BROWN v. TEXAS - 1979 - The Re-birth of Texas Penal Code 38.02

To continue great content and keep us on the road please donate below

Copyright Disclaimer. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[ivermectin]

That Judge saying the 1st amendment argument is frivolous because he didn't speak is mind boggling. If you have a right to say something, you also have a right not to say it. Him implying that you do not have the right to not say something guts the 1st amendment because not only does it COMPEL you to say something, it also criminalizes the act of not speaking.

[boxie]

that is one of the best lawyers ever.
he makes them judges look a bit slow.

[bluduct]

This is the reason Texas was required to change the Penal Code 38.02 to Lawfully Arrested. 38.02 is now a secondary charge, one must be lawfully arrested for something else and then required to ID.

[RiptRome]

okay didn't think i would sit and listen to the whole hour... seemed like 15 mins wow guess i'm really into litigations. Ty for the post!

[fredshulmire]

This is something that everyone should listen to especially police officers

[albertaaardvark]

Fascinating to see how law is decided. Thanks for this SA!

[PabloDamon]

once upon a time, some corrupt lawyers got together and had a chat.

[reflect.]

30:03 - “He’s trying to help you”
Lewis Powell was savage right there. 🤣

[shfo]

A lot of assumptions happening here. These judges are clearly biased towards the police officers reasons for the arrest. Having a reason does not make it REASONABLE when it’s based on a presumption. What a joke.

[rabbitnz]

That was fascinating, thanks for the upload 👍.

[RevAD]

Says a person cannot give a false or fictitious name if they are detained. They still do not have to identify. If they choose to speak they cannot give a fake name if detained.

[bobbuilder]

Thank you Todd for putting this out there. As an Australian who has nowhere near the rights or freedoms you have, I actually found this entire whole hour really interesting.

If I was approached by police here and refused to ID, not only would I be beaten up, I'd also spend several weeks in prison before even being allowed to see a solicitor (Aussie for Lawyer). You should google Police Brutality in Australia.

[subgrappling]

What a fascinating listen...very interesting arguments made here. Thank you for sharing, Todd.

[CPTNEMO-zeip]

I love when people educate in this form I have reading and writing comprehension problems. So when I hear it orally I learn a lot better thank you for your help thank you for the education keep up the good work

[stmauditing]

Great share! Knowledge is power! Thanx! 👍

[Poordirtfarmer]

🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽😎👍💪I Always learn alot from you. Thanks 👍 again.

[plumbloko]

Thanks for the video SAEXTAZYPREZ!!! 👍👍👍🇺🇸☮️🇺🇸😎

[henryherrera]

Very interesting. Keep up the good work Todd. FTP 🚔

[danb]

Isnt that what the lawmakers are doing? Shotgunning laws that needs be clarified and disputed later on judiciously?

[NIXs]

Question @ 9:00 the answer is & should have always been YES the police cannot force people to identify themselves just for being a witness!!