[zahc]

In general, to what extent, is a police officer permitted to detain and question you in public? Can they do so whenever they want, or do they have to have suspicion that you are breaking a law? Do they have to tell you what law you are breaking? How long can they detain you? To what extent are you obligated to answer their impromtu interrogations, and to what extent can they search your person?

Basically, what actions do you have that fall outside the scope of 'resisting a police officer' or something, under what conditions can you say 'this is BS' and just walk away?

I ask this because I am constantly being hassled by police for something that is a real gray area and want to know my rights without getting myself into trouble.

I definately don't want to consent to any searches I don't have to, and I want to know, if/when an officer says (I'm going to ask you to get in the car) or something, if he is acting within the scope of his authority.

know my 'rights' if you will.

[Vernal45]

I think 20 minutes is the norm. Others with more knowledge will chime in. You have to furnish ID (I hate that, like papers please), but like searches, you dont have to consent to answering any questions. Shut your mouth, look at them with that "go pound sand" look. You ARE NOT obligated to answer anything.

[manhattan23]

Zahc, I'll try to answer your question but be aware that state law varies and I'm not familiar with OH law.

Generally police questioning and detaining of citizens is governed by the 4th ammendment. States can give you more rights than the 4th gives you.

What Vernal said about 20 minutes has to do with traffic stops. The 20 minutes is not a hard time limit, the courts have just said that the time has to be reasonable. This generally comes into play when you get pulled over for a traffic stop and the police hold you 'for a reasonable amount of time' while a drug sniffing dog comes to sniff the exterior of your vehicle. This sniff does not qualify as a search under the 4th ammendment, so says the supreme court.

Let me define a few things first.

The police can ask questions of anyone under most any circumstances without any requirement of suspicion or other legal basis. This is purely their ability to ask you questions on any subject. You do not have to answer their questions nor do you have to even stop or acknowledge their presence. If you are walking down a publc street and a cop asks you to step over to him, or whatnot you do not have to comply, nor answer his questions.

Some states have mandatory identification laws, where a police officer asks you your identity, you must respond.

Be aware that there is a legal difference between the police asking you something and demanding something of you. Where the law requires you to respond with your name, or address or date of birth, their request has the power of law and you can get arrested if you do not comply.

Additionally, depending how the question is asked, the officer could be asking you or demanding from you. It is almost impossible to know which he is doing.

Next, there are legal concepts called mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The police have different legal powers during these 3 stages.

Mere suspicion is when the officer has no articulable explanation for why he suspects you of a crime. It could be based on time of day, your dress, your location, etc. Its basically a hunch on the part of the officer that you are comitting, have comitted or are about to commit a crime. The officer cannot detain you if all he has is mere suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is when the officer can articulate (there goes that word again) some specific circumstances that exist which a reasonable person would understand to be an indicator of past, present or future criminal wrongdoing on your part. Under reasonable suspicion, the officer does not have enough to arrest you, but he may detain you for a short period of time to investigate the suspected offense.

To articulate just means to be able to put into words.

Lastly, probable cause is a legal concept that sufficient reason exists for your immediate arrest for a criminal offense.

Let me give you some examples.

Wearing gang colors in a bad part of town is mere suspicion.

Wearing gang colors in a part of town where your gangs enemies are and you visibly have a bulge in your pocket is reasonable suspicion.

Pulling out a gun as you are about to shoot a rival gang member is probable cause.

Under mere suspicion the police can stop you and ask you questions. You do not have to answer questions nor do you have to stop. IF the officer can articulate a reasonable fear for his safety, and that you might be armed, he can frisk you. Examples are that you are casing a store for a robbery, or selling drugs. Those two automatically equal officer safety. Drugs = guns. This is called a Terry stop/frisk. They pat down the exterior of your clothing for weapons that may pose an immediate risk to them.

I've heard stories that many officers pat people down as a routine basis under any investigatory stop. I dont know if this is true but it does not sound legal as the officer must be able to articulate why he has a reasonable fear for his safety in this particular cirumstance. If it is routine, then thats a problem.

Most investigatory stops are based on coercion. The officers presence makes the subject uncomfortable and the subject is generally unaware that he does not have to comply with the officers requests.

Here is a scenario from a video tape I saw that was made by the NYPD to illustrate the differences between mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

An undercover anti-crime unit sees a suspicious man looking into vehicles as if to see if they are unlocked. They see him enter a 3 story building and emerge later with a pillow case with some items in it.

Thinking that he just burglarized an apartment in the building, the officers stop and question the man. At this point, all the police have is mere suspicion. The man does not have to answer any questions nor does he even have to stop to talk to them.

They question the man and he says he was visiting a friend in apt 4H. Upon that one statement, the officers now have reasonable suspicion because he lied to them. The building has 3 stories and he gave them evasive answers, one of which turns out to be an obvious lie.

At this point he tries to leave and is told that he cannot. They have reasonable suspicion of some crime and they can hold him for a short time while they investigate. One officer stays with him on the street and does not cuff him and the other goes inside the building.

The officer that goes inside discovers a burglarized apartment with matching pillowcases to the one the suspect has in his posession. The cops now have probable cause to immediately arrest the man for burglary of that apartment.

If the man did not talk to them at all, they would have no legal basis for detaining him.

Another legal concept I havent talked about is consent. Consent is when you wave your 4th ammendment rights by either talking to the police or staying where they want you to be. Also, you can consent to searches.

I will address some of your specific questions at this point.

In general, to what extent, is a police officer permitted to detain and question you in public?

Detain implies that you are not free to leave and that means the officer has reasonable suspicion OR probable cause. Many times an officer will have probable cause and postpone the actual arrest while he questions you to either strengthen his case or supply additional probable cause. This is what vehicle stops are like. The officer has probable cause to stop you because he saw you speeding. Instead of issuing the citation in the most expedicious manner, he prolongs the encounter by asking you questions in hoping to uncover probable cause for other crimes.

Can they do so whenever they want, or do they have to have suspicion that you are breaking a law?


A cop stopping you to ask questions, where are you going, where have you been, whats your name, etc is not detention. He can do an investigative stop at any time. If he has reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime, he can detain you while he investigates that crime. That investigation can include asking you questions, holding you while he searches the area for evidence of your crime, or holding you while a witness drives by to identify you as the perpetrator. You do not have to answer any questions during any of these circumstances, except perhaps your name depending on your state.
Unless your state law specifically requires it, you do not have to give them your drivers license. I would also argue that unless they have detained you and told you that you are not free to go, if you give them your name you do not have to wait for them to check you for warrants. This is where the coercive aspect comes in. Just try to walk away while the cops are running you for warrants under your 'consent'. :)

Do they have to tell you what law you are breaking?

Only if they are arresting you. And this depends on state law on exactly WHEN they have to tell you what crime you are being charged with.

How long can they detain you?

Under mere suspicion, they cannot detain you. Under reasonable suspicion they can detain you for a 'reasonable' amount of time while they investigate the crime. ie enough time to have the witness drive by and identify you. enough time to hold you and see if you robbed any of the nearby stores. or if you are covered in blood, enough time to check the area to make sure you didnt kill anyone. It all depends on the circumstance as to what a reasonable amount of time is. It could be an hour or less. Also, under reasonable suspicion, a specific crime does not need to be in question, just a reasonable suspicion of 'any crime'. If you're covered in blood and they think you murdered someone, doesnt mean they cant arrest you for killing the neighbors chickens.

To what extent are you obligated to answer their impromtu interrogations, and to what extent can they search your person?

As I previously stated, depending on state law and if it requires you to identify yourself, you don't have to answer any questions at any time.

Under an investigatory stop or a reasonable suspicion detention, if they may pat you down for weapons on the outside of your clothing. This seems to include the removal of any hard objects inside of your pockets. The legal restrictions of these 'pat downs' are under the Terry vs Ohio supreme court case.

If you are arrested, they can search you entirely.

Basically, what actions do you have that fall outside the scope of 'resisting a police officer' or something, under what conditions can you say 'this is BS' and just walk away?

Stay silent. Do not resist even if the officer is illegally restraining you under an investigatory stop.

There are a few phrases you can ask before you start to walk away from the cops.

"Am I free to go?" - if the officer says yes, then you can walk away.

"Am I free to go?" - if the answer is no, he is detaining you or you are under arrest.

Next question to ask is:

"Am I under arrest?" If he says no, then you are being detained if you are not free to go. Your best bet is not to talk to them which might supply them with probable cause to arrest you. Also, if they only have reasonable suspicion and you don't talk to them, after time goes by, and they dont reach probable cause they will have to let you go. I don't believe they can move you anywhere during this time.

Also, keep in mind that the officer may try to avoid your questions by asking you questions. You can keep asking 'am i free to go?' until you get an answer which you feel satisfies that you are able to walk away or if you should keep quiet. If the officer refuses to answer in either direction, I personally would feel comfortable assuming that I was free to go. If he then decides to restrain you because he believes he has reasonable suspicion, do not resist. The officer does not have to tell you where his level of proof is. But he cannot charge you with evading or resisting if you repeatedly asked if you were free to go and he did not respond.

I ask this because I am constantly being hassled by police for something that is a real gray area and want to know my rights without getting myself into trouble.

It would be helpful to know what the gray area is and where it occurs.

I definately don't want to consent to any searches I don't have to, and I want to know, if/when an officer says (I'm going to ask you to get in the car) or something, if he is acting within the scope of his authority.

You shouldnt 'have to' consent to any searches ever. Nor get into his vehicle unless you are under arrest.

know my 'rights' if you will.

Be advised that the above information is how the law works. Its not how the street works. An officer will most likely have ways to coerce you into talking to him, or giving consent in order for you to avoid unpleasantries.

Spouting the ACLU approved phrases "Am I free to go?" "Am I under arrest?" has a good chance of angering the officer. If all you say are the above things, the officer will be frustrated. He generally uses subtleties in conversation to get what he wants. If you ask him those yes/no questions, he will not be able to do that.


Hope that helps.

I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice. Consult your attorney. :)

-M

[centac]

I am real curious about that "gray area" that results in you being "constantly hassled."

It is real hard to assess a scenario with only one side of the story.

[zahc]

Thank you so much for typing all that.

As silly as it sounds, the grey area would be cycling. Granted, in the wee hours of the night (less traffic) and sometimes in areas not normally traveled by non-criminals. I have been questioned, detained, patted down, repeatedly asked what I was doing here (uh, riding my bike, sir), who I was with and who I was waiting for, got any drugs, name, ID, are you a student (nearby college), there is a law against that (there might be), threated to confiscate my bike (all $2000 worth).

I think the topic has worth beyond my specific situation though.

[centac]

FWIW,

I am familiar with the area you are at, how can you ride when they roll the streets up at 1000 PM? ;)

One point that immediately springs to mind is that some of us have seen drunks out late at night who wont risk driving, but will bike it trying to avoid a DUI (and wind up arrested for public intox instead). I have also seen drug runners and peepers who favor bikes because they are quiet and quick and can get through tight spaces while eluding cops, though I doubt it is a major issue in New Concord. What probably is an issue with the college and all is stolen bikes, so the police may just be checking to see if you snagged one off a porch or yard........

Just some thoughts......

[zahc]

Or these small town cops are just bored out of their minds and hassling bikers gives them something to do.

my pet theory.

[GhostRider66]

Ran across this website yesteday that claims to have all of the answers. Interesting anyway.

http://www.flexyourrights.org

[rock jock]

This is a great thread. It answers a lot of questions that keep popping up on THR. Mods, can you sticky this?

[P95Carry]

I think, yeah - this is important stuff and manhattan23 made a superb contribution as to his perspective etc.

I will sticky - but on one condition - keep the thread as it is - useful and valuable info - NO cop bashing please - or it gets unstuck and maybe even closed. Fair enough? :)

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

..

[manhattan23]

While the flexyourrights website and companion video focuses on vehicle stops, investigatory stops are a little bit different.

You must submit to a vehicle stop assuming the officer saw you commit some traffic offense. Generally, you don't have to submit to an investigatory stop.

I'm not 100% sure but the way it seems to me is that the police cannot pull you over to do an investigatory stop while you're in a vehicle but they can while on foot or apparently bike. This isnt really a problem because it is easy to find some reason to legally pull almost anyone over.

Bicycles have to follow the same traffic laws as cars and depending on local laws, may need to have certain reflectors, headlight, etc if riding at night. There are many laws that we break on a daily basis that we have no idea about, nor are they criminal in nature. If you walk outside of the painted crosswalk, you could be ticketed for 'pedestrian in roadway' aka jaywalking in Austin. If the cop feels it is necessary, he could ticket you just to find out what your name is or as leverage to get you to comply during questioning. I don't know how serious cyclists ride, but I often roll through stops signs, drive on the wrong side of the street, or on the sidewalk with my bicycle in my suburbia-type neighborhood. If you commit any offense, the officer will be able to issue you a summons. In some circumstances, they may be able to bring you back to the station to positively identify you if you don't have a drivers license. This only comes into play if they are going to ticket you.

Being in a high crime area at a suspicious time of night should not be enough to detain you. Unless you've given them probable cause to arrest/summons you by violating a traffic law.

As silly as it sounds, the grey area would be cycling. Granted, in the wee hours of the night (less traffic) and sometimes in areas not normally traveled by non-criminals.

While there are some justifications that arise in high crime or drug areas, I am not specifically versed on them. I would argue that mere presence in these areas is not enough to detain you. I believe I read something that said if you are in a high crime area and you start running when you see the cops that they can chase you down.

I have been questioned, detained, patted down, repeatedly asked what I was doing here (uh, riding my bike, sir), who I was with and who I was waiting for, got any drugs, name, ID, are you a student (nearby college), there is a law against that (there might be), threated to confiscate my bike (all $2000 worth).

The problem with not cooperating with investigatory stops is that it is fairly easy to find something for the cop to write a ticket for. There are so many traffic laws, equipment laws, etc.

My girlfriend was recently stopped by Austin Park Police on the Barton Springs Greenbelt. A very popular place for people to walk their dogs, take their dogs for a swim, and also drinking alcohol and playing music. She generally takes her dog off of the leash when she reaches the footpath of the trail.

She was stopped by two officers who demanded she produce identification. Her response was to ask 'What for?' The 2nd cop said 'Because he asked you for it." Long story short, they threatened to 'destroy her animal' and excused giving her a $140 ticket because she 'acted like a bitch' to them for asking why they wanted her ID.

No one is disputing that she broke the law by having her dog off of the leash, I just posted the story to illustrate how uncomfortable an encouter can be if you don't cooperate . I don't know under what circumstances they would not have issued her a ticket, and I really don't care, the part that bothers me is the way they behaved.

The power the cops have is that they usually know the laws. So if you are breaking some minor law without your knowledge, they can threaten you with it. They can legally lie to you in most circumstances. "We can write you a ticket for no feather in your cap and confiscate your bike until you can prove you didn't steal it."

Without being versed in the local laws of your state/city, I cannot guess as to whether the cops who stopped you had mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Most likely all they had was mere suspicion.

I am not familiar enough with actual police/citizen encounters to make a recommendation on how best to retain your dignity without pissing off the cops.

Perhaps you could start out with asking why you were stopped, are you free to go? and if the officer keeps asking questions you can tell him that you value your privacy and dignity very much and do not enjoy being stopped and questioned. You can follow that up with 'am I free to go?'

The only problem is that the officer can react poorly. Imagine yourself being polite and civil, and the officer retorts with 'Dont fu%# with me!'.

You could always treat your encounters with the police as additional cardio training. :)

The police don't do a good job by being polite to everyone or doing the minimal amount of questioning necessary. Its their job to be nosy and make self initiated felony arrests.

-M

[Andrew Rothman]

zahc,

My Saab mechanic is a genius -- or at least an idiot savant. He knows everything about everything about these cars. He owns his own home, his own business, and is a patron of the arts.

He also has long hair and rides a Harley.

When he moved to a nearby suburb, he was getting pulled over and hassled on an almost daily basis by the police in that city.

He finally got sick of it. He marched into the chief's office, handed over his business card, driver's license and registration, and said, "This is who I am. I live here. I'm not a gang member, a drug dealer, a drug user, or any other kind of criminal. Can you please tell your officers to stop pulling me over?"

The chief did just that, and even handed my mechanic a business card with a handwritten note on the back to call the chief if any officer gave him a hard time.

Perhaps a few polite words to the top of the chain of command could have the desired effect?

Oh, and manhattan23? Great info. Are you sure you're not a lawyer? :D

[odysseus]

Great commentaries here.

I concur with Matt Payne, especially in small communities. If there is an issue of you being pulled, I would in a non confrontational way (they are doing their jobs) and let the hierarchy of the department know what your experiences are and why this is a problem for you. They should begin to "get it" or tell you something else.

[Checkman]

In law enforcement the "Terry Stop" is a big part of what we use. Bear with me.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1968, 20 P.2d 889 (1968)

1. Facts of Terry:
October 31, 1963 at 2:30 p.m., Detective McFadden was patrolling in plain clothes in the are of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue in Cleveland. His assignment for the past 30 years had been to patrol that area looking for pickpocets and shop-lifters. He observed two men on the corner that were unfamiliar to him. One man would look in a store window then come back and talk to the other man, the the second man would go and look and come back to talk. they repeated this behavior five or six times each. Detective McFadden became suspicious that the two men were "casing a job,a stickup." He approached the two, and a third man and identified himself. After getting no response tohis request for their names, McFadden grabbed Terry, spun him around and patted the outside of his clothing. He felt an item that felt like a gun based on his years of experience and training. He put his hand in Terry's pocket and seized the gun. Terry and one of the other men were later convicted of carrying concealed weapons without a license.

2. Conclusion of Terry:

Fourth Amendment dosen't require a police officer who lacks the precise level of information necessary to arresst to simply shrug his shoulder and allow a crime to occurr or a criminal to escape. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to mainatin the staus quo momentarilywhile obtaining more inforamtion, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time. Detention can be for a resonable time only. ( The U.S. Supreme Court was very anti-cop in the late sixties).

As this case relates to law enforcement stops in Idaho.
See State v. Hobson. 95 Idaho 920 (This was the case that tested Terry v. Ohio in Idaho in 1971)

a)There must be an objective view of the information underlying the stop indicating that it possessed specificity and some indication of reliability.

b) The facts available to the officer would warrant an individual of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.

c) Not only the grounds for the stop but the conduct of the stop must be reasonable. ( I always tell the person why I'm detaining them. They might not like my explantion, but at least they know.)

There is no bright line Rule for determining when a Terry stop has escalated into an arrest. In evaluating whether an investigative detention is unreasonable, common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria. State v. Martinez, (Ct. App. 1996) 129 Idaho 426.

Now this may not be perfect and I realize that it was a bit of a slog, but maybe it helps a little.

[DarkKnight01]

Im normally as polite as possible when encountered by a police officer. I know that their job isnt easy, I try to make their day a little easier. But as soon as theyre an a** to me.. My polite side fades away.. I dont really have problems with them, I dont speed, my vehicle is in perfect working order, and I obey all the traffic laws I can... (I havent been stopped in over 4 years.. and the last time it was just for something silly... I think the guy was just bored) which is more than I can say for most people in this town... Its ridiculous... theres been times I had to sit and wait at a green light for a line of cars going through a red light.. as if they have such important places to be they cant wait a moment for a red light so other traffic can move... but it seems to be the norm around here... I constantly see people pulling into intersections after the light has turned red and making their turns etc...

anyway back OT I would be as nice as I could for a short period, but after being stopped and questioned more than a few times then I would do as already mentioned and take it to the chief.

[dustind]

zahc: You should carry some kind of recording device. You could use it to file a formal complaint. Or as evidence if things ever escalate on one of these stops and you get into trouble. I would keep a copy of every encounter and document everything in case it ever becomes valuable in the future.

This could also come in very handy if some street thugs start giving you trouble and it leads to a self defense shooting.

[Jay Kominek]

Also, if they only have reasonable suspicion and you don't talk to them, after time goes by, and they dont reach probable cause they will have to let you go. I don't believe they can move you anywhere during this time. It has been suggested to me that they can move you reasonable distances for safety purposes. Their safety, your safety, safety of evidence, safety of witnesses, etc.

Boston T Party's book You & The Police! (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888766018/) addresses a lot of this stuff.

[Vernal45]

Point is: Why you are stopped, does not matter. Dont say anything. If you are obligated to ID yourself, please do so, let that be the end of your talking. You do not have to say anything, answer any questions. Be nice, dont raise your voice (god knows what would happen if an LEO thought you were disrespecting him).


Dont say a word.

[mrhuckins]

Years ago, I did some research in this area for similar reasons. I tried to find the information on the web again, but was unable to do so. My input is this... The research I did indicated that if an officer has asked you "May I speak with you sir" or something to that effect, and you say yes, you have just consented to being detained for questioning purposes. The gist of how you should respond to that line of questioning should be "I do not wish to be detained or answer any questions" if further (evasive) questions are followed up by the LEO, then you might want to go into "manhattan23 mode" and respond with "am I free to go."

I think the general idea is that if a LEO has the right to question, detain or arrest you, he WILL not ask you for permission to do so, it will just happen. And probably in a most unpleasant manner. If the officer is asking for your permission, then he most likely does not have the right to question or detain you, and asking "am I free to go" is probably a starting point to get yourself out of a potentially sticky situation. However, as manhattan23 pointed out saying these things may upset the officer, at which point he may go into "coercion mode" on you. With the intention of intimidating you into giving him whatever information he is looking for.

Can somebody confirm/deny if the LEO asks to speak to you, and you say "yes" that you have consented to being questioned/detained?

[12-34hom]

If you ride the same routes, after a while the local Leo's will get to know you and your biking habits.

Remember attitude is everything, be nice - polite - if you have done nothing wrong then no harm or fowl. If you start playing games, then be ready for other types of consequences. Sounds like you ride in an area where you might open yourself up to running into others that might want more from you than your ID.

One of the mantras of this place is "situational awareness" + common sense and what goes with it. Placing yourself into a area that is iffy, at that time of night, ain't the smartest thing you could be doing. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to be there, just look on things that could or might go wrong and adjust accordingly - if so desired.

Your milage may vary.

12-34hom.

[manhattan23]

mrhuckins,

As far as giving consent to be detained. You do not need to say 'yes' to his question nor does he have to ask. The whole encounter is considered consensual unless "a reasonable person feels that they are not free to go", so if you are surrounted by a dozen cops with guns pointed at you, you are not free to go. :)

Also, the way consent works is that you can withdraw it at any time. For example, if an officer stops you and you stop to talk to him, you can walk away at any time, thereby withdrawing consent to the encounter. If an officer asks you to search your car during a traffic stop, you can withdraw consent just as he is about to open the bag with the goodies in it. He must stop the search. I was taught that during consent searches of a vehicle, you should not secure the driver in your car because if he wants to withdraw consent mid-way through the search you won't be able to hear him and the lawyer will have your cake.

Something to keep in mind is that many officers ask for consent when they don't have to. Some officers who have probable cause to search your vehicle will ask for consent anyway, just to make the court process easier. If they have probable cause, they will have to document it properly and the defendants lawyer can fight it. If you gave consent, it goes much easier for the prosecutor.

I take a little bit(just a little) of offense to the phrase "manhattan23 mode". Non-cooperation by repeatedly asking "Am I free to go?" is not something I unilateraly recommend. Nor is it something I came up with, its straight from the ACLU. I can't take credit, nor the blame. :)

Knowing your rights during your dealings with the police should empower you and hopefully make it less stressful. If you are confident, chances are the officer will pick up on that and treat you less like a scumbag.

-M

[mrhuckins]

Manhattan23, I most humbly beg your forgiveness as I seem to have offended you (a little bit). I have a habit of being rather flip. People who know me find it to be quite charming (at least I think so anyway). However, a great deal of my charm is apparently lost while putting it into type. LEO's just Loooooove me. Please forgive me for going into "mrhuckins mode," and do take note that I only meant it as a compliment in the most flip of ways possible. ;)

[P95Carry]

Nice to see we are staying on course. :)

[mrhuckins]

:rolleyes: :neener:

[Flyboy]

For those of us who carry sidearms, an interesting twist:

Officer Friendly walks up to you and asks to talk to you. In accordance with state law, you advise him that you're armed. In accordance with Terry v. Ohio (and others), he disarms you and retains your nice Kimber 1911.

You're not under arrest, or being detained, and decide you'd like to get on your way (the series finale of your favorite TV show will be starting shortly, and you don't want to be late). Officer Friendly still has a few more questions. You ask "am I free to go," and he doesn't indicate that you're not, but declines to return your pistol. I would imagine his justification would be along the lines of "I was still questioning him, and retained his weapon for my own safety until the conclusion of the interview."

What are your rights here? Does his retention of your property constitute detention, or coercion ("I'll give it back to you when I'm done asking questions.")? If you leave while he still has your gun, has he confiscated it illegally?

[DMF]

A Terry stop and frisk requires more than just a reasonable suspicion the person is armed. It also requires a reasonable suspicion the individual is engaged in, or about to commit, a crime. In the scenario you gave there is no indication the officer has a reasonable suspicion a crime is under way, and therefore would not be able to stop/frisk without consent.

I suggest you read the decision and opinions in Terry v. OH: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

[Powderman]

Officer Friendly walks up to you and asks to talk to you. In accordance with state law, you advise him that you're armed. In accordance with Terry v. Ohio (and others), he disarms you and retains your nice Kimber 1911.

Ho-kay, here we go.

If I, as an officer, contact you and talk about anything--the time of day, the size of raindrops, anything--that's ok. This is known as a "community contact".

If I, however, walk up to you and disarm you in the course of the conversation, well, guess what? This nice little conversation just turned from a contact into a detention.

What constitutes a detention? Very simple, actually. A detention occurs when a reasonable person feels that they are no longer free to leave.

You ask "am I free to go," and he doesn't indicate that you're not, but declines to return your pistol.

That's known as illegal seizure. There are so many things wrong with that, that it's not funny.

I would imagine his justification would be along the lines of "I was still questioning him, and retained his weapon for my own safety until the conclusion of the interview."

Oh, no you didn't!! :eek:

So, you were QUESTIONING this guy? When did you advise him of his rights? (see, Miranda v. Arizona and Escobeda v. Illinois, both granted certiorari by USSC.)

And, since you were questioning this guy, please articulate your reasonable suspicion. Can't do it, huh? Well, let's have your badge and commission card for a few days, hero.

What are your rights here? Does his retention of your property constitute detention, or coercion ("I'll give it back to you when I'm done asking questions.")?

I've got news for you. Unless the firearm is codified as illegal under the laws of your jurisdiction (please, don't get me started on that one :barf: ), the seizure of your property under these circumstances is not retention--it's theft, plain and simple.

Coercion does not come into play here--coercion is broadly definined as motivating you to do something illegal that you would not normally do.

Bottom line:

If the po-po asks you for your ID, and you are not being interviewed because of a crime or criminal activity, you have EVERY right to politely say no.

A frisk is done for the reasons of officer safety (Terry v Ohio). The officer can conduct the frisk under articulable reasonable suspicion, and then only for weapons--and then, only in the places that he or she can articulate that weapons are carried.

A contact becomes a detention when YOU feel that you are no longer free to leave. This triggers Miranda.

Stopping a person based on their dress or appearance is called profiling. Personally, I give a rip what a person dresses in--as long as they are not doing anything patently illegal, or making furtive movements, or obviously setting up for criminal activity, I give a rip. I have more important things to take care of; I don't need to roust Homie because he's sagging and flossing with his dawgs, bling blinging hard and sporting much rope, you know what I'm sayin'?

It would probably surprise you how much cooperation I get, simply by treating people with respect.

[P95Carry]

Reciprocated respect can and IMO often will take care of many ''situations'' ...... something for all folks to remember. Precursive antagonism OTOH can and often will begin a rapid downhill slide! :p

It can I reckon often be that simple. :)

[Jammer Six]

Okay, there appears to be enough information here that, if accurate, is sufficient for me, a reasonable, private citizen, to draw a couple conclusions.

First of all, this: The police can ask questions of anyone under most any circumstances without any requirement of suspicion or other legal basis.
So they can ask. Makes sense. Anyone can talk to anyone at any time. Works for me. I like it. The problem I have is determining whether I have to answer, or, indeed, if I should answer.

Part of what I see is here: Be aware that there is a legal difference between the police asking you something and demanding something of you.Next, there are legal concepts called mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The police have different legal powers during these 3 stages.
The thing that I see that can really complicate this, however, is here: They can legally lie to you in most circumstances.
If that is so, there is nothing to gain by asking an officer if you're free to go- because unless that specific question has some magical power that they must recognize, they can simply lie to you.

That being said, unless you aren't caught by surprise, unless you have letter perfect recall, amazing self discipline and are able to articulate the magic phrase without saying anything else, I would expect a veteran patrolman to have a couple tricks. You probably aren't the first lawyer he or she has stopped. It's what he does, and as a carpenter, I have a series of tools for difficult boards. When a board proves to be beyond the capabilities of one tool, I simply switch to the next tool in the sequence. The board never stands a chance. The better the officer, the more tools he or she is going to have in the sequence.

The other issue I see is that it sounds like the officer's powers are different under different circumstances.

And once again, they can lie to you about that. You have no way of knowing what level of authority they have in a given situation, and they don't have to tell you. That is the real issue that I see, you don't know and can't find out what they have the authority to do.

On the flip side, if he or she simply changes the tone of his voice, his simple request can sound like a demand, and he can lie to you about the level of authority he's operating with.

So my questions are these: given an innocent, private citizen, who is riding a bike, after dark, and an officer who has a mere suspicion based on the fact that the citizen is riding a bike after dark, what happens if the citizen simply keeps pedaling?

My next question is what happens when you keep pedaling if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, and finally what happens if the officer believes he's caught the bad guy, that you happen to match the description of a purse snatcher who escaped on a bike, that happened twenty minutes ago, three blocks away?

And most importantly, how are citizens to determine the difference on the street, in the dark, without a nice, hot cup of coffee to sip while we contemplate the nuances of the situation?

Given that, I don't see how it would be reasonable to do anything but stop and talk to them, unless you are willing to risk being hurt. If the officer is operating at peak authority, if he believes you just committed a crime, (regardless of whether or not you're actually guilty) his words become demands, and you have no way of knowing the difference.

At some point, it's not worth it. It's not worth being injured by an officer because you knew you've done nothing wrong, so you refused to stop when the officer was operating legally, at an elevated level of authority. You kept pedalling, and he used reasonable force to stop you. Reasonable force can hurt.

Furthermore, it sounds like exercising your rights could easily make an innocent citizen appear guilty- and that that, alone, could ruin your evening.

My point here is this: given our innocent cyclist, at midnight, being stopped by a patroman with a mere suspicion, what happens when the cyclist refuses to speak? Does that change the powers the patrolman has? What happens with the other two levels of suspicion?

And finally, if you're stopped by a patrolman with a reasonable suspicion, is it completely beyond the realm of possibility that you could explain who you are, what you're doing, where you're going, and then have your weapon returned to you, and be alllowed to go on your way?

The reason I'm pointing this out is because I have been questioned, and cut loose. It happens. There was never a reason (or desire) to invoke any of my rights.

So at the end of the day, how is a private citizen to determine, on the spot, under fire, what level of authority a patrolman is operating under, and how that changes his or her rights?

[Flyboy]

I believe I may have been less than clear here. Allow me to (attempt to) clarify:

Officer Friendly makes a community contact. For example, as I'm walking from the parking lot to my apartment, he asks if I've seen somebody matching x description (where x is nothing like me), and says they're looking for him, and so forth. At initial contact, I advise him that I'm carrying a concealed pistol. I am required to do this by law (at least in Oklahoma)[0]. At this point, under Oklahoma law, he's entitled to see my concealed carry permit and my driver's license (or other ID). He now also has probable cause to believe I'm carrying a gun--I just told him.

Now, he has no reason to believe I've committed, or am about to commit, a crime--he's merely asking if I've seen anything around my complex. I am not the subject of any suspicion or investigation. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that he may disarm me during our contact (though I have reason to question that understanding[1]).

So now I'm standing on the sidewalk outside my apartment. While I'd like to help Officer Friendly catch the guy causing problems, I really want to catch the end of JAG. Where do I stand here? Assuming I was disarmed, was it illegal to begin with (I'm inclined to think no, given the courts' usual deference to "officer safety")? Can I (respectfully) insist upon the return of my pistol, or do I have to wait until he's ready to give it back to me? If I'm free to leave, but have to wait until he wants to return my property, does that mean I'm not actually free to leave? When I asked about coercion, I was referring not to illegal activities, but rather coercion to consent to questioning (i.e. consent given under duress)?

I can see where this situation would turn on precise definitions and circumstances, so I know any answer is likely to be comprehensively correct for all sets of facts, but I'm just trying to get an idea.

Taking a different tack, make it a traffic stop (the question of whether he can disarm at a traffic stop seems pretty well-settled). He wrote the ticket, I signed it, and that seems to be done. He's asking questions, and I don't want to answer them. Can I insist that he return my pistol and let me be on my way?



[0] 21 OK 1290.8 C
It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop.This raises the question of whether "community contact" constitutes detainment for the purposes of notification. In class, we were advised to inform on any contact (with the possible exception of saying "hi" in line at the grocery, etc.).


[1] 21 OK 1290.8 E
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.What does "inspect" mean? Running serial number through the database? Checking the chamber? Merely looking at the gun while retaining posession?

[bratch]

When I took My CCL class it was taught by a Newalla-McCloud (that area) police officer.

He told us that in a traffic stop an Oklahoma officer does not have the right to disarm you. You must inform them that you are carrying and provide your liscense but that is it. I would ass-u-me that this would apply to an encounter outside of the car as well. In other words: Officer here is my liscense I am carrying and thats it.

This could be worth looking into abit more though.

[Cosmoline]

I'm all for the right to remain silent, but keep in mind that may not be the best policy if you're dealing with your own local LEO's. It's good policy to establish a positive relationship with them, if possible. Granted in big cities with robocops on the beat, that may be impossible since they view all citizens as sheep or wolves. But in rural areas it's not a bad idea. The LEO's like to have people on their side, since they are few in number and usually patrol alone and far from backup. I've tried to keep things very friendly with troopers in my area and go out of my way to help at the many wintertime traffic accidents by flagging cars to slow down until the trooper shows up. I always give a statement if I saw anything. I have noticed that when I do get pulled over, it's by someone new. I try to let them know in so many words that I'm not a meth dealer and so far it's worked :D

I draw the line when it comes to consent to search. NEVER consent to a search. Answering questions and being helpful is one thing, but if they want to search something and ask permission, you should NEVER give it. There's simply no good that can come of it. No LEO is going to ask to do a search "to clear you" or any other BS. If they didn't like you for a crime, they'd never ask to do the search. The only reason they want to do it is because they think you're guilty of some significant crime and they don't want to mess with a warrant. Politely but firmly refuse to consent. Always, always, always.

[mrhuckins]

If they didn't like you for a crime, they'd never ask to do the search. The only reason they want to do it is because they think you're guilty of some significant crime and they don't want to mess with a warrant. Politely but firmly refuse to consent. Always, always, always. :evil: Amen to that brother!!

I consented to a search one time in my youth, and was summarily put in jail for having something in my car that I didn't even know was illegal. The officer asked to search my vehicle, and at first I said no. The officer then started walking back to his patrol car and said (here comes the LEO's lie) "Ok, but I'll just call it in, and they will let me search your vehicle anyway." Being young and naive, at that point I told him to go ahead with the search :banghead: (as far as I knew, there was nothing illegal in my vehicle anyway), since he would be able to conduct the search anyway.

I learned a valuable and expensive lesson. I have been stopped several times since then, and have always politely answered officers questions, but have refused searches of my home and vehicle without upsetting police officers. In fact, just the opposite seems true. Once they are unable to do a search, it sort of takes the wind out of their sails so to speak, and they seem to lose interest, and move on to dealing with the next potential criminal.

[DMF]

The officer then started walking back to his patrol car and said (here comes the LEO's lie) "Ok, but I'll just call it in, and they will let me search your vehicle anyway." Being young and naive, at that point I told him to go ahead with the search IF (and that's a big IF) this story is true and accurate, then you were dumb for not trying to suppress the evidence found in the search: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html#1

But consent will not be regarded as voluntary when the officer asserts his official status and claim of right and the occupant yields to these factors rather than makes his own determination to admit officers. One of the first things we were taught about consent searches was we could NOT say things like, "Well if you don't let us search now, we'll come back with a warrant later." Now cops can say they will ask for a warrant later, but cops can't say they WILL get a warrant later. Subtle yet important difference.

See Bumper v. North Carolina 391US543 (1968)

[mrhuckins]

DMF, I guess that makes me a dumb liar then in your opinion. AND I just learned another valuable lesson. Don't post personal "lessons learned" on this board, for the edification of others unless I want people to imply that I am a liar and insult me. Which I don't.

This does bring up a good point though. LEO's which DMF is implying that he is, or has been, due to some training. LEO's do know the law because they have been trained in it. Average Joe citizen does not know all of the laws. Heck even Lawyers who earn their livelihood working in the law do not know all of the law. LEO's use their greater understanding of the law to intimidate citizens, who do not know any better. Which was my point to begin with.

[Hawkmoon]

Officer Friendly makes a community contact. For example, as I'm walking from the parking lot to my apartment, he asks if I've seen somebody matching x description (where x is nothing like me), and says they're looking for him, and so forth. At initial contact, I advise him that I'm carrying a concealed pistol. I am required to do this by law (at least in Oklahoma)[0]. At this point, under Oklahoma law, he's entitled to see my concealed carry permit and my driver's license (or other ID). He now also has probable cause to believe I'm carrying a gun--I just told him.

Now, he has no reason to believe I've committed, or am about to commit, a crime--he's merely asking if I've seen anything around my complex. I am not the subject of any suspicion or investigation. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that he may disarm me during our contact (though I have reason to question that understanding[1]).
In a "community contact" situation, the mere fact that state law requires you to inform an LEO that you are carrying a legal pistol does not appear to give said LEO any reason or right to disarm you. He now knows that you have a pistol. He can be alert for any attempt on your part to draw said pistol. But a community contact is not based on any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, or even misdemeanor activity on the level of a traffic violation. So why should he have any right to disarm you?

Would an LEO have a right to disarm you if he stops you to ask what time it is?

[Powderman]

LEO's use their greater understanding of the law to intimidate citizens, who do not know any better. Which was my point to begin with.

I believe that I can speak for a lot of other cops when I say this:

The reason that I try my best to stay current on criminal law, case law, court definitions and the like is to try to keep MY hind end out of trouble.

I am also VERY aware of the golden rule--to treat others like you would want to be treated. The vast majority of cops are also aware of this rule. We do not set out to intimidate anyone. Yet, I do recognize that intimidation is a necessary part of the job--in some instances.

Violating someone else's civil rights just ain't my cup of tea. :)

[Checkman]

Powderman-

Ever hear this joke?
What did cops and firefighters have in common when they were kids?
Answer: They both wanted to be firefighters.

It's interesting to note that if I and the other officers on my department violated as many folks civil rights as some people say we do then there would be no more police department in this city. Of course what I really like is how people are really into their civil rights (as am I) until they're a victim. Then ,or if, those pesky civil rights (as well as rules of evidence etc.) ensure that there will be no prosecution of the suspect they're more then ready to throw the Constitution out the window. And of course we (the cops) aren't doing anything. I guess we're too busy fabricating evidence to put away god fearing honest citizens. And much of our time is also spent intimidating those same people.

Incidentally why is it a bad thing for those of us in the profession to be knowledgable when it comes to the law? Isn't that our job? Would you like to go to a doctor who stopped keeping abreast of medical developments when he/she graduated from medical school in 1987?

Oh well if I had wanted to be loved I would have been a firefighter. :rolleyes:

[mrhuckins]

Wow, did I strike a nerve here or what? You LEO's are all acting like a cop NEVER violated someone's civil rights, or stretched the rules to make an arrest. I'm telling you, it happened to me. But like I said earlier, I was young and niave. I know better now.

Incidentally why is it a bad thing for those of us in the profession to be knowledgable when it comes to the law? Isn't that our job?

Wow, hostility, where did that come from. Did I say this was a bad thing?

I think no matter what I say, the LEO's are now going to all treat me like I'm just a dumb liar. So, at this point, I feel that I must say "Officer I do not want to be detained any longer, or answer any more questions. Am I free to go now?" :evil:

[Powderman]

Wow, did I strike a nerve here or what? You LEO's are all acting like a cop NEVER violated someone's civil rights, or stretched the rules to make an arrest.

Au contraire, my friend.

I know of quite a few cops who violated the civil rights of other citizens. I believe that it is more than a happy coincidence that NONE of them are employed as police officers anymore.

I can not speak for any other jurisdictions, but I can say that in the part of the State of Washington that I am familiar with, ANY breach of integrity or ANY breach of someone's civil rights is dealt with swiftly and harshly by the department affected.

I will say this, though--in each case that I am familiar with, the process started with a well-articulated formal complaint. Thus, if you seriously believe that your civil rights have been violated, contact the police department's internal affairs investigators ASAP.

[dpesec]

I beg to disagree with "If you've done nothing wrong". Yes, in an ideal world, but we need to carefully guard our freedoms. I've watched the 4th amendment be attacked, and I don't like it.
If there's reasonable cause to believe I committed a crime, yes arrest me, if not, by opening the door to fishing trip, I've given up my rights. There have been too many fine individuals who "gave the last full measure" to let any of my rights slip away without a fight.

[DMF]

I can not speak for any other jurisdictions, but I can say that in the part of the State of Washington that I am familiar with, ANY breach of integrity or ANY breach of someone's civil rights is dealt with swiftly and harshly by the department affected.I've said it before and I'll say it again - no one hates a bad cop, more than a good cop.

[P95Carry]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - no one hates a bad cop, more than a good cop. Remember that folks - it often seems forgotten.

[mrhuckins]

This incident happend in the State of Texas, Humbolt County if I remember correctly. I now live in Kansas. At the time this happened, which was 21 years ago, the police were "good 'ol boys" and all backed each other up. There were only two witnesses to this event, myself and the officer. I'm sure if I made a complaint, at the time they would have believed the officers word, rather than mine. Actually, I concider myself lucky. Many times, according to popular accounts by some people I knew at the time, the police there, were just as likely to handcuff you, take you into the woods and beat you half to death. Just to teach you a lesson.

This happened 21 years ago. Its water under the bridge now. But I do appreciate your concern, and words of advice Powderman. We need more like you out there.

[mrhuckins]

LEO's use their greater understanding of the law to intimidate citizens, who do not know any better. Which was my point to begin with.

Actually, I can see how someone might take acception to this comment. I should have said something more like: Unscrupulous LEO's could use their greater understanding of the law to intimidate citizens who don't know any better.

[Group9]

Much of how an interview goes with a citizen, who may or may not be suspected of a crime is based on the experience and observations of an officer. He may ask you for consent to search merely to gage your reaction. Let me give you an example that most men find easy to understand.

Say you are having an affair and you have naked pictures of your girlfriend in your briefcase. As you walk in the door, your wife confronts you and ask if you are having an affair. You will probably say no, and may even be believable to her, although your pulse rate, and breathing, are probably starting to head pretty far away from normal.

Then she looks at you and says. What do you have in your briefcase? Do you have any naked pictures of her in there? Now at this point, you have the right to refuse to talk to her any more, just as with the police, but do you think she is going to have her suspicions resolved and is going to resume preparing dinner if you do?

So, you say no, there are no naked pictures of your girlfriend in your briefcase. And, she says, do you mind if I look?

At this point, your heart rate is probably close to beating at double or triple your normal rate, and your breathing is speeding up to. If you don't think your wife (or the police) are noticing this little detail, you are sadly mistaken.

So, you say no, she can't search it. Well, do you think your problems are over? No, not hardly.

That's a good example of what happens when the police talk to a criminal who has something going on, and something to hide, at that minute.

Now, what if you walk in and your wife asks you if you are having an affair, and you are completely innocent? Are you worried that she is going to fabricate evidence that you are? Hell, no. You're just annoyed and wanting to get a beer and wondering how she could have got this crazy idea. Are you going to blow her off or try to calm her down?

If she asks to look in your briefcase for naked pictures, and you know there is nothing in there, are you going to tell her no? Of course not. Because, you are making yourself look guilty for no good reason. She doesn't have any right to look in it, but is it worth having her think you are guilty just to stand on that principal? For most people it is not. So, you toss it to her and say, go ahead and look, I'm getting a beer, and walk toward the kitchen. She probably is going to feel silly and probably won't even look.

I often use this example to try and make normal people understand what is going on in a criminal's mind, that is not going on in theirs, when they encounter the police. Criminals are scared when interacting with the police when they have something going on. Normal people, and criminals who have nothing going on, are annoyed. Police officers with any experience at all, learn pretty fast how to tell the difference. And, it is a fact of life that newer officers make this call wrong less and less as they gain experience.

I have asked lots of people if I could search their cars, and simply based on how they acted when they said I could, I said never mind and walked off. I have also had people tell me I couldn't and I walked off for the same reason.

So, just by how you decline a search, you have often already relieved the police officer of the suspicions that caused him to ask you in the first place. And, it is hard to fake. It's easy to picture yourself being jaunty and arrogant in those circumstances, regardless of whether you had anything to hide. But, the people who really have ice water in their veins, who have the naked pictures of their girlfriend and don't get stressed out when confronted by their wife, are pretty rare, and really being wasted if they are not in the astronaut program. :)

[cropcirclewalker]

OK, so what if YOU had some nekkid pictures of YOUR wife in your briefcase and I walked up and accused YOU of having nekkid pictures of MY wife in there?

If you got nothing to hide, why not let me look?

Privacy? Principle? I cannot imagine that somebody hasn't asked you this before when you use your slick little example.

[Powderman]

We need more like you out there.

Thanks for the compliment. But, please understand--MOST of the cops out here--indeed, the vast, vast majority--ARE like me.

[12-34hom]

mrhuckins, Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

That applies to everyone all the time in equal porportions.

12-34hom.

[rock jock]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in all the couple of dozen times I've been stopped for speeding in my life, I've never had a cop want to search my car. Same applies to my domicile or my person. Please indulge me, what situations have some of the THR members here been asked consent for a search?

[cropcirclewalker]

Hi, ho, Mr. Jock,

The last (and only) time my car got searched, they didn't ask. I was sitting on the curb in hand cuffs. Bomb sniffing dogs, the whole 9 yards.

Seems like I had the timerity to have a shootin' iron on the seat of my car. Also known as "Committing a Lawful Act".

Of course, they released me, since nobody could figure out what law I had broken. I tried to tell them over and over........Open carry is Legal in Missouri.


Maybe it helps to have friends in LEO positions or something. I don't know.

Now the score is 1 to 1. Next?

[Jammer Six]

I've never been asked to consent to a search on a traffic stop.

Ever.

The other point I would bring up is that it's a lovely analogy, but it diverges from reality in one critical detail: my wife asking to look inside my briefcase for pictures of another woman is very, very different from a police officer asking me to consent to a search. Any search.

In the first place, my wife is looking for pictures of an alledged girlfriend, if there are no pictures, there is no problem.

That may or may not be the case with a police officer. Where my wife won't look for or at anything but pictures, the police officer will look for anything he or she can find, once I've given consent.

In addition, my wife WANTS to find me innocent- she doesn't want me to be having an affair. A police officer doesn't care if I come out guilty or not. He or she has no investment in my personal future, where my wife does.

To ignore these differences is to engage in fallacy.

Your analogy simply does not reflect reality, and is deeply flawed. You do your case no good when you claim that it reflects anything about police officers requesting permission to search.

There is no reason in your analogy to ever consent to a search.

There may well be a valid reason to give permission to consent to a search by a police officer, but if there is, it isn't represented in your analogy.

Do you have another reason why an innocent citizen would consent to a search by a police officer?

[zahc]

Dude it's just an analogy.

It's not perfect, but it's not bad.

[Jammer Six]

It's not perfect, but it's not bad.
Actually, that was exactly my point: it's a terrible analogy.

[mrhuckins]

mrhuckins, Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I've always thought that this HAD to have been a lawyer, judge, or a LEO that came up with that quote. :D

[Wastemore]

About 11:30 pm one night, my pregnant wife has a headache, I throw on some cloths and head to the local store to pick up some Asprin. On the way I noticed a cruiser coming the opposite direction, no big deal, I'm certainly not speeding. He flips around and lights me up. I pull over and him and his plain-clothed buddy walk up(civilian on the passenger side) and asks me for my DL. I keep my hands on the wheel and politely tell him that I am armed and have a CCW and calmly ask him what he wants me to do... in those exact words. He draws his pistol and keeps it at his side while telling me to step out of the car with my hands in front of me, so I do. I tell him that the pistol is under my front seat and that I don't have anything on my person. He pushes me face down on the car, kicks the inside of my legs and preceeds to pat me down(while squeezing my crotch and literally crunching my testicle). He tells me to sit down, walks over to the car, reaches in, pulls out my pistol, removes the mag and racks the chambered round into the grass on the side of the road. He comes back over to me and tells me to give him my wallet, so I do, while he asks me to tell him where my permit is. My permit is tucked away deep inside my wallet so I don't accidentally lose it. As he's looking through my wallet he tells me: " you don't have a permit, why are you lying to me, punk... it would be much easier if you just told me the truth". By this time I was getting really nervous, obvioulsy. I tell him that if he handed me the wallet I would get it for him.. he hands it back to me(more like threw it at(to?) me and preceeds to verbally map out exactly how I was going to jail that night. My hands are shaking and I'm fumbling for my permit.. I pull it out and hand it to him(he already took out my DL).


I politely ask him why I was stopped, he tells me: "Because blue headlights are illegal". I didn't have blue headlights and promptly pointed that out to him. I was on my way, shaken and very upset at the way I was treated.



Taking my daughter to school I was pulled over. I'll save you the details but the whole stop went almost exactly like the one I just typed... with one exception, the officer wouldn't give me my wallet back. He pulled all of my papers out and literally dropped them on the ground. Once he found my permit, without saying a word, he got into his car and took off leaving me standing on the side of the street holding the firearm he just gave back to me, my papers on the ground and my 7 year old daughter crying her eyes out in the front seat of my car due to what she just witnessed. I don't even know what I was pulled over for.

I can go on and on about my encounters with the police and can think of at least 6 other "run-ins" off the top of my head. I've never been into trouble of any kind. I'm a middle aged business man in a sedan. I don't speed(honestly), I keep to myself... Why me? I've had them come up to me while I was pumping gas on my way back from my parents house with my wife and two kids in the car, ask me where I was going and tell me that if they see me out again tonight they "find something to write me for".

Somehow, I still find a way to be respectful to them. My question is, do they deserve it simply because they wear a badge? I know they have a tough job, but so do I..and, I don't take it out on other people.

B-

[Group9]

OK, so what if YOU had some nekkid pictures of YOUR wife in your briefcase and I walked up and accused YOU of having nekkid pictures of MY wife in there?

Okay. Obviously, the point of the analogy was lost on some people. The point was to try and help a normal citizen understand what is going on in an encounter with a criminal and the police.

I guess you can turn anything into "I hate the police' if you want. Never mind and continue on.

[Tory]

A warrantless search pursuant to a baseless stop and interrogation is being likened to one's spouse asking about the sanctity of the marital relationship. This line of reasoning is, to put it charitably, disingenous.

The wife in the example cited is basing her inquiry on her intimate knowledge of her spouse's personality and behavior and, quite possibly, physical evidence. No cop has that much "street smarts" and there is certainly no objective evidence justifying the stop.

The wife has a RIGHT to ask her husband about his activities and to get an answer. The cop is not entitled to anything more than mere ID and cannot perform a search w/o probable cause. Even a Terry frisk requires an articulable perception of a threat.

Marriage requires the surrender of a portion of one's privacy as part of the relationship. There is no legal - or other -basis for my surrendering my privacy, in the form of opening a briefcase or disclosing my day's agenda, to a cop on a fishing expedition.

State probable cause, get a warrant or get lost. :scrutiny:

[Johnny Guest]

This incident happend in the State of Texas, Humbolt County if I remember correctly. Apparently not - - US Census Bureau link to Texas Counties - -
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
254 counties - - There is NO Humbolt County in Texas, not by any similar spelling. And no town or city by that name. Apparently, there has been none at any time in the past 50 years. It would take some more research to see if there's EVER been such a place.

:confused:
Johnny

[Checkman]

You can tell who is in law enforcement and who isn't. A big part of the job is a "fishing expedition". Many an officer has caught a break becasue they were "fishing." I include myself in that. Did I break any laws or violate any civil rights? No. But I played a hunch, did some fast talking (without any threats or cohercion) and got a full confession from my suspect. I was still collecting evidence and didn't have a solid case, but she was a flight risk and I felt like I would have been irresponsible if I didn't go for it.

After I got my confession (to include a written statement and all on tape) I let her go and continued to collect evidence. After all confessions can be recanted and without evidence they're not much to go on. Now who was this person? She was an individual who passed numerous bad checks to a local pizza parlor. Approximately $2,800 in bad checks - that's alot of pizza and beer. She later pled guilty, was sentenced to a couple of years of supervised probation and had to pay back the money. Money she didn't have.

That was a solid case, though it might be small time to many. I got a break because I was "fishing." That is part of the reality of this job. We do go fishing at times.

Now if at any time she had told me to go away, refused to answer her door when I knocked on it or even closed the door in my face I would have walked away. It's your right as an American to say you don't want to talk to a cop. It's my job to try to get you to talk without resorting to illegal behavior. If you really don't want to talk to me then walk away. I'll let you go. If I get something substantial I'll take it to a judge and see if the judge agrees with me and will issue a warrant.

I will stop and attempt to talk to you if you are wandering around at 3:00 A.M. Maybe you are an honest citizen who need help or a newspaper delivery person or maybe you're a nightcrawler with an arresst warrant doing car burgs. That is the job guys. Most people are asleep in their beds, but I'm awake and so is this individual. That means we're going to engage in some social interaction. And if this person dosen't have a valid reason for wandering around at 3:00 I will "fish". Or if you like I'll do a Terry Stop.

Here's another inccident from my patrol days. It was the night shift and I hadgone to a local residence to follow up on something or another. The front door was open, but the screen door was closed. The lights were out, but I could see a woman laying on the couch in the living room. There was a dog in the house barking at me. I identified myself and asked if she could talk to me. This lady never turned her head in my direction though she told the dog to shut up numerous times. It was a strange experience. I finally thanked her ( in a sarcastic tone I have to admit) and cleared the call. She excercised her right to have nothing to do with me. I had no reason to stick around any longer and left. But she did give me a great story.

I have yet to deal with somebody who I wanted so bad that I'd risk not only my career, but my family's financial well being. But I will fish because I don't have God's ability to know what a person is thinking or feeling at given moment.

One last thing before I leave. Many civil rights activists say you shouid have a recorder when interacting with the police. Good call. In Idaho we (the police) record all our interactions with the public. I have a handy little Sony digital pocket recorder in my pockets at all times. Our patrol cars have videocameras in them. Idaho is a single consent state. We also videotape all our formal interviews and polygraph exams. Many a person has been sentenced because of their statements to an officer who was taping at the time. And many an officer has been cleared of charges of wrong doing because he or she was recording at the time. We don't operate in the shadows.

[Jammer Six]

I guess you can turn anything into "I hate the police' if you want. Never mind and continue on.
I, for one, don't hate cops. I have, in fact, never met a cop socially that I didn't like.

Don't mistake pointing out flaws in an analogy with hate, there's quite a bit of distance between the two.

I sincerely hope that none of the cops here jump to conclusions that quickly, based on that type of statement.

Concluding that a citizen hates cops could lead to serious breaches of civil rights.

Like unwarranted searches.

[zahc]

And if this person dosen't have a valid reason for wandering around at 3:00 I will "fish". Or if you like I'll do a Terry Stop.

Oh, I am so very familiar with this attitude. :(

[what42]

And if this person dosen't have a valid reason for wandering around at 3:00 I will "fish". Or if you like I'll do a Terry Stop.
"valid reason"? Who gave you the right to claim I need a reason to be out any time of the day I wish?

I agree that many people out and about that time of night are up to no good but in my opinion that still doesn't justify violating their privacy to go hassle them. But, I must be in the minority as I also disagree with random drug dog sniffing of cars at traffic stops. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary I think people should be treated as innocent responsible citizens. "Innocent until proven guilty" and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" are very important.

I realize this may be seen by some policemen as naive or idealistic but personal freedoms (and personal responsibility) are very important. I don't believe anyone should hassle me just because I happen to be walking somewhere at the 'wrong time' or 'wrong place' or if I happen to be 'dressed wrong'. Unless I'm commiting a crime it's no one's business when and where I go (especially the government's).

[Jammer Six]

And if this person dosen't have a valid reason for wandering around at 3:00 I will "fish". Or if you like I'll do a Terry Stop.
Therefore, as soon as I answer "because I want to", our interview will be at an end?

[Wastemore]

It's come down to an "us vs. them" mentality and it's really too bad. The police have become more dangerous than the criminals in many cases, at least when you're the victim of a crime the criminal is long gone and generally it's simply possesions that have been taken. An innocent run-in with the police often takes years, many thousands of dollars and valuable time to sort out.
The frustrating fact is that the police are of little benefit to the average citizen until a crime has been commited, by that time it's often too late. It's not uncommon to hear the phrase "there's nothing we can do", followed by, "but if something happens let us handle it". I'm pro-active, the police are reactive and my ability to be pro-active is incrementally being eroded by the threat of lawsuit and the fear of being charged for the crime of protecting mine.The police have no obligation to protect the individual citizen, only society as a whole, but we're led to believe through repetition that they are our Superman. That part isn't the fault of the officer, rather, it's the fault of society for trading off our ruggedness and self-sufficiency for a false sense of security. The job of an officer is deterrence through presence and investiagtion of crime. "To protect and serve" is very misleading since not only do the police have no legal obligation to protect you, it would be nearly impossible to do so with the amount of officers in relation to the number of people, yet we're told and often threatened to "let them handle it". How can I trust them with my life when mearly speaking to them can ruin it?

B-

[P95Carry]

Not sure what folks think but - I'd say this thread was about done.

Why? - for the simple reason that sadly for many, ''them and us'' is the way it is and will always be. I am not taking sides here - we have seen good and not so good input from all angles.

There are many perspectives, often driven by personal experience but also often from misapprehensions. Perhaps it will ever be thus.

The one thing tho which we want to try and avoid here is ''bashing'' - but because feelings usually run high, that can easily happen. Fact is - with this sort of thread - in the end it is a ''been there, done that'', because if folks look back over many threads dealing with LE matters - it is mostly a repeat of earlier threads. The beginning section here did deal with the core material of the question over detention - and will I hope serve as some valuable reference.

There is no wish to close for closure's sake but in truth, I doubt further debate will take this much further, at least, not without the probability of higher temperatures.

Thanks to all who ''enjoined battle'' :)