implied consent law are different in but most have it
they check and complet an investigation of you if pulled over... if you are not complied to the investigation they can detain and further the investigation
plus they need to see if are even legal to drive.... a driving is not a right it is a privilege
ffs, i could on... i happen to know very much about this
Also, in Texas, if a law enforcement officer turns on his emergency lights and pulls you over, you are, at that point, under arrest and probable cause must exist for the officer to initiate the traffic stop.
that is pretty much it, under investigation you need to identify yourself
there is so many reasons for it. warrants, bad licensee, drugs etc
now they even have instant search warrants from a judge, where then you are fucked.
I posted the law. No where does it suggest that being "under investigation" requires you to ID yourself. The law specifically states, "under lawful arrest". Further, the artcle here says exactly that same thing. Lawful arrest. Unless you are under arrest, you are not required to ID. Plain and simple. You are under arrest when you are pulled over, which then requires an ID, and I can show you the Texas Transportation Code that says exactly that, if you want.
Show me the law that suggests otherwise.
"Driving" is a commercial act (transportation) and is licenced.
Any time you're engaged in a licensed act, you can be required to furnish proof of licensure.
That has nothing to do with "being under investigation" or a requirement of private citizens to ID.
(post is archived)