Failure to ID after being Stopped for No Violation in Texas

50 Comments

I saw this in November or December but did not have time to write on it at the time.  It appears to involve an individual named Collin Rector of Springtown, Texas.*  Springtown is on the border of Wise and Parker counties, just to the west and north of Fort Worth, on Texas 199 (the Jacksboro Highway of John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers fame).  Anyway, Collin and his two buddies got pulled over by an officer of the Weatherford Police Department for “driving slow” and the front seat passenger asks if that’s a violation.

The officer answers (at about 0:48) that it is not a violation, unless it is impeding traffic, which the officer then states that they were not doing.  Uh, officer, don’t you have to have reasonable suspicion to stop someone and detain them?†  So when the passenger starts to ask the question about this, the officer twists off and says that it is against the law to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer (at 0:58).  Uh, no, it’s not against the law if they are not under arrest.  Tex. Penal Code § 38.02.  At 2:01, the officer threatens to take the two to jail for Fail to ID, at which point the driver shows his driver’s license.  The passenger refuses to identify himself, as is his right, and the idiot officer pulls him out of the car.

Then a female officer gets Rector’s name, and runs him for warrants, and officer idiot searches and obtains the front passenger’s identification.  The passenger continues to quiz the officer for the grounds that he is required to identify, and the officer continues to basically say because the law says so.  Then the officer tells the lad to go back and study what the law says because the officer is sure that the kid is wrong and he is right.  Nice, except for the fact that is not what the law says, and the passenger was stating it correctly.

Of course, it doesn’t help that Rector and the driver pulled the three forms of ID bullshit.  That’s sovereign citizen BS, and is not correct.  Most departments do have a requirement that officers identify themselves, but that’s policy, not law.

Weatherford PD is not accredited by CALEA.  You can contact their Chief, Mike Manning, at police@weatherfordtx.gov or at 817-598-4310 or Captain David Smith, at dsmith@weatherfordtx.gov or 817-598-4322.

*That is based on the fact that the YouTube account belongs to Collin Rector and the fact that the back seat passenger identifies himself by that name.

†You should note that an officer does not have to articulate his reasonable suspicion to the people he stopped (although that is normally best), and that driving slow is often an indicator of driving while intoxicated.  Even so, that would not allow the officer to demand ID from the passengers.

Advertisements

Finally, Officer Safety is Put in its Proper Place in a Police Magazine

17 Comments

In the January 2015 edition of Law and Order, a police management magazine, there is an article that not only the management should read, but that should be passed on to every officer.

The article, No “Officer Safety” Exception to the Constitution, Charles Huth, Jack Colwell, and Randy Means, Law and Order, Jan. 2015, is very clear that officer safety has gone too far.  They state:

“A number of law enforcement agencies are currently under fire for their patterns and practices of “stop and frisk.” This is only the present manifestation of what has been for decades a national epidemic of illegal police practices rationalized by the mantra “officer safety.” Frisks are not supposed to be the rule in Terry-type stops; the rule would be no frisk. The same is true for handcuffing subjects and placing them in the back of police cars.” Id.

Guys, this isn’t just me, an old, worn out street cop saying this by myself, these are well-respected leaders in the profession.  Huth is the past President of the National Law Enforcement Training Center* and a Captain with the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department.  After the Eric Garner death, Huth was on CBS News showing the difference between an arm-bar chokehold and the much safer lateral vascular neck restraint (LVNR).  Colwell retired from the KCMOPD after 29 years and is the co-author of Unleashing the Power of Unconditional Respect with Huth, a program for increasing officer connection with the community and decreasing confrontations.  Finally, Means is a partner at The Thomas & Means Law Firm, and has a long history as a police legal advisor, and risk management at the IACP.

The article is outstanding, pointing out that there is no officer safety exception in the U.S. Constitution.

“So, where does one find the officer safety exception to the Constitution? Generally speaking, it doesn’t exist. Generally, the rights of the people trump the rights of an officer to be guaranteed a safe outcome in dangerous situations.” Id. (emphasis added).

I don’t know how much clearer this can be said.  I can tell you that this is not the way that officers are being trained.  I can tell you that this is not the way that most officers on the street view it.  But these guys get it, and not only that, they train the people that train officers.  I’ll leave you with their words:

“If the choice is between feeling safer by violating someone’s Constitutional rights or taking calculated risks while honoring our oath, the pledge we made when our badges found their home on our chests  is supposed to win every time.”  Id.

 

*Originally founded by Jim Lindell, who developed the LVNR, weapon retention training, and is a pioneer in officer safety.

Round Rock Failure to ID – Follow Up

4 Comments

Back in July, I posted on a photographer being harassed and unlawfully detained by the Round Rock police.  The photographer subsequently filed a complaint with the department (which I covered in the update).

About a month after the original complaint, the photographer contacted the department again and was told that the investigation had been completed.

The investigator addressed three areas:  A complaint of a First Amendment violation; a complaint of a Fourth Amendment violation, and a complaint of Excessive Force.  The investigator made findings of unfounded, sustained, and exonerated.  This makes sense from their point of view, but ignores several issues.

First, the officers did violate the photographer’s Fourth Amendment rights and the investigator properly sustained that complaint.  Sustained, in police lingo, means that it is a valid complaint and that the officer violated law or policy.  Here this is clear.  Officer Hernandez did not have reasonable suspicion of a crime or criminal activity, yet demanded identification and handcuffed the photographer.  The photographer was illegally seized by the officer.

Second, I disagree on the excessive force, but I understand how the investigator got to that conclusion.  The only way to change that position would be to sue the department, and you are looking at a lot of expense for limited returns given the de minimus nature of any injury.  Exonerated means that the officer did the actions complained of, but that they were within policy.  Here, the department likely believes that mere handcuffs are not a use of force and the matter is adequately covered by the Fourth Amendment violation.

Unfortunately, that is not, in my opinion, a correct view.  The use of handcuffs is a use of force and that is recognized by the courts.  See Nargi v. State, 895 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1995), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 922 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  However, the federal Fifth Circuit has held that “[H]andcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to excessive force. There is no allegation here that [the officer] acted with malice.”  Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001).  Of course in Glenn, the officer was justified in using handcuffs.  I would argue that the fact that there was no justification for applying the handcuffs and then stating that they would stay on until the photographer identified himself was the “more” required by the Fifth Circuit.  But as I said, that would take court action to fix, and it’s not going to happen in this case.

Finally, on the First Amendment issue.  Technically the officer did not impede the photographer’s right to film, thus the unfounded finding.  That explanation ignores the fact that had it not been for the photography, there would have been no police contact to begin with, and no other violations.  However, this likely served to educate most of the department, especially with the finding that was made.

Apparently the punishment or disciplinary action was apparently limited to a letter of reprimand.

Under the circumstances, I think that this was appropriate for Officer Hernandez.  I don’t see that Sergeant Osborn had any action taken against him, however, that may be due to the fact that there was no complaint made against him.

Finally, I see no indication that the department even acknowledged that refusing to identify oneself while not under arrest is not a crime in Texas.

Judicial Application of the First Rule of Law Enforcement

3 Comments

At 2:45, Malone explains the First Rule of Law Enforcement which has been used ever since to justify increasingly arbitrary and abusive actions, all in the name of officer safety.

Most recently, two blawgers whom I really admire discussed the issue in separate blawg posts.  (For the uninitiated, a blawg is a “slang term used to describe an online blog that is written by lawyers, or one that is focused on providing legal-oriented content.” Blawg, Webopedia, http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/blawg.html, (Vangie Beal, ed., last viewed Oct. 10, 2014)).  For now, I don’t consider this a blawg as I am not a lawyer, but both U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf and N.Y. criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield write excellent blawgs, Judge Kopf at Hercules and the Umpire, and Mr. Greenfield at Simple Justice.

Mr. Greenfield has posted in the past about the First Rule, and he spoke about it again, at “Due Deference and the Vignette.”

Knowing that judges may have George Amos vignettes of their own, some police officers invoke his memory when there was no actual fear, to get away with conduct for improper purposes.  They play the judge. They lie. They justify it because they are the good guys, and the end justifies the means. They justify it because the mutt of a citizen deserves it anyway. They play the fear card because they can.

He has it exactly right, only it is not some officers, it is most officers.  For example, in the below video (at 2:10), the officer tells the person stopped that he needs to “put the phone down, it’s an officer safety issue.”

This is not an officer safety issue, it is a control issue with the officer.  She told the individual to stop doing something and he declined to do so.  She knows that it is not a weapon, she already identified it as a phone.  At 7:05, another officer arrives and makes it very clear that this is not an officer safety issue, it is a compliance and control issue, by informing the individual that when an officer tells you to do something and the individual doesn’t do it, it is obstruction.

In another example, from Baldwin v. State, 278 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), a deputy makes a stop of a person who he has reasonable suspicion may be committing or about to commit a burglary.  There is no doubt in my mind that from the facts the deputy does have reasonable suspicion, but Baldwin does not want to identify himself to the deputy.  So the deputy handcuffs Baldwin and searches him for his ID, claiming that he was in “fear of his life.”  Both the state district court and the court of appeals buy this story, and it is appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.†

The State argues that Deputy Smith handcuffed appellant based on “officer safety.” “Officer safety” is a legitimate purpose. However, the need for handcuffing and the threat to officer safety must not be imagined or objectively unreasonable under the particular circumstances. Nor may it be done simply because a citizen declines an officer’s request to see his identification.
Baldwin, 278 S.W.3d at 374 (J. Cochran, concurring).

There is way too much deference given to the deputy in this case by the trial court judge and the intermediate appellate court judges.  All of them accepted the deputy’s bullshit until the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Judge Kopf wrote an excellent post on what happens to one’s perspective when an officer is killed.  I understand completely what that type of event does to one’s perspective.  At the first police department I worked at, in a one year period, seven officers lost their lives in the line of duty, five to gunfire and two who were killed pursuing a stolen vehicle.  It made me very conscious of officer safety and of what I needed to do to survive.  I believe in the First Rule of Law Enforcement, but I also believe that our citizens have that same right to go home at the end of their day.  I believe that an officer who uses “officer safety” as a way to skirt constitutional requirements as to arrest, search, and seizure has overstepped and needs to be held to account.

At the very least, we suppress the illegally seized evidence and if necessary, let the defendant walk.  We don’t give the officer the benefit of the doubt merely due to his badge.

†In Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest appellate court for criminal cases, the state Supreme Court does not have criminal jurisdiction.

Abilene Police do not Understand Lawful Detention or Failure to Identify

4 Comments

This is a contact between officers of the Abilene Police Department and an individual who identifies himself as Bobby Ivester (at about 0:25).  Ivester is openly carrying a rifle, allows the officers to inspect the weapon, but declines to produce identification when the officer requests it at about 1:30 in the video.  The second officer explains to Ivester that he is being detained.

The reason for the detention?  “Because we got a call on you” (at 2:40).  Unfortunately, both Ivester and the officers do not understand Texas law.

Ivester is arguing that he is not being lawfully detained.  I disagree.  I believe that he is being lawfully detained (initially, at least).  The 911 call about a man with a gun, combined with the officers finding Ivester with an openly carried rifle, provides a reasonable suspicion that Ivester may be committing the offense of disorderly conduct.  See Tex. Pen. Code § 42.01(a)(8), displays a firearm in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.  Please note that I did not state that Ivester was committing that violation, clearly he was not, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the officers had reasonable suspicion to make the contact and detain Ivester.

Both Ivester and the officers are under the impression that if the police detain someone, that individual has to identify themselves to the officer.  That is simply incorrect.  Tex. Pen. Code § 38.02 is very clear, an offense is only committed if the detained person lies about who he is (or his date of birth or residence).  Refusing to provide identifying information is not an offense.

At about 5:20 in the video, the second officer grabs the camera and handcuffs Ivester.  At 6:55 in the video, an officer says that they don’t know what Ivester’s intent with the gun is.  That’s true.  It also doesn’t matter.  The officers are not allowed to presume that Ivester is a felon or otherwise unable to carry a rifle.  United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status).  The officers try this argument anyway, assuming that it is their “duty” to determine if Ivester has the right to carry the rifle.   Uh, guys–his right to carry is called the Second Amendment.

At this point, Ivester is being unlawfully detained.  The officers have already determined that Ivester was not committing the offense of disorderly conduct and are now just fishing for his identification to try and charge him with something else.  They have improperly extended the contact, see Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“once the original purpose for the stop is exhausted, police may not unnecessarily detain [individuals] solely in hopes of finding evidence of some other crime”).

If you disagreed with what the officer’s did, you can contact them at:

  • Chief Stan Standridge, stan.standridge@abilenetx.com, 325-676-6600
  • Assistant Chief Mike Perry, mike.perry@abilenetx.com, 325-676-6600 (over Uniformed Services)
  • Officer George Spindler, apdpio@abilenetx.com, 325-437-4529 (Public Information Officer)
  • Facebook; webpage

Related posts:

H/T:  Jim Morriss

The Last of Three Abusive Bridgeport, CT Officers Indicted

Comments Off on The Last of Three Abusive Bridgeport, CT Officers Indicted

In 2011 following a chase, Bridgeport, Connecticut Police Officers tased and arrested Orlando Lopez-Soto.  The two officers initially involved, Elson Morales and Joseph Lawlor, repeatedly kicked Lopez after he was laying flat on the ground, compliant.  They pleaded guilty to federal charges of deprivation of rights under the color of law, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 242.  Each face up to a year in prison.

Clive Higgins did not take the deal and was indicted for the violation with bodily injury.  He faces up to ten years in prison and pleaded not guilty.  He has been placed on unpaid suspension by his department, which recently settled with Lopez for $198,000.  Lopez is currently in prison on a 5-year sentence on drug and gun charges.

What is interesting in this case is that Higgins is being represented by a federal public defender.  Why isn’t he being represented by a union attorney?  I can think of two likely reasons, first, that he was not a member, in which case he is an idiot.  Second, that the union cut him loose, not wanting to defend him, in which case they are spineless.  There are, of course, other possibilities, so there may be a good explanation, but that is just my read on the situation.

In any event, all three are pretty much toast, and rightfully so.  While I do not have a problem with force when it is justified, unjustified force must be identified and prosecuted.

Round Rock Police Violate Photographer’s Civil Rights – UPDATED

14 Comments

Again, we have a case of police in Texas not understanding Tex. Pen. Code § 38.02, or the idea of lawful detention.

In this video, the photographer is taking pictures of the Round Rock, Texas Police station when he is approached by Officer Paul Hernandez who advises him he is being detained until he produces identification.  First, under Texas law, a person is not required to identify themselves unless they are under arrest, see § 38.02(a).  Officers are not allowed to demand identification without reasonable suspicion that the subject is involved in criminal activity, Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979); Wade v. State, 442 S.W.3d 661, 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).  Officer Hernandez stated (at 6:26, part I) that when asked to identify by an officer, refusal is a crime, which is not true.  A person being detained is under no obligation to identify themselves, see § 38.02(b).

“[W]hen they have no basis for reasonable suspicion, officers may ask questions . . . and request identification, ‘as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.'”  St. George v. State, 197 S.W.3d 806, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  Here they handcuffed and searched the photographer without any reasonable suspicion.

What is even worse is that after the supervisor gets there, the officers condition the photographer’s release on whether or not he’ll “cooperate” with the officers by providing identification (at 6:15, part II).  At 8:20 (part II), the photographer requests identifying information from the officers present and Sergeant Mike Osborn informs him that all he needs is the sergeant’s information.  That’s all well and good, but in all likelihood violates their own department policies.  The Round Rock PD is accredited by CALEA, and CALEA standard 22.2.7 requires that police employees identify themselves on request.  Additionally, the detention was unlawful, as was the demand for identification.

If you are concerned about this, you may contact the following:

  • Chief Allen Banks, abanks@roundrocktexas.gov, 512-218-5521.
  • Lieutenant Robert Rosenbusch, Internal Affairs, rrosenbusch@roundrocktexas.gov, 512-218-3262.
  • Lieutenant Larry Roberson, Accreditation Manager, lroberson@roundrocktexas.gov, 512-218-6614.
  • Sergeant Mike Osborn, Patrol, mosborn@roundrocktexas.gov, 512-671-2853.
  • Officer Paul Hernandez, Patrol, phernandez@roundrocktexas.gov.

If you are concerned about this from the accreditation standpoint, you may contact Stephen W. Mitchell, who is the Regional Program Manager for CALEA.  His number is 703-352-4225, ext. 29.

H/T: Carlos Miller & PINAC

UPDATE:

Picking up complaint form and filing complaint.

 

Older Entries

Turtle Talk

Indigenous Law and Policy Center Blog Michigan State University College of Law

take that, goliath.

just another day sitting next to the defendant

Hercules and the umpire.

THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS BLOG ENDED FOREVER ON JULY 9, 2015

Windypundit

Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, and whatever else comes to mind.

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.

A Public Defender's Blog, @normdeguerreesq

The Legal Satyricon

Occasionally irreverent thoughts on law, liberty, tech, and politics.

Legal Writing Prof Blog

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

LawProse

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

How Appealing

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

SCOTUSblog

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Real Lawyers

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

The Droid Lawyer

The Droid Lawyer -- Helping lawyers understand and use Android mobile tools and other Google products.

Say What?! Classic Courtroom Humor from Judge Jerry Buchmeyer

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Judge Bonnie Sudderth

Law Blog on the Texas Rules of Evidence

New York Personal Injury Law Blog

An attorney's blog on New York personal injury law, medical malpractice, the civil justice system and cases of interest.

Overlawyered

Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

Defending People

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Preaching to the choir

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Crime and Consequences Blog

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Koehler Law

Criminal and DUI Defense in Washington, D.C.

The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

The Volokh Conspiracy

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Trial Theory

A South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

Popehat

A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure

ExCop-Lawyer

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer