TexasCHLforum.com

CHL/LEO wrote:

A LEO cannot just randomly walk up to a person, demand ID and do a Terry Search.

TXI - sure they can - it happens quite often. The key word you left out was "legally"

Caught in in my own peeve of word use. Yes, he can, but there is no LEGAL requirement to answer. ;)

srothstein wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: There is no charge in Texas of "failing to obey a lawful order".

Well, actually there is such a charge, sort of. But it is not in reference to what was under discussion. The proper charge is "Obedience required to police officers", which is the title of section 542.501 of the Transportation Code. It say

"A person may not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of:
(1) a police officer; or ..."

But what it is really referring to is a police officer directing traffic. I bring it up just to show where the language comes from about lawful order.

True, and that only applies to the operaters of motor vehicles (542.001). It is for traffic direction ONLY, as you pointed out. A LEO can direct you to proceed against a red light, direction of traffice, etc. Good Point.

airbornerangerboogie wrote:Quote:

Also, for a CHL holder, if asked for ID when you are carrying, you must display your driver license and CHL; and the officer can then disarm you.
yeppers, Peace Officer or Magistrate.

That doesn't seem right, if I'm legally carrying a firearm, say stopped for speeding or what, the LEO can take my firearm away from me without any reason?

No, he cannot without any reason. Here is the law;

Texas Government Code
§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.

As you can see, the matter is subjective.

Mage34 wrote:If a police officer asks you to do something, with in reason, I think it should be your civic duty to comply. (not talking about shining his shoes either) They have to put up with enough stuff from people without getting the run around from the law abiding as well.

The thread was not about what you should or should not do, the OP was asking about the law;

LedJedi wrote:What exactly does "lawful order" mean and where is the law that compels civilians to comply?

I am a former cop and STRONG supporter or the police. I agree with your assessment of what one SHOULD do.

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:An example; If I am smoking (I don't, but we'll pretend) in an area that is not illegal to smoke in, and a LEO orders me to put it out because he wants to talk to me, I don't have to and there is nothing he can charge me with if I don't.

Peace Officers in Texas do not have Parental Authority, and cannot make you do as they please simply because they say so. ;)

I understand that. I'll give you some examples of what I'm talking about:

I was walking past a traffic stop once, in daylight. The driver opened the car door. The cop, still in his car, used the loudspeaker to say, "Stay in the car." The citizen continued to get out, and the cop repeated the order more emphatically. The citizen got back in.

There is no legal action that be be taken against a person who gets out when told to staty in. Refusing to obey will cause the officer to take his suspicioun of harmful intent by the operator up a notch, and the officer will then change tactics accordingly.

Stopping to watch some kind of incident, the police often say something like, "Please move along." Citizens who disobey that order and take photos often find themselves arrested for something. They probably are not convicted of a charge in the long run, but they are arrested.

Unless your watching or photographing constitutes interference, it would be an unlawful arrest and expose the officer to Federal Civil Rights violations charges.

Crossing police lines at a public event where some space has been roped off, for example, the mayor's reviewing stand. Busted.

There are state and city laws regarding crossing barracades, yes.

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Basically, when an officer tells you to stop, you are under arrest and must do anything lawful that he tells you.

Not true at all. I do not have to comply with a peace officer if I am placed under arrest other than to not resist the arrest or try to escape.

I'm talking about orders such as "get out of the car," "keep your hands in front of you," "put your hands behind your back," etc.

Isn't the arrestee obligated to do what the officer says in those cases?

I'm not talking about orders to polish the officers shoes.

OMGosh, I nearly spit coffee out on the screen. LOL

I don't see any penal code violation for a person who refuses to do those things. Note I wrote PENAL violations. A person who refuses IS going to have consequences, just no criminal charges. ;)

I suppose a person arrested and refusing to get out of the car could be charged with resisting, but FORCE is an element of resisting.

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:An officer can ask to speak with you in a public place without making an arrest. You are compelled to identify yourself if asked, but nothing else.

Again, not true. There is only one instance when a person must identify himself, and that is when arrested. (not counting, of course, when involved in activities requiring licensing

I'm sorry my statement was inaccurate. Most of the people reading this forum are going to encounter the police while driving and be compelled to show their driver license, and CHL if carrying.

When police stop people on foot in a public place, some suspicion already exists, as in the case of Mr. Terry. (I forget which state that occured in.)

Twas Terry V Ohio. And again, reasonable and articulable suspicion must be present.

txinvestigator wrote:There is no charge in Texas of "failing to obey a lawful order".

From what I've read in various accounts, in Texas, people who refuse to obey a peace officer end up charged with interfering with official duties or resisting arrest. Of course, to be resisting arrest, the person must have done something warranting arrest. The newspapers are usually fuzzy on the details.

- Jim

An example; If I am smoking (I don't, but we'll pretend) in an area that is not illegal to smoke in, and a LEO orders me to put it out because he wants to talk to me, I don't have to and there is nothing he can charge me with if I don't.

Peace Officers in Texas do not have Parental Authority, and cannot make you do as they please simply because they say so. ;)

seamusTX wrote:That's a hugely complicated topic and I don't know all the answers.

Basically, when an officer tells you to stop, you are under arrest and must do anything lawful that he tells you. That power is given by Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/cr.toc.htm

Not true at all. I do not have to comply with a peace officer if I am placed under arrest other than to not resist the arrest or try to escape. I also must give my name, address and DOB if I am arrested, but that comes under the penal code.


And Peace Officers can only arrest for offenses committed within their view, felonies upon probable cause, and persons found in suspicious places and persons under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony, violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, breach of the peace, or offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws, and certain family violence violations.

There has been much case law on the last section, and it cannot be used as a fishing expedition.

There are other times officers can detain you when you are not under arrest.

An officer can ask to speak with you in a public place without making an arrest. You are compelled to identify yourself if asked, but nothing else.

Again, not true. There is only one instance when a person must identify himself, and that is when arrested. (not counting, of course, when involved in activities requiring licensing like operating a motor vehicle, hunting/fishing, carry a handgun under a CHL, while acting as a security officer, etc).

There are times when it is illegal to falsely identify yourself, like when you have been lawfully detained or the LEO has good cause to believe you are a witness to a crime. However, in those two instances there is no law requiring that you identify.

Texas Penal Code § 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.

He can at that time search you for weapons. That is called a Terry stop.

Sort of. A Terry search requires articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. A LEO cannot just randomly walk up to a person, demand ID and do a Terry Search.

From FINDLAW;

The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to ''specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,'' would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a ''frisk'' was required. 11 Inasmuch as the conduct witnessed by the policeman reasonably led him to believe that an armed robbery was in prospect, he was as reasonably led to believe that the men were armed and probably dangerous and that his safety required a ''frisk.'' Because the object of the ''frisk'' is the discovery of dangerous weapons, ''it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.'' 12 If, in the course of a weapons frisk, ''plain touch'' reveals presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, the officer may seize that object. Supp.3 The Court viewed the situation as analogous to that covered by the ''plain view'' doctrine: obvious contraband may be seized, but a search may not be expanded to determine whether an object is contraband. Supp.4

Also, for a CHL holder, if asked for ID when you are carrying, you must display your driver license and CHL; and the officer can then disarm you.

yeppers, Peace Officer or Magistrate.








There is no charge in Texas of "failing to obey a lawful order".

Here is a link to the Penal Laws regarding Obstructing Government Operation; http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... m#38.01.00


This is the closest we have in Texas;

Texas Penal Code
§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
law;
(2) a person who is employed to provide emergency
medical services including the transportation of ill or injured
persons while the person is performing that duty;
(3) a fire fighter, while the fire fighter is fighting
a fire or investigating the cause of a fire;
(4) an animal under the supervision of a peace
officer, corrections officer, or jailer, if the person knows the
animal is being used for law enforcement, corrections, prison or
jail security, or investigative purposes;
(5) the transmission of a communication over a
citizen's band radio channel, the purpose of which communication is
to inform or inquire about an emergency; or
(6) an officer with responsibility for animal control
in a county or municipality, while the officer is performing a duty
or exercising authority imposed or granted under Chapter 821 or
822, Health and Safety Code.