Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Would Require You to Identify Yourself At All Times[TX]
WOAI ^ | 16 Apr 2009 | Jim Forsyth

Posted on 04/20/2009 7:53:50 AM PDT by BGHater

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 last
To: MamaTexan
There is also a legion that are okay with checkpoints, breathalyzers and a host of other infringements.

Its for the safety of our children. /s

I hear that right HERE on FR sadly sometimes ...

121 posted on 04/20/2009 2:40:52 PM PDT by 08bil98z24 (War on Drug supporters are enemies of the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“There’s a legal term called presumption of guilt before establishment of legal fact. The law can only arrest you if you HAVE done something. Allowing them arrest you for what they perceive you MIGHT do makes criminals of us all.”

Are you familiar with the term “Terry stop,” meaning a temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion? It happens all the time, by necessity.

For example, say you are a store owner, and you get robbed. You call the police and describe the robber as “white male, about 6 foot, wearing blue jeans and a red shirt.” [Did you like my PC example?]

Ten minutes later, a cop sees a white male matching that description, running in a direction away from your store. The cop may temporarily detain that person. This is a “Terry stop.” The detention can not be for a longer time than what is necessary to do a quick investigation—say, look around the area to see if this person hid things stolen from your store. Currently, under Texas law the cop can’t require this person, who has been temporarily detained under reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, to give his name.

The Supreme Court in Hiibel clarified that the 4th Amendment allows a state to have a law requiring a person who is the subject of a Terry stop to give his name. That’s all that Partick’s bill does.


122 posted on 04/20/2009 3:01:59 PM PDT by Stat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

>>What about the passenger? Is he required to show id?<<

Excellent point - so this law would have an effect even on people in cars.


123 posted on 04/20/2009 3:02:27 PM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP; ValerieTexas; txhurl; DrewsDad; HiJinx; SwinneySwitch; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; Xenalyte; ..

I haven’t had time to look at replies, but have you seen this?


124 posted on 04/20/2009 5:16:36 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (It took almost 250 years to make the USA great and 30 days for "The Failure" BO to tear it down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Haven’t seen anything about it in our paper, but I don’t like
anything about it. Had to be DIMs who thought this one up...
at the behest of their Master in the white house, I’m sure!


125 posted on 04/20/2009 5:40:02 PM PDT by luvie (Zero is dumb as a rock (dangerously so))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: BGHater; EdReform; Arrowhead1952; Fiddlstix; Squantos; Clinger; GeronL; Billie; Slyfox; ...

A big Texas & General Interest Ping! Ping! Ping!


126 posted on 04/20/2009 7:48:42 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (2008: The year the Media died. --Sean Hannity, regarding Barack HUSSEIN ObaMao's treatment ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

dang. I thought Dan Patrick was a good one... this has me mad.


127 posted on 04/20/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by GeronL (TYRANNY SENTINEL. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert

Did they (Law Enforcement) make a visual search of your vehicle??? I.E. - pear inside without opening a door???

Or did they ask you permission to take a look inside???

You can refuse a search of your person or your property...But be ready for the ride of your life...

I’d never say the word “yes” or “no” to that question...

“I do not concent to a search of my person of property, am I free to go?” (that’s all the stand you need to make, the rest will be up to them)

Of course at which time you may certainly be detained illegally, and the burden will still be on you to either capitulate, or they get tired of waiting on their side to support their illegality...And you’ll be on your way...

Just remember it will be a while...

I personally don’t like to be an a$$ about this with Law Enforcement, and we know some areas around the country are better than others, so all of this kinda depends on where you are...

Just remember, there are very few encounters of this nature that are not taped (recorded)...

Be careful what and how you say things...

Just my opinion...


128 posted on 04/20/2009 8:03:01 PM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

I’m still scratching my head on this one...

I agree with you though...

I believe the article is not stating the truth, or whole truth...

This has to be something along the lines of encapsulating a state position on ILLEGAL (law breaking) invading immigrants who do need to feel the pinch from something like this...

Anyway the media can throw a wet rag on something like this, they will do...

It’s not the first time, it won’t be the last...

People like us who do know Dan Patrick personally know this is being tossed out for general consumption based upon shoddy reporting, and other political crapola that does make sense to some (opposite of our political positions) in the long run...


129 posted on 04/20/2009 8:09:20 PM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

Thanks for the ping!


130 posted on 04/20/2009 9:38:28 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
Thanks Meek. From reading this article, one might be led to believe a lawman could ask anybody for their "papers" any time, any where. If this is the same bill it doesn't exactly say that S.B. No. 1175:

 
  By: Patrick  S.B. No. 1175
         (In the Senate - Filed February 26, 2009; March 13, 2009,
  read first time and referred to Committee on Criminal Justice;
  April 8, 2009, reported favorably by the following vote:  Yeas 4,
  Nays 1; April 8, 2009, sent to printer.)
 
 
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
 
AN ACT
 
  relating to the prosecution of the offense of failure to identify.
         BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
         SECTION 1.  Subsection (a), Section 38.02, Penal Code, is
  amended to read as follows:
         (a)  A person commits an offense if the person [he]
  intentionally refuses to give the person's [his] name, residence
  address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
               (1)  lawfully arrested or lawfully detained the person; 
  and
               (2)  requested the information.
         SECTION 2.  The change in law made by this Act applies only
  to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.  
  An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
  covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the
  former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
  this section, an offense is committed before the effective date of
  this Act if any element of the offense occurs before that date.
         SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.
 
  * * * * *

131 posted on 04/20/2009 10:05:54 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST. Have I missed anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Why not just implant everyone with a computer chip so everyone is "under control."

Don't worry- that will be here shortly.

132 posted on 04/21/2009 12:25:44 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Imagine if someone in our founder's day had decided people should be required to have a license in order to ride a horse? It is unthinkable.

OTOH, if you were riding a horse and lost control of it the horse didn't have a tendency to cause thousands of dollars of damage to someone else's property along with severe injury and/or death to others.

133 posted on 04/21/2009 10:32:03 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Well, imagine if they had required a license in order to own a gun.


134 posted on 04/21/2009 12:35:01 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret

Ping! You might get on MeekOne’s ping list if you aren’t already


135 posted on 04/21/2009 2:58:11 PM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson