HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- Have a search and seizure question in mind?
Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR.
🚨 www.bluetogold.com/show
bluetogold.com/trainings/?att...
If you like this video, don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel for more legal updates!
--
Blue to Gold Training:
➜ Class Schedules - www.bluetogold.com/trainings
➜ On-demand Training - university.bluetogold.com/
➜ Free Legal Training Webinar - bluetogold.com/trainings/?att...
➜ Book Store and Training Materials - www.bluetogold.com/store
CONNECT WITH US:
🌍 Facebook - / bluetogold
📸 Instagram - / bluetogold
🐦 Twitter - / bluetogold
🎥 TikTok - www.tiktok.com/bluetogoldtrai...
💌 LinkedIn - / blue. .
#LawEnforcementTraining #PoliceTraining #LegalEducation
Texas Penal Code § 38.02 says no one in Texas has to provide ID unless they are arrested (NOT detained.... ARRESTED!) (or driving having commited a traffic infraction), why would that education code you cited over-ride 3802? And why didn't you mention or know about 3802?
There is an alternative truth these days.
This is another exception to that. Just as transportation code also requires drivers to ID per request of an officer (which 38.02 copied in the last legislative session)
This is not an exception.
You can ask them to leave, you can not compell them to ID.
You cant even make them ID to fill out a criminal trespass warning.
If they refuse to leave, then you can arrest for tresspass, citing that they could have proven they had a right to remain but chose not to. Once arrested for tresspass you can then demand ID. Then and only then can you cite for fail to ID. @jeremyostv4589
did you not read " may be required to provide ID..." Then a person is not required. But a cop would likely take that as a reason to escalate and continue the hassle.
Lmao, sorry if your subscriber/ asking officer, is from our lady of the lake university in Bexar county.
He already got his answer from a judge who dismissed the fail to ID charge.
The authority to remove people who refuse to ID is not authority to arrest them for failing to ID. You hit it on the head. This is a trespass issue.
I bet it was the same officer who felt he could mandate ID to fill out his trespass warning.
What if they "leave the property" by simple expedient of stepping onto the public sidewalk adjacent to the public roadway, maintained by city, county or state that runs through every campus I've ever seen?
An officer has authority to only detain and then demand ID on reasonable suspicion of a violation of law. In a plurality of states, there must first be a valid arrest to support the demand. Assuming the college somehow delegated authority to the police to kick undesirables off campus, i.e., a nonstudent, or other person not having reason to be on campus, how is an officer to have a reasonable basis for knowing a person is "undesirable", much less stopping, demanding ID or explanation, or arresting. Many students wander campuses without books, maybe no more than a notepad or laptop, or just their memory. I hate people with such exquisite memory to pull that off. Further, other people may well transit from one area of the campus to another, e.g. from a dorm to a sports court, college arboretum, dining hall or any other of a myriad of places. So, while the officer may be able to see reasons to suppose an individual is a student, a vendor, an academic, hungry person or whatever, just as commonly, there will be many who have no immediately discernable characteristic revealing their status or purpose for being on campus. Thus, this begs the question of how an officer would generally be possessed of information supporting any suspicion re that person's "legitimacy". The officer may often get an answer to this question from a casual inquiry. But short of that, e.g. from a guy late to a date with a coed cross campus, or one just not having it with such intrusiveness questions, how would the officer be possessed of any Constitutional support for exercising his police powers by detaining the person, demanding ID or acting in such ignorance to remove the person from campus.
Besides that, while the college could kick one off campus (trespass them) for any number of reasons, where the college seeks to delegate authority to a police agency to "trespass" someone who looks "undesirable", doesn't due process kick in to require that police action on such a delegation not be so vague as to essentially allow the police to act with unfettered discretion, e.g. to kick off campus people at the officer's unconstrained discretion. Doesn't this suggest the attempt to delegate such unfettered discretion is invalid as conferring authority so vague as to deny persons approached and so demanded by the police of due process?
We would have campuses full of hobos if laws of this nature were absent.
I submit that they already are filled with tent-dwelling hoboes, bums and punks.
Actually, incorrect, as you can’t control public property (deny the use by others), which a homeless encampment would do.