Brown V. Texas (No. 77-6673)
I. Title: Brown v. Texas (No. 77-6673)
II. Type of Case:
a. This Supreme Court cases argues whether Brown (appellant) was validly convicted of refusing to comply with Police demands to stop and identify himself as it is a crime in the Texas Penal Code to deny identification on request when suspicion of crime has occurred. A violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a).
III. Facts: a. Officer Venegas and Officer Sotelo of the El Paso Police Department were on patrol when they spotted two males walking away from each other in a dark alley in an area of El Paso that has a high drug problem. Venegas got out of the patrol car and asked the appellant to identify himself and his actions in the alley. The appellant refused to identify and said that the officers had no right to stop him. The appellant was then frisked but nothing was found. When he continued to refuse to say who he was, he was arrested for the violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a). While being taken to county jail, the appellant did identify himself but was still held in custody and the court ruled he pay a fine of $20 dollars and court costs. Appellant …show more content…
The appellant was in violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a) “which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information”. The appellant claimed that the officers were in violation of his first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. His right to peacefully assemble, his search and seizure rights, his rights in criminal cases, and his civil rights. The application of the Texas Penal Code to detain the appellant and require him to identify himself did violate the Fourth Amendment because Officer Venegas and Officer Sotelo lacked any reasonable suspicion that the appellant was engaging or had engaged in criminal acts. The appellant can’t be punished for refusing to identify himself so the conviction was
II. Type of Case:
a. This Supreme Court cases argues whether Brown (appellant) was validly convicted of refusing to comply with Police demands to stop and identify himself as it is a crime in the Texas Penal Code to deny identification on request when suspicion of crime has occurred. A violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a).
III. Facts: a. Officer Venegas and Officer Sotelo of the El Paso Police Department were on patrol when they spotted two males walking away from each other in a dark alley in an area of El Paso that has a high drug problem. Venegas got out of the patrol car and asked the appellant to identify himself and his actions in the alley. The appellant refused to identify and said that the officers had no right to stop him. The appellant was then frisked but nothing was found. When he continued to refuse to say who he was, he was arrested for the violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a). While being taken to county jail, the appellant did identify himself but was still held in custody and the court ruled he pay a fine of $20 dollars and court costs. Appellant …show more content…
The appellant was in violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a) “which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information”. The appellant claimed that the officers were in violation of his first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. His right to peacefully assemble, his search and seizure rights, his rights in criminal cases, and his civil rights. The application of the Texas Penal Code to detain the appellant and require him to identify himself did violate the Fourth Amendment because Officer Venegas and Officer Sotelo lacked any reasonable suspicion that the appellant was engaging or had engaged in criminal acts. The appellant can’t be punished for refusing to identify himself so the conviction was