tvc184

Correct, a city can restrict the speed of EMS and blood banks. A city by ordinance cannot restrict the police or fire when responding to an emergency. They can restrict speed by policy though. The difference is that speeding can’t result in a citation by city ordinance. A person can be disciplined for violating policy… just can’t be given a ticket. A private EMS driver can be arrested for breaking a city ordinance speed limit.

Absolutely. In Texas under the Failure to Identify law, if only “detained” you don’t have to give any information. That is only required if under arrest. In some states if lawfully detained, a person is required to identify himself only with any other information protected under the Fifth Amendment. Meaning the Tenth Amendment looms large. Each state can enact its own laws as long as the law or right is not prohibited by the Constitution.

The right to remain silent in the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply to your name, address or date of birth.

Here is the short version. 1. If not under arrest, you don’t have to give any information including a name. 2. If you do give a name, DOB or address while not under arrest, only if false is it a crime. 3. If under arrest and only if under arrest are you required to give those three pieces of information. If you want the long version of why……. If an officer in Texas requests your name while you are being detained and you refuse to give it, you cannot be arrested for refusal to give your name or even saying anything. A couple of points however. If it is a detention only (a seizure under the Fourth Amendment) based on reasonable suspicion and not probable cause, the a person is not required to speak including the giving of a name, address or date of birth/DOB. If the person is under arrest then it is required to give name, address and DOB. Refusing at that point is an additional but misdemeanor crime (fine only). There is no law in Texas under the Failure to Identify law that requires a person to produce a physical ID. It is only required that the person gives the information to the officer. I have mentioned this before in other comments but there is a big difference legally between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. RS is enough information that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime “may have been “ committed and/or if the person detained “may have been” involved. PC is enough information that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime “has been” or is about to be committed and the person “was involved”. They are very close but the amount of information known to the officer is important. In the alarm example I gave, an alarm goes off at closed business early in the morning and a person is seen walking out of the alley from behind the business. The question becomes, would a reasonable person believe the person coming out from behind the business may have been involved in a crime since a burglar alarm went off? I think the answer is yes, making a detention lawful…. if a judge agrees. At that point the officer doesn’t even know (1) if there has been a crime (could be a false alarm) and (2) even if there had been, was this person be involved. So the officer can likely lawfully detain the person to check out the situation. That person in such a situation is not required to say anything including a name. The person is required to stop but that is all. A couple of other officers checked by and found that the burglar alarm appeared to be false. At that point, person detained must be immediately released. The officer has negated the lawful reason for the detention. Another easy example would be if a crime has been committed (robbery for example) and a description was put out on the police radio of a suspect. An officer in the area spots a person that fits the description and detains him. That would likely be seen as lawful under reasonable suspicion in my opinion. Being in the vicinity of a crime and fitting a description of the suspect will generally be held as a lawful detention. A description alone is not enough evidence to believe that person was involved so the description alone is likely only RS. Under probable cause, there would be enough information to believe that there had been a crime and that the person detained had committed that crime. The easiest example is a vehicle being driven on the road and the driver turns while not giving a signal. A turn signal is required so the officer has witnessed a crime. Nothing more is required lawfully to immediately arrest the person under PC. Another more involved example would be an officer on patrol at 2:00am and hears glass break at a nearby business. The officer drives to the business and arrived within a few seconds. The officer sees a man standing there with a hammer in his hand and broken glass at his feet. Would a reasonable person believe that the man just broke the glass? I would say yes and that is probable cause to arrest, not merely reasonable suspicion. Why is any of that important while discussing Failure to ID? As I mentioned earlier, only if a person is under arrest, is he required to give his name. So a cop detains a guy as being reasonably suspicious. The guy refuses to give his name and even laughs at the officer telling him, “I know the law and I don’t have to tell you”. That would be correct. But……. what if when the officer stopped the guy, he was walking in the roadway and there was a sidewalk. That is a crime. So the officer says, “You’re right, you only have to give me your name if you were under arrest. So… you are now under arrest for walking in the roadway where there is a sidewalk. Now, what is your name?”. If the police have nothing on you but reasonable suspicion, you can keep your mouth shut and not cooperate at all. If the officer has probable cause though…… Also note, while a person doesn’t have to identify himself unless under arrest, lying about a name, address or date of birth is a more serious crime. Even if you have never committed a crime and the police ask you to identify yourself as the witness in a crime and you lie about your name or your address or your date of birth… it carries up to 6 months in jail. If you aren’t going to tell the truth, keep your mouth shut. 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. (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (1) lawfully arrested the person; (2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. Notice that in (a) refusing to give the information it is only if under arrest. In (b) as a witness or lawfully detained or under arrest, it is a crime if you give a “fictitious” name, address or DOB.

You are lawfully stopped/detained by a police officer while walking (the main point is not driving). He asks you to identify yourself and you just look at him. You either say no or simply refuse to answer. He demands that you identify yourself but you continue to refuse. (without google ) Under the Texas law of Failure to Identify, if lawfully detained (example: in the alley behind a closed business at 2:00am where a burglar alarm just went off), when do you have to identify yourself? Or to make it easier, an officer lawfully stops you while you were walking down the sidewalk and demands your name but you refuse. What legal recourse does the officer have?

The police are not bound by speeding if on patrol, with patrol not being defined. Other emergency vehicles can be restricted in speed except the fire department en route to but not returning from an emergency. Sec. 545.365. SPEED LIMIT EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES; MUNICIPAL REGULATION. (a) The regulation of the speed of a vehicle under this subchapter does not apply to: (1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call; (2) a police patrol; or (3) a physician or ambulance responding to an emergency call. (b) A municipality by ordinance may regulate the speed of: (1) an ambulance; (2) an emergency medical services vehicle; or (3) an authorized vehicle operated by a blood or tissue bank. Notice also that a city by ordinance can regulate the speed of EMS/ambulance and blood and tissue (transplants) emergency vehicles but not fire going to an emergency or police while on patrol at any time. That doesn’t stop a police or fire department from having internal policy however and it doesn’t exempt the police from other more serious violations. For example if an officer is going over the speed limit while en route to a routine (not emergency) call for service, it is by law not “speeding”. If the officer recklessly runs a stop sign and kills someone, he can be charged.

In the same line of questions…. Fire Police EMS When not on any emergency calls (going back to the station, heading to eat lunch/donuts, etc ), do they have a speed limit?

That would be correct. It is officer discretion on how to respond to calls while considering the traffic conditions, the type of call like a break-in (burglary) and you want to be able to catch the suspect instead of warning him, etc. Other emergency vehicles such as fire department and EMS must comply with emergency equipment laws.

An officer is responding to an emergency call. The officer is speeding and then runs a stop sign but doesn’t use his emergency lights and/or siren. Is it lawful for a police officer to violate those traffic laws without using emergency equipment?

Thanks. I just came back from teaching at the citizen police academy.

Sometime citizens and even the police officers make mistakes about the law because they will look at a section and come to the conclusion that this law clearly says that a person is not guilty. True… But is there another law that applies? I was at an incident one time where a drunk had pulled into his or a relative’s yard. The guy then got ready to leave and drove on a circle driveway (it actually went around the house) and ran over a small child like 2-3 years old. I don’t remember if the child was critically injured or died. Since it was a major crime scene, I showed up as a sergeant/supervisor , along with my lieutenant/commander and a senior officer. They started talking about taking the guy into custody for a DWI and Intoxication Assault or potentially Intoxication Manslaughter if the child died. I shut that discussion down, saying that intoxicated driving laws don’t apply to a private yard. They went something like… Uh Oh, now what do we do, he didn’t violate the driving laws!! My answer was like, “Hey guys, forget the traffic laws”. Assault is intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing injury. I would say that driving over a child because you were too intoxicated to notice would definitely be reckless. Aggravated Assault is to commit an assault but uses a deadly weapon (vehicle) or causes serious bodily injury. This guy in my opinion committed Agg Assault both ways. The point is that just because one law may not have been violated, another law may have been broken.

There is no law that specifically says that you can only drive in the left most lane to pass… except where there are signs on some highways that state that the left lane is for passing only such as some areas of IH10 between Beaumont and Houston and Beaumont the Orange. However… There are a couple of laws that “may” be violated by driving in the far left lane. Such as: (b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. It doesn’t say that you can’t drive in the left lane. It basically says that you can’t obstruct traffic. Notice how it describes it. It doesn’t mention speed limits. I see a lot of people claim that if driving the speed limit, they can choose their lane. I think the law disagrees. For one thing, nowhere in Texas law does it give citizens the authority to enforce traffic laws. A person can’t obstruct traffic under his own assumed authority. Secondly, how does a person know that his speed is correct? Back to the wording of the law, notice that it says moving slower than the normal speed of other vehicles “at the time and place”. Obstructing traffic is what causes many accidents and probably road rage. Again, it doesn’t say anything about the speed limit. My explanation is, if people are passing you to the right, you are breaking the law and subject to arrest. Do officers use that option? Not very often as there are bigger fish to catch. So, if it is 2:00am and you are the only person driving in that area and driving in the left lane… there is no law against it (unless there is the aforementioned sign) since you aren’t driving slower than the traffic in that area… because there is none. If you were in the left lane, and they were people behind you, but you were steadily passing cars to the right, again there’s no law against that because you’re moving faster than the normal flow of traffic at that time in that location. I have never issued a citation for that but I have pulled people over for it. Hopefully, I scared them and cost them enough time that they will think before doing it again… But I doubt it. There is another law that says something about a highway with three or more lanes, you will not drive in the left lane. The traffic code is absolutely the hardest code to look up laws though and I don’t feel like digging that one out right now.

Here is the actual law: Sec. 545.061. DRIVING ON MULTIPLE-LANE ROADWAY. On a roadway divided into three or more lanes and providing for one-way movement of traffic, an operator entering a lane of traffic from a lane to the right shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle entering the same lane of traffic from a lane to the left. If 3 or more lanes (like my IH10 example) the right lane shall yield ROW to the entering the same traffic lane from the left.

Right has ROW at intersections. Left has ROW when vehicles are moving into the same lane.

The way I read your answer, you were correct. I asked…. “Is anyone at fault?” You answered…. “The one on the right” My answer said 3 that times that the vehicle to the left had the right of way. That makes the vehicle to the right at fault which was my question. Who has ROW? Left Who would then be at fault? Right

The vehicle on the left has the right of way. Speed is not an issue and vehicle on the right might be going faster. I know that I was sure passing cars in the far right lane this last Sunday while coming back from Houston If two vehicles are changing into the same lane, the one in the left has the right of way. I am assuming that it is because the driver on the right who is moving to his left, has a very clear look at the lanes whereas the driver in the left probably can’t see much of that center lane. Rationale aside, the law clearly says that the vehicle in the left has the right of way.

Two vehicles on IH-10 between Beaumont and Houston where there are three lanes in each direction. One car is in the far outside lane and the other car is in the far inside lane with the middle lane open. Both change lanes at the same time trying to get into the center lane and they collide. Is anyone at fault?

Yes, doing it for almost 40 years and teaching it for 30. Then it is interesting to me which is probably the most important. And always something new. New important court cases come up every year and Texas changes laws every other year.

In this actual situation the police stayed for many hours like into the second day. Any search beyond that for drugs in the original warrant, requires obtaining another warrant. I think that even had they stayed past the typical short time to do a drug search, a warrant would be necessary. The fact that they stayed many hours was not so much the issue but what they were looking for. Once the search for drugs ended, so does the authority of the warrant. The Fourth Amendment violation in this case was searching a home without a warrant for evidence in a murder and without exigent circumstances. The drug warrant was for drugs only. Anything randomly seen during the search for drugs (or anything else) on a valid warrant is admissible for evidence. For example if officers are lawfully looking for drugs and stumble upon a machine gun, that would then be a lawful piece of evidence. If however, the search warrant was for a machine gun only and the police opened a small jewelry box and found drugs, that would be an illegal search. There is no reasonable expectation that a machine gun would be in a small jewelry box. In this case looking for drugs would still be lawful but it would have to be reasonable. I have been on several search warrants for drugs and none took several hours. With the suspect gone (in custody and in the hospital), there was no more emergency. The only way for a valid search of a home without a warrant is with consent or an exigent (emergency) circumstance. With the scene secure, the exigency was gone. The state made the case in front of SCOTUS that once at a major crime scene, a warrant was not needed. SCOTUS disagreed in an 8-1 vote. The Fourth Amendment didn’t say… people have the right to be secure in their homes from an unreasonable search unless it is a major crime scene. Nope, a serious crime still needs a warrant. But…. Most major crime scenes are not inside of the suspect’s home. If a person kills a store clerk in a robbery (Capital Murder), a warrant at the major crime scene is not needed. Why one and not the other? Because inside of the home of the suspect is specifically protected by the Fourth Amendment, not a store. The suspect has no expectation of privacy inside of a store open to the public. It would be likewise if a person broke into your home to steal stuff (Burglary). The police would not need a warrant to search your home for fingerprints and other evidence because the burglar has no expectation of privacy inside of your home. His home? Absolutely. Your home? None whatsoever. The case is Mincey v. Arizona [Hidden Content]

The part of the law that I posted says that anyone has the lawful authority to make an arrest for a person stealing just as much as a police officer. So would a police officer be charged with Aggravated Robbery for chasing a suspect? Obviously the answer is no, as it would be for anyone else. The person chasing has no criminal responsibility whether a police officer, a random citizen or an employee or owner. Civil? I doubt it unless a reckless act by the person doing the chasing caused the injury. If a person jumps into a car to chase the suspect and hits someone else, certainly there is responsibility but no responsibility for the criminal act of the robbery. While on the subject of robberies, often what is called purse snatching results in a robbery. Words/phrases such as home invasion, carjacking, jaywalking, shoplifting, vandalism, disturbing the peace, etc. are not the actual names of crimes but colloquial terms used to describe crimes. Purse snatching is just a theft however when you combine assault and theft, you have Robbery. So if a person grabs a purse from someone and scratches the person on the arm, cause pain in any manner, etc., it just got elevated to Robbery or depending on age, Aggravated Robbery.

Let’s say the police have a lawful search warrant. They raid a home for drugs and get in a shootout with the owner. An officer is killed and the resident wounded but survives. The police who were lawfully inside of the home with a valid warrant are now inside of the home of a major crime scene. Would the police have to vacate the home where they are lawfully at and seek a different warrant or can they remain at the homicide scene where they lawfully made entry and now witnessed a capital murder?

CB was talking about people… not this country.

I never said an employee. I said “a person” chases the suspect. But legally it wouldn’t matter. This if from the Code of Criminal Procedure: Art. 18.16. PREVENTING CONSEQUENCES OF THEFT. Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the theft to a peace officer for that purpose. Any person has the authority to take a person into custody for stealing or to (as the law says) prevent the consequences of theft. Stealing the $1 candy bar carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine and no jail time. In try to flee the suspect recklessly injured a woman who was 75 years old. That brings the theft to an Aggravated Robbery which is a first degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of up to 99 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. You can bet that the police would make that arrest and the DA from my experience will go after those charges. If any person suffers an injury it is Robbery and up to 20 years in prison but if the injured person is 65 or older or handicapped, it uos it to Aggravated Robbery. I love the Facebook lawyers when a person will make a comment on the media sites like, my little cousin took a bag of chips and the police charged him with Robbery but he didn’t point a gun at anyone. Oh well…..

Another note on Robbery or Aggravated Robbery. Notice that the culpable mental state for causing injury can be as little as Recklessly, which not so coincidentally is the same as assault. Notice also that the definition of in the course of committing theft it includes the immediate flight from the attempted theft. So what if…… A guy steals a $1 candy bar and a person chases him. As the suspect runs out of the store, he shoves open the door and it hits a 75-year-old woman. She falls to the ground and gets a scratch on her elbow. What if the crime?

Of course where you asked, was a crime committed, I could have said “yes” and left a one word answer. 😂