If she broke a law she does have to identify herself.

 

I haven't read the article in this post but for some reason I thought she was stopped for jaywalking.

 

She has to identify herself, not show ID. I think that is where some people are confused. They may have asked her for her name and she refused to provide it which would be illegal. However, she was under no obligation to produce any kind of identification papers.

She has to identify herself' date=' not show ID. I think that is where dine people are confused. They may have asked her for her name and she refused to provide it which would be illegal. However, she was under no obligation to produce any kind of identification papers.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

My guess is there is more to this story.

 

There had better be because this stinks to high heaven at initial blush.

Here's my theory: the officers were citing people at a dangerous crossing for jaywalking. The young lady jogs by and jaywalks without seeing the officers try to flag her down. With her headphones on she doesn't hear them and keeps jogging. The officer runs her down and grabs her by the arm from behind to stop her. She reacts like most people would when they are grabbed from behind and pulls away. The officer, who didn't look to be in the best of shape, is irritated by having to run after her puts her on the ground and cuffs her because he initially took her reaction as resisting. From there there she becomes upset and refuses to give her name for the ticket. Most likely an overreaction on both sides.

I've found an article that's not as one sided as the one in the OP. I'll post it in a second.

Here's my theory: the officers were citing people at a dangerous crossing for jaywalking. The young lady jogs by and jaywalks without seeing the officers try to flag her down. With her headphones on she doesn't hear them and keeps jogging. The officer runs her down and grabs her by the arm from behind to stop her. She reacts like most people would when they are grabbed from behind and pulls away. The officer, who didn't look to be in the best of shape, is irritated by having to run after her puts her on the ground and cuffs her because he initially took her train as resisting. From there there she becomes upset and refuses to give her name for the ticket. Most likely an overreaction on both sides.

 

According to the Chief, you are mostly correct. However he said the officers did not put her on the ground. He says when they grabbed her to stop her, she jerked away and told them not to touch her, and then did the "limp routine" and went to the ground. He also said he didn't buy the "didn't hear them" excuse. Says they were very close and she could see them.

Updated (6:45 p.m.): At a press conference held Friday, APD police chief Art Acevedo addressed the recent arrest of 24-year-old Amanda Jo Stephen, who was taken into custody Thursday after crossing an intersection at a red light. Stephen was formally charged with “failure to identify” and “failure to obey a pedestrian control device” and was released from Travis County Central Booking Thursday evening.

 

Acevedo said the arrest occured in the midst of a West/North Campus traffic initiative which began Feb. 1. Acevedo said the initiative’s purpose is to reduce the number of traffic violations made by drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians.

 

According to Acevedo, 28 pedestrians were stopped and seven citations were issued specifically for disregarding pedestrian control devices Thursday.

 

“Our goal is to change behavior, and not necessarily to write tickets or take people to jail,” Acevedo said. “This week, we’re actually focusing on pedestrian violations. The initiative will continue for some upcoming weeks, utilizing the resources of district representatives.”

 

According to Acevedo, there have been 96 deaths related to pedestrian-involved incidents and 1,757 pedestrians injured in traffic crashes in in the past five years.

“I’d rather have everybody angry at me and my officers, then to see a young person lose their life needlessly,” Acevedo said. “I’d rather be up here talking about this, than going to our 97th fatality involving a pedestrian or 1800th injury involving a pedestrian.”

 

When arresting Stephen, officers took the appropriate actions, Acevedo said.

“I don’t buy that you can’t hear an officer yelling at you to stop,” Acevedo said. “I’ll give the benefit of the doubt initially, but when the officer is right by you and can see the hat and he’s looking at your face, you should be able to know what’s going on.”

Acevedo said Stephen disregarded the officer’s lawful request for her to identify herself and verbally resisted the arrest.

“All that young lady had to do when she was asked for her information was to provide it by law, “ Acevedo said. “Instead of doing that, she decided to throw [herself] to the ground – officers didn’t sit her down – and she did the limp routine.”

 

According to Acevedo, Stephen was handcuffed after telling the officer not to touch her. Acevedo said the public outcry following the arrest did not faze him.

 

“Thank you lord that it’s a controversy in Austin, Texas that we actually have the audacity to touch somebody by the arm and tell them ‘oh my goodness, Austin Police, we’re trying to get your attention,’” Acevedo said. “Quite frankly, she wasn’t charged with resisting, and she was lucky I wasn’t the arresting officer because I wouldn’t have been quite as generous.”

 

LINK

Well Jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense I'd guess, even in Texas. I'd bet they tried to write her a citation and for whatever reason they couldn't positively ID her. So she was arrested for not giving proper ID not jaywalking, but again I'm just guessing trying to figure out a legitimate reason for this to go down that way.

 

You can arrest anyone in Texas for any offense except 2. One of those, oddly enough is having an open alcohol container in the car, and the other is a speeding ticket (IIRC).

 

There's a case where a cop takes a woman to jail for not having a car seat and while the judge said it was extremely poor judgement on the part of the officer, the arrest stood. The case is Lago Vista if you want to look it up. The judge definitely gave the cop a very scathing review in his commentary. Basically, it called him a liability and said that he was wrong for using his authority as he did. I'm guessing that while the arrest stood, it basically ended up costing the cop his job as soon as they could find a reason to get rid of him.

 

Failure to identify (or show ID if operating a vehicle) can get you arrested most anywhere though.

LINK

 

Wow.

 

“Quite frankly, she wasn’t charged with resisting, and she was lucky I wasn’t the arresting officer because I wouldn’t have been quite as generous.”

 

That guy that made that quote is probably going to regret that one day. I don't think that's a good look if the guy's ever running for an office or is being accused of some civil rights violations, etc.

 

I'm not saying he's wrong if he's standing up for his officer and he thinks he's right, just that there's a better way to do it than he did with the way he came off in that statement.

Edited February 22, 201412 yr by JokersWild24

LINK

This makes more sense. Sounds like she wouldn't cooperate and tell them the info they asked for. I was going to say earlier that I wouldn't expect her to be carrying any form of identification when jogging, but it sounds like she wouldn't even initially even tell them who she was.

This makes more sense. Sounds like she wouldn't cooperate and tell them the info they asked for. I was going to say earlier that I wouldn't expect her to be carrying any form of identification when jogging, but it sounds like she wouldn't even initially even tell them who she was.

 

Kinda what I thought, if you are going to get a ticket the police have to either ID you or at least be able to verify a name you gave them for the citation. If she didn't have an ID and then refused to even give her name, that is kind on her.

I jumped in midway on this thread. I didn't know she broke a law... But a casual jogger doesn't have to show ID.

I jumped in midway on this thread. I didn't know she broke a law... But a casual jogger doesn't have to show ID.

 

I don't think anyone world disagree with you.

I may be wrong here, but I have been told more than once, at least here in KY, if you are of legal age, which I guess is 18, that you MUST have ID with you at all times and be able to present it if asked by someone with the authority to ask for it. For many that would be a drivers license, but might be something else for some. Anyone know this to be fact?

I may be wrong here' date=' but I have been told more than once, at least here in KY, if you are of legal age, which I guess is 18, that you MUST have ID with you at all times and be able to present it if asked by someone with the authority to ask for it. For many that would be a drivers license, but might be something else for some. Anyone know this to be fact?[/quote']

 

That's not true.