Source: https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/failure-to-identify-properly-applied-and-another-sovereign-argument-down-the-tubes/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 13:54:04+00:00

Document:
Have to side with the officer here. If I understand correctly, a traffic ticket is essentially being arrested. They are just decent in not taking one to jail.
You’re right, in Texas it is the equivalent of being arrested and released on their own recognizance.
That’s one reason why it’s so important to contest tickets you think you don’t deserve (and not just in Texas).
Paying the ticket is pleading guilty to a (very minor) charge.
I understand the officer had reason to arrest once he did not produce ID , but is that covered under Failure to Identify or a different law? What language under the law covers this scenario?
As you know, Failure to ID states the person must ID if being arrested. Does being pulled over for a traffic offense constitute an arrest?
From what I understand and ExCop confirmed as such, when you are pulled over, you are arrested. The police are just decent enough not to drag you to Lew Sterrett for example. Therefore the identify statute applies as do the rules about having your license when you are driving.
It’s not exactly an arrest, at least at first. It’s an investigative detention — or so the theory goes. Reasonable suspicion is enough to pull someone over, but not (yet) enough for an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is an absurdly low standard of evidence, but at least something is required for it, which is why police pull people over for various minor infractions, not mere hunches or whims (or at least they’re not supposed to).
Once pulled over, presenting a license isn’t optional. Driving is a licensed activity, and you are required to present your license on demand. Refusing to present the license is probable cause that the driver is doing something illegal.
It’s only refusal to ID when arrested because ID is printed on the same card the license is and having refused to present the license, an arrest pretty much automatically follows.
Reasonable suspicion is enough to pull someone over, but if the officer has observed a traffic violation such as speeding it is no longer mere reasonable suspicion, but is probable cause.
Refusing to display a driver’s license at that point is a separate criminal offense that was committed in the officer’s presence.
The officer actually cut the guy a break, he could have charged him with the more serious fail to identify instead of refusing to display.
That was pretty funny. If you are going to argue the law, make sure you know what it actually is and what it actually means.The moron has a followup video, but I closed it after about 30 seconds, since he’s painful to listen to.
Yeah, I saw the followup and had the same reaction.
Where does his argument about the commercial-only thing come from?
As I understand it (not well, the reasoning makes my head hurt), the guy believes that driving is a right that is part of the right of freedom of movement and that having a driver’s license is only required when engaging in commercial/business activity.
Basically, he believes that driving a car is no different than walking, therefore he shouldn’t need a license to do so. Of course, the same Sovereign Citizen issues would apply to driving for a commercial purpose as well, for much the same reasons, so I can’t see how he can believe he would need a license for one sort of driving but not the other.
Do you have a cite, or is this merely Sovereign citizen BS?
As to the rest of your comments, I would strongly advise those reading them to realize that i.n.rem is a) wrong; and b) likely a sovereign or voluntarist loon.
Shouldn’t you do this, before making judgements about the Defendant ..??
§ 201.904. SPEED SIGNS. The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses). Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
§ 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing. (b) An operator: (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and (2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care. © An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if: (1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing; (2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve; (3) the operator is approaching a hill crest; (4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and (5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
OK. First, I’m not a potential attorney, I am an attorney who is admitted to the Bar of the State of Texas.
Second, Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 201.904 (Vernon) has been argued in the manner that you state–without success. SeeGarrison v. City of Wichita Falls, 204 F.3d 1114 (5th Cir. 1999) (not designated for publication) (dismissing appellant’s argument in their brief, 1999 WL 33644067), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1088 (2000); see also Arafiles v. State, No. 13–01–174–CR, 2002 WL 27311 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi, 2002) (not designated for publication). So that argument is useless. Nice try though.
Third, § 545.352 establishes that speed in excess of a posted speed limit is a prima facie violation which may be charged, with or without an accident. That falls under subdivision (a), with no requirement for an accident, although you may also charge based on an accident under subdivision (b).
“(4) “Police officer” means an officer authorized to direct traffic or arrest persons who violate traffic regulations.” § 541.002.
These are all arguments typically made by sovereign citizens. They are all invalid arguments, legally. If you are not a sovereign citizen, you are still making the same error that they do in these matters.
I wouldn’t give up your day job.
I am not a lawyer, but am reasonably smart, I think. I read 201.904 as tasking the “Department” with putting up signs for speed limits that apply only to commercial vehicles when those limits are different from the speeds deemed reasonable and prudent for non-commercial vehicles, ie cars.. We used to see those a lot, where there were signs that said Speed Limit 65 Trucks 60.
That’s pretty much the purpose, but the sovereigns take everything to a whole new level.
“So Richardson gets his window busted out and arrested for failure to display driver’s license.
Wrong. An order to roll down the window all the way is not a lawful order. The way it should work is that the officer was supposed to order the driver to exit the vehicle first, which is a lawful order. Then, if the driver does not comply with that lawful order the officer is justified in breaking the window to gain control of the suspect.
At 0:49 in the video, the officer warns the driver that if the driver does not provide his driver’s license, he will be arrested for failing to do so. That’s the first warning to the driver.
At 2:00, the officer gave the driver his second warning that he was going to be placed under arrest if he did not comply.
After the driver refused to comply with identifying himself, the officer told him to lower the window or it would be broken out, as part of the process to arrest him. The officer doesn’t have to ask please or beg, and he was much more patient than I would have been.
At no time did the officer order him out of the vehicle. Giving a clear order to exit the vehicle is not “asking please or begging.” In my opinion this was a clear case of unnecessary use of force and a poorly trained officer with very bad judgement. I understand that you have a different opinion.
The driver has already demonstrated he is unwilling to cooperate and has repeatedly refused lawful orders. The officer used only the force necessary to enter the vehicle and effect the arrest. I’m not going to sit through that again, but I believe the officer may have tried to open the door before he deployed his baton.
Ok. Explain this. On the 60 minute “Sov-cit” Alfred Adask interview, & trying to “cut to the chase here” the Chief of Police had a Son, also a policeman, who was killed along with Jerry Kane & his 16 year old Son in a shootout (<?). Anyway, the Chief SAYS, "IF my Son had known that Jerry Kane was a Sovereign Citizen, my Son would still be alive today." I am presuming this also means Jerry Kane & his Son would still be alive. Then what did the Chief mean when he made that Statement?
You’ll have to ask the Chief what he meant. I will not presume to answer for him.
The SC nut jobs don’t think that they are a “person” either. They’re wrong, but that’s what they think.
excop,maxim no1 says legality is not reality. A person is a legál fiction. Therefore,theoretically,the sc mob are right,they fall ať the first hurdle though by calling themselvres citizens. So simple that you would have to take a serios look at whos actually leading these folk so easily down the garden path.
Yeah, right. You’re on moderation. I don’t allow SC’s to put out incorrect information here.
My mistake then, and I apologize for reading it too quickly. I’ve taken you off moderation.
Notice, he wasn’t charged with “failure to identify” (why is the burden on me, anyway?) He was charged with failure to display a driver license. Either he had one but didn’t show it, or yet another misapplied charge- he can’t very well display something he hasn’t got. Or maybe he really wasn’t driving anyway.
Now that it’s 2015, let’s convert all identification into online, instant biometric scanning. You want to scan my prints and face by the side of the road, go for it. That’s actually far less intrusive that demanding pieces of plastic or arguing with me. Or smashing my car windows.
There are two separate charges he could have faced, either Failure to Identify, Tex. Pen. Code 38.02; or Fail to Display Driver’s License, Tex. Trans. Code 521.025. The officer cut him a break and charged him with the second, which is a class C offense, instead of the first, which was a more serious offense.
BTW, the fact that I leave a portion of your comment up in no way suggests agreement on my part.
it would have been a stretch to charge “failure to identify”. considering he must have had a license in the first place, for getting a “fail to display”, which only applies to licensees anyway. They probably identified by the license. And he wasn’t charged for “no license”, so he probably had one.
civil liberties and social respect in a democratic society are directly relevant. no cop in western europe would smash a car window in anyone’s face, they’re sometimes afraid to even draw their guns. that’s how it’s supposed to be.
LOL, really? Have you ever talked to European cops? They are much less hesitant to use force than we are over here. For one thing, you can’t really sue them. For another, they are more than happy to bust a window to pull someone out.
Speaking of European policemen – watch how quickly this officer in England deploys his pepper spray. No hesitation.
Actually, the UK officer gave the order, “get down on the floor,” 4 times before using the pepper spray. The US officer in this video did not order the driver to exit the vehicle before breaking the window and risking injury. Not once. Hopefully this US officer will conduct himself properly and give lawful orders before resorting to force next time.

References: § 201
 § 1

§ 545
 § 1
 § 30
 § 201
 v. 
 v. 
 § 545
 § 541