TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayar ... 614093.php

Apparently this guy enjoys being arrested.

But my question, did he break any laws?

The last time I was photographing on a public sidewalk and a police officer asked me my name, I immediately told him and was not arrested. I don't remember if he asked afterwards for an ID, but I am sure I would have shown that to him as well. As I do not enjoy being arrested.

I didn't think simple failure to identify was a crime.

You chose to identify, but legally were under no obligation to. All to often police here in Texas believe you do and several have arrested people under the failing to ID law, which is not justification for arrest, because you must only provide identification after being lawfully being arrested. This of course is assuming the gentleman was standing on public property and not breaking any laws otherwise. Since they confiscated the video, I'm sure we won't get to see his side of the incident.

Wonder if the officer was wearing any type of bodycam ?

Sec. 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.

This is the offense for failing to give ID. However, it only applies after someone is under arrest. It's often abused by law enforcement who may not understand what the law really says. There is a lot of Texas case law reflecting it.

TVegas wrote:Sec. 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.

This is the offense for failing to give ID. However, it only applies after someone is under arrest. It's often abused by law enforcement who may not understand what the law really says. There is a lot of Texas case law reflecting it.

That was what I was referring to.

puma guy wrote:I didn't think simple failure to identify was a crime.

It's not but doing so after taking pictures thru a secured gate of police officers license plates will likely result in some charge and I'm OK with that.

The law requires that you give your name, residence and date of birth to an officer who has arrested you, upon request. It does not require "ID."

JALLEN wrote:The law requires that you give your name, residence and date of birth to an officer who has arrested you, upon request. It does not require "ID."

True, it does not explicitly require ID, but identifying your name, address, and date of birth Is what ID is for. If an officer asks for your ID once you are arrested, they are asking for the information it contains. Refusing to provide the ID is refusing to provide the other information (unless you do actually provide that information in some other way)

TVegas wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The law requires that you give your name, residence and date of birth to an officer who has arrested you, upon request. It does not require "ID."

True, it does not explicitly require ID, but identifying your name, address, and date of birth Is what ID is for. If an officer asks for your ID once you are arrested, they are asking for the information it contains. Refusing to provide the ID is refusing to provide the other information (unless you do actually provide that information in some other way)

Why not just state it? You aren't required to provide any other information, nor required to carry any document unless engaged in an activity requiring it and they might as well get used to believing you. If you are walking down the street, you need not have any paper or other identification on your person.

They want you to confess, too, but you don't have to.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote:I didn't think simple failure to identify was a crime.

It's not but doing so after taking pictures thru a secured gate of police officers license plates will likely result in some charge and I'm OK with that.

If his camera penetrated the plane of the gate it would be one thing if it was simply taking a picture of what is visible from the out side it would be pretty thin. The article mentions no reason for arrest other than fear of planning "future harm". This guy definitely likes to provoke reaction. I'll let the system sort this one out.

puma guy wrote:

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote:I didn't think simple failure to identify was a crime.

It's not but doing so after taking pictures thru a secured gate of police officers license plates will likely result in some charge and I'm OK with that.

If his camera penetrated the plane of the gate it would be one thing if it was simply taking a picture of what is visible from the out side it would be pretty thin. The article mentions no reason for arrest other than fear of planning "future harm". This guy definitely likes to provoke reaction. I'll let the system sort this one out.

Letting the system sort it out may cost the taxpayers some money.

"He never gave us any answer about why he was filming our Galveston station", said police spokesman Michael Gray.

SO WHAT?! I don't understand the need to antagonize police, but this kid did nothing wrong from the sound of it. Just because the police don't like what he is doing does not give them the right to ID him.

I'm usually on the side of the citizen in these I.D. stories especially when someone has not been arrested, but the police demand I.D. anyway.

As noted earlier in this thread, you can walk down the street without an I.D. and not have to give out personal information just because an LEO demands it.

That being said, in this current, national anti-LEO climate, espoused by groups like BLM, I'm on the side of LE.

Of course, they're concerned about 'future harm', though that description sounds somehow off to my ears. Kinda Sci-Fi sounding...

It also sounds like the guy (I'm not at all certain) was filming in a secured area, if so, the I.D. request/demand makes sense even if he was not at the time arrested.

I don't know what the Galveston laws are, but I have worked as a professional videography and film crew in the past. Many cities require a permit to film, even on public streets, for various reasons.

While this should not apply to a random citizen taking pictures, the usual criteria is whether you are using a tripod or not. If the city required a permit, this would give LEO sufficient reason to make an inquiry.

However, we all know that some LEOs like to question you regardless. For example, my brother's hobby is taking pictures of Texas county courthouses. Whenever he is traveling around the state, he makes a point to stop at the county seat. Once in East Texas, he was approached by a Deputy, who told him he could not take pictures. He was standing on a public sidewwalk. The Deputy was completely out of line of course, but did it anyway. This is one of the liberties the Patriot Act took away from us, by making innocent acts look suspicious.