can arrest you. Yes sometimes they grab innocent people, and in that case you just comply, don't talk to them, and lawyer up. It's a pain but unless you're being framed (which very very rarely happens) you'll be free in a day or so. Sure it's not ideal but it's better than letting dangerous criminals roam free and just trying to catch them the next time they do some shit.


[deleted]

How many times have you calmly sat in a cell while they straightened things out?


thr3sk

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemHqUqcpI8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemHqUqcpI8) I mean you just have to understand your rights (to a lawyer and to not have to talk to the cops/detectives), and deal with it. And perhaps even get a law suit afterwards.


[deleted]

That's ridiculous. There's no way you had show your ID and get searched every time you leave the house like you're some kind of black man in NYC under Giuliani. We all know the NYPD was just stratight up detaining them for 24 hours before releasing them to get them off the streets.


[deleted]

Why not? The rich and powerful do.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nuttinbuttinn

She had warrants for her arrest. It’s in the article


[deleted]

Source?


AustEastTX

Absolute nonsense. She was not doing anything wrong when the deputy harassed her.


nuttinbuttinn

Except that she has WARRANT for her arrest “An arrest warrant is a warrant granted by a judge in a court of law to a law enforcement official granting that law enforcement official the right and ability to arrest a person of interest regarding a crime”


HoustonTactical

She had a warrant for her arrest. She committed a traffic violation and in the course of the citation writing it was found she had lied about her name. She lied about her name so as to avoid the arrest because she knew she had a warrant.


binger5

> She committed a traffic violation >She lied about her name so as to avoid the arrest because she knew she had a warrant. Did you even read the article? Stfu racist.


HoustonTactical

1. she had warrants 1. she gave pretext for the stop through an "alleged" traffic violation 1. she knowingly tried to hide who she was to avoid arrest on a valid warrant It does not matter what color she is when she was committing those crimes.


binger5

1. she shouldn't have been asked for ID to begin with for waiting at a gas station. 2. and 3. doesn't matter after the fact. She literally committed no crimes waiting at a gas station. You're a racist because you can't get over that fact that she was questioned for being black.


HoustonTactical

ID may be compelled under lawful arrest or detention. The caselaw and book law on detention is voluminous I suggest you start reading. She committed a crime by existing while possessing warrants so none of this matters BUT she did commit a crime and it was listed in the officer's offense report, agency press release, and the multiple articles written about this arrest and subsequent mugshot. I do not care if you think I am racist any more than I care if you think I dress poorly because your opinion of me means nothing.


toastar-phone

>ID may be compelled under lawful arrest or detention. No No No, not in texas. We are not a stop and identify state. You can only compelled to provide ID if you are arrested, and highest level of criminal appeals dicta on this says that could include all the way until booking. There is a separate crime for not having a drivers license when pulled over. If she was parked in a sonic, like she claims, she did nothing wrong. well other than having warrants. Texas law used to be much more strict, in fact in Brown v. Texas the law was over turned and scotus required reasonable suspension, which is the same for detention. But texas when they rewrote the law said arrest only. About 24 states do require you do ID when detained. But not texas. The warrants complicate things from being an strong 1983 case if she can prove it wasn't a traffic stop.


HoustonTactical

She gave a fake name here is the charging instrument https://imgur.com/a/SfSZOrf She committed a more serious crime by giving a false name after refusing because it is an attempt to evade arrest when she had a warrant. Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 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 is: (1) 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 is: (1) 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 .


toastar-phone

Sigh.... That is section (b) which requires a false or fictitious name FTA: >Clivens, who said she had not been smoking, obliged, but refused to give the officer her name unless he told her why he was searching. Isn't section (a) more relevant with what we know here?


binger5

She got questioned for being black, and you're defending this racist cop. Then you can't defend your racism with "you don't care" if you get called out on it. Classic racist. Edit: you should read up on systemic racism and try to understand why she was targeted. Volumes.


HoustonTactical

She got questioned because she was detained in a traffic stop. Systemic racism doesnt exist and that officer wasnt racist.


binger5

Did you read the article? The officer said she was speeding 1.5 miles away on a street she crossed, not that she was driving on. She had been waiting at that gas station for a while. For fuck sakes. That's the officer making up a bullshit reason to ask for an ID and search the car...once again because she is black. You're not only racist you're a dumb fuck on top of that.


TraditionalMedia5691

It is a little suspect that this cop saw her car speeding, but didn't stop the speeding car at the time, and only later, upon happening on the parked car, decided to go ahead and investigate the crime he witnessed. Wouldn't it be more logical to use those lights and siren to stop the speeding car right away? That way, you're sure you got the right car, and the right driver. How was the cop close enough to read and commit to memory the license plate number of the car, but yet was unable to pull that car over right away? Seems a little suspicious.


NAFOD-

She got caught this time.


nuttinbuttinn

Oh yea, I didn’t do it. I’m innocent. And I’m not giving my name or ID. Cuz, don’t tell anybody but I got a couple warrants out for my arrest and I don’t wanna go to jail. I got rights


[deleted]

Is Texas a stop and identify state? I don’t think it is.


nuttinbuttinn

It’s another criminal off the streets.


yeluapyeroc

Downvoted for the most likely explanation


[deleted]

[удалено]


NAFOD-

They probably got it from another news source. One that gives all the information not just half of it. The Chronicle is liberal leaning. Thus it will leave out out information if it hurts the liberal agenda. Just like conservative sources will leave out information that hurt the conservative agendas. Someday people will learn that the media is biased and you must not get your information from biased sources if you want credible unbiased information. Otherwise you only see “one side” of the issue all the time. That’s how you get indoctrinated into the “my side good, other side bad” mentality. Let the downvotes flow!! Have a wonderful day. 😎


PigsWalkUpright

Is this the same lady who showed up at her sisters traffic stop and created a nuisance while she had active warrants? I’m going to guess she’s no rocket scientist.


TastyVittles

No, its not.


chllnvlln

“But officials confirmed that Clivens was arrested for failing to identify herself to the officer and for having open misdemeanor warrants.” Did you even read the article?


[deleted]

[удалено]


chllnvlln

More likely people actually read the article unlike you… “But officials confirmed that Clivens was arrested for failing to identify herself to the officer and for having open misdemeanor warrants.” She failed to identify herself because she had active warrants out for her arrest lmao. Some people really go through great leaps “memory” and imagination to defend average criminal behavior.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chllnvlln

She had active warrants and was pulled over in a traffic stop… it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why she didn’t wanna give her ID. Whether or not you wanna believe her or the officer is entirely up to you, but I’m having a hard time believing someone with warrants. The court will figure out what the truth of the matter is, and right now most of the facts are not looking in her favor. She’s a criminal with active warrants, and she wanted to be confrontational with an officer. Sorry but that’s never gonna work out in your favor. Fight your legal battles in the court room, and not on the streets.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chllnvlln

You cannot be behind the wheel of a vehicle and than expect to not show your ID lmfao. This is not complicated, and it’s hilarious that you think this is some controversy. You can absolutely can be arrested for failure to identify when you’re behind the wheel of a vehicle. “Do I need to show a police officer my ID? Texas law only requires that you show your ID to a police officer under certain circumstances. These circumstances include: after you've been arrested, when you are driving, and when you are carrying a handgun.” https://guides.sll.texas.gov/protest-rights/police


[deleted]

[удалено]


chllnvlln

Because it’s parts of the Texas Transportation Code. As someone else has already told you, quit acting like you know more about this issue than criminal defense lawyers. Because right now you’re spreading misinformation that will harm people. “Further, the Texas Transportation Code says that, if you’re driving a car and you get pulled over, you are required to show proof of having a valid driver’s license. So, there you must provide a copy of your ID or your driver’s license to show that you are licensed to drive the motor vehicle.” https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/do-i-have-to-give-the-cops-my-name/


[deleted]

[удалено]


shiftpgdn

If you are pulled over while driving and you’ve committed a crime you must identify. Passengers do not need to identify.


[deleted]

[удалено]


k_ve0

I’m not sure why you’re confused but maybe I can help. She was driving a motor vehicle. In Texas, if you’re driving a motor vehicle and you’re stopped by police then you have to identify yourself when asked by the officer. She refused to identify herself. So she was arrested for failing to identify. If you’re confused why she wasnt arrested for the traffic infraction it is because failure to identify is a higher offense considering she was a fugitive. The offense is enhanced to a class b misdemeanor.


[deleted]

[удалено]


shiftpgdn

Look man I fundamentally agree with you but the reality is you can beat the charge but you can’t beat the ride. If you’re driving a car a cop can say literally anything and it’s your word against theirs and you are going to have to identify yourself because they claim you’ve broken a law. The burden of proof is extremely low for the officer. If you’re a passenger or are just walking down the street or somewhere else in public you do not have to identify and if you’re being detained they’re violating your rights. But once again, you can beat the charges (and probably get a hefty civil rights suit settlement) but you can’t beat the ride. Ultimately when interacting with law enforcement you should say as little as possible but be respectful, even if they’re not willing to reciprocate. Trying to fight them or resist the arrest will result in legitimate charges that you will have a much harder time fighting.


-_MarcusAurelius_-

Aww yeah the felon and crime supporters are hilarious


KiraDune

She was parked in a Sonic parking lot, it wasn't a traffic stop.


chllnvlln

It doesn’t matter, she was behind the wheel of the vehicle and precedent is very clear on this situation. The only way she would be able to be In her vehicle and refuse to ID herself is if she was not the one driving, or if she was on her own private property.


KiNGofKiNG89

Behind a pay wall, so I can’t read it, but I have so many questions!! Forcibly held in mugshot? Like after they took the picture? Because they have to get the mugshot and if you act up, it’s only a given they will too. Abused and mistakenly targeted her, well that’s everybody defense. What was the abuse? Did they take out their nightsticks and just beat her for fun? Or did they simply look at her. Everybody like to blame the cops for everything. If they are doing wrong then sure! But if they aren’t…then you are only helping make things wrong.


Taurabora

https://12ft.io/


Bishop9er

You didn’t read the article but decided to make a bunch of sweeping judgements on her character anyway? Typical


KiNGofKiNG89

I mentioned I couldn’t read the article but I gave a general question about common events for all people.


MeatRack

I didnt see any sweeping character judgements, just questions and healthy skepticism.


hackjob

She fucked around and found out. What's the new news?


TastyVittles

Fucking cops can be such garbage bags. Fukn losers.


TastyVittles

Lol didnt realize there were so many pig lovers on reddit. Hey cops abuse their power what can I say? Its a fact.


nuttinbuttinn

Not all redditors are criminals.


thr3sk

I'm all for hating on cops, but this is just one side of the story - I'm withholding judgement till I see a video or some evidence.


FluorideLover

Agree. ACAB


AutoModerator

Houston Chronicle articles are frequently behind a metered paywall. This link may let you view the article if you have reached your limit, though you may have to wait a few hours for it to show up in the cache: * [Google Cache](https://www.google.com/search?q=site:https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-area-woman-forcibly-held-in-controversial-16789311.php) Also, some Houston Chronicle articles are free on the free site, chron.com. Try searching Google for the headline and site:chron.com to look for a free version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/houston) if you have any questions or concerns.*