[Bill Hook]

I'm sitting in the parking lot of an old unoccupied utilities office, around 2PM, adjacent to the McD's, eating my salad (Atkins plan), when I notice a cop pull up behind me. I've got the windows down, and am listening to talk radio with the salad on my lap and McD's less than 100 yards away and about 2 blocks from city hall, in plain sight from the street. I drive a fairly new Japanese near-luxury marque that would fit in in this upper-middle class 'burb.

The cop sits there for a minute, then gets out and asks me what I'm doing (uh, eating :rolleyes: ) and then he tells me that all kinds of things occur in parking lots of abandoned buildings (With a salad? Right down the street from city hall and within 30 ft of a residential street and within 100 yds of one of the busiest secondary roads in the state? :rolleyes: ). He asks for ID and wastes 5 minutes or so of my time running my ID on some ignorant fishing expedition when any other half-wit would've connected the dots (salad, McDonald's, lunch, empty parking lot nearby, nice day).

What are my rights to refuse this request for ID (while not operating a vehicle on a public street) and how should I make my displeasure known to the PD brass and City Hall? I feel I should've been left unmolested after the cop made his presence known and he saw what I was doing wasn't a crime (yet :rolleyes: ).

[Devonai]

2pm and in plain view of the street? This encounter stinks. However, I think the only action warranted is a polite but strongly-worded letter to the chief of police. Make yourself a copy, date it, and mail it to yourself. Then if this same officer bothers you again for no apparent reason, you can establish a pattern.

My first question to the officer would have been, "is this private property?" If the answer is yes, then my response is to say, "from now on I'll find somewhere else to eat lunch." If the answer is no, then I say "with all due respect, officer, I have a right to park here, unless there's a local ordinance I'm unaware of." Let him run my info. He still can't make me leave.

[Jeff White]

Bill,
You're not going to like hearing this, but the officer was just doing some routine police work. You could have been doing any number of things sitting there eating your salad. You coud have been casing a nearby business, you could have been waiting for someone to meet you for a drug transaction. The officer didn't know you, didn't know the car. Is it common for people to sit there and eat their lunch? Perhaps someone saw you sitting there and phoned in a report of a suspicious vehicle?

At any rate, the officer felt that you sitting there eating lunch was an unusual enough event to warrant seeing just who was sitting there. It doesn't sound like he was abusive to you and once he discovered that you weren't wanted or had a criminal history he left.

The Supreme Court has ruled that occupants of a vehicle have to identify themselves. There are also state laws in most states on this. The public/ private property issue you may need to check with an attorney about.

Think about it this way; Would you be just as upset if you heard of an armed robbery or mass shooting in the area and when the suspect was caught it came out that a cruiser had pulled through the parking lot and ignored him, while he was sitting their waiting for the right time to make his move?

Police work is a balance...It's a hard job. I'm sorry you felt violated. But the officer doesn't know what who you are and what you're up to unless he checks.

Jeff

[Pilgrim]

I suppose the best way to handle this if you think the officer is just fishing for something to build his statistics on is comply with his request, and when he is finished ask him to call his supervisor. When his supervisor arrives ask the officer in front of the supervisor just what crime he suspected you of committing or was about to commit that required him to interrupt your lunch.

If you wait to write the letter, he can make up all kinds of reasons why he stopped you. By calling the supervisor, the supervisor is very aware of the conditions and circumstances "causing" the officer to stop you from what you are doing and run your ID. Then again, the supervisor may have the same mindset as the officer which takes you back to your original problem. They may then be more motivated to screw around and see if they can find something they can make stick, like "contempt of cop."

Your other option is to wait for the chief or one of his command staff to attend a kumbayah session with neighborhood watch and ambush him with the same question.

Pilgrim

[Wildalaska]

With a salad? Right down the street from city hall and within 30 ft of a residential street and within 100 yds of one of the busiest secondary roads in the state?

Yep, crime occurs under those circs....you talked, you IDd, he left...

I think you should save the complaints for something real other than good, thorough police work...

WildtoprotectandserveAlaska

[Devonai]

The others have made me reconsider my response. On second thought I wouldn't complain unless the officer was unprofessional in manner. It doesn't sound like he was. I did some P.I. work awhile back, and occasionally I would be approached by a police officer while on surveillance. They were always very professional and courteous. Of course, we always logged in with the department before doing surveillance operations, so as soon as I identified myself the encounter would end.

[TheeBadOne]

Sit in a coffee shop for a cup and they're lazy no good wastes of tax payer money. Do some good pro-active leg work and they're heavy handed thugs with bad attitudes... :uhoh:

[c_yeager]

If thats the worse encounter you've ever had with law enforcement then i woudl consider you to be a lucky person. Really you dont have much to complain about.

[Coronach]

Wow. Are you sure that I'm not the one who "harassed" you?

I do that all the time. Every day.

Lets see, in my area, we have a parking lot that has a lot of car break ins. If I see someone sitting in a car for an extended period of time, I'm either going to hang back and watch them, or I'm going to approach them and try to see who they are and what they're doing.

Oh, they're eating their lunch?

Ok...you don't think that the thieves have a ready-made story, complete with props, for why they are where they are and why they're doing what they're doing? Of course they do. And while the bad thieves stick out, the good ones blend in.

So what we try to do is talk to the person, request ID, and if it is offered, just do a check for wants/warrants and make a mental note of the name and the face. Such things come in handy later on, either in the form of "That guy? Naw, he eats his lunch here about three times a week" or "White guy with brown hair, huh? Green ford escort? 6', 170 lbs, mid thirties? Really? You're /sure/ you saw him smash the window and take the briefcase? Ok...ma'am...if we showed you a photo line up, do you think you could ID this guy?"

As to the right to refuse to provide ID, it depends heavily on the circumstances. A good rule of thumb, however, is this...if you're being charged with a crime (including traffic violations), you are required to provide ID. If you're not, you are not. However, cutting right to the chase, you're going to attract a lot more unwanted attention by refusing the ID than by providing it. Plus, you're delaying the officer from his task, which is catching bad guys.

Also, less politely, isn't this the same Internet BB that screeched bloody murder when we found out that the police had actually had contact with the DC 'Snipers' near one of the shootings? I guess we want the police to be hardnosed and aggressive when they stop the right car, but we don't even want to have to politely converse with them when they stop the wrong one.

Mike

[El Tejon]

Most states have statutes that Jeff White described. Further, what you described sounds like a copper with his radar turned on.

If you are unhappy you can always make a gripe to the cop shoppe or a letter to the editor. However, it appears the copper was just doing what they always do--"what's all this then?":D

I had something similar happen to me couple of weeks ago. I was practicing my boxing at lunch downtown. While I was running through some stretching and doing some form work, a young kid (the po-po on the beat are getting younger to me) approaches me (with confused look:D, apparently he had never seen mantis boxing before).

"Sir, (yeah, I know, he called ME "sir"--I immediately looked around for my dad) how are you today? Anything wrong?"

Apparently he was driving by and saw me exercising and thought something was wrong. Sez a lot for our culture, huh?:uhoh:

I didn't have my wallet, but identified myself orally and gave him my card. (Always carry cards). He started to call to see if I was (it's either Signal 40 or 80--I can never remember the "wanted on warrant" status), but a Sgt. I knew from when I was a LEO drove by and stopped and waved ("Hey, El Tejon, how's it going").

He put his uniform mic down, smiled and turned on his heel. I told him if he wanted to study some boxing, let me know, free lessons to cops. He laughed and got back in his scout car.

Did he have "reasonable suspicion" to stop me? Arguably no. But what am I going to do--run away? Fight? Be snotty? No, Eddie Haskell up and settle the legal issues later.

The advice I was give to CCWers or anyone else when dealing with cops, just be cool. You're not doing anything wrong. Cops, out of self-defence, have heightened sensitivity to fear or panic. Relax and they will (usually) relax.:)

[clubsoda22]

Whatever, if i had nowhere to be, he can run my ID while i finish my salad.

Next time try eating your lunch in an abandoned parking lot wearing a black balacava.

[DorGunR]

Must be something wrong with me.............I don't see a problem with what the cop did.:confused:

[FPrice]

If the officer is courteous and professional, thank him for doing his job. While I am not an LEO, nor do I play one on the TV or the Internet, I think part of an LEO's job is to be aware of the surroundings and notice things. All sorts of things.

A couple of questions pop into mind. Does your city possibly have a drug problem? Not all druggies look like dirtbags and drive beater vehicles.

Does your city have a problem with parking lot or other open/secluded area muggings? Maybe he was just trying to insure your safety.

My advice is to not look for problems where none exist. I would much rather have a cop stop me or check up on me in a nice courteous manner than have something happen to me. Accept that it was most likely a dedicated LEO trying to insure that nothing bad was going on and let it go.

[Bill Hook]

He may have been doing nothing "wrong," but I see that it it is only a baby step from this to having to possess internal passports and keep them on your person at all times. Nothing like having LE treat you like a suspected criminal in every encounter. Nothing like being treated like a suspected criminal to errode support for LE.

BTW, from some of the responses I see, it sounds as if many would support racial profiling. Black person (not me) in a nearly all-white neighborhood would be cause for suspicion, no?

Additionally, he didn't even find my evil gun (suspicious) or ask about CCW.

[TheeBadOne]

The greater public really doesn't have a clue about Police work in general. Many threads of this nature have been posted on the internet with the following conclusion; "But I wasn't doing anything wrong! &&^%#$@ Cops!" To that way of thinking Cops need not be out patroling in squad cars but can just sit at the station (like Firemen) until something happens, then can respond after the fact. Though this may be what they do in a large number of cases (arriving after the fact), they are also charged with crime prevention. This does include on checking suspicious persons or vehicles. When someone complains it's because they don't understand that Police conduct "investigations" daily, by investigating anything suspicious. How do they determine what is suspicious? Training and experiance. As already mentioned, some places will attract more attention then others. There is a local movie theater that it's not a good idea to hang out in the parking lot of if you don't want to be checked out by the cops. It's in a nice area, very clean, and new. However, it's the target of a lot of thefts from car break ins. As a result (and at the request of the theater owners) the Cops patrol the area often and check on anyone just sitting in a car or not walking toward the entrance. Most of those people checked on "weren't doing anything wrong"! but did indeed warrant checking out.
Remember, that's our tax dollars out there working, be glad they are doing their job (checking out your neighborhood/bussiness areas to keep them safe, and to prevent crimes).

All the best

TBO

[El Tejon]

Bill, hmmm, don't know. Because a copper wants to know who you are? I think that's a large gap between the traffic code and "internal passports".

As to the 'attitude" of the coppers, part of it is that they are human just like you and me. They have good days, bad days, their wives yell at them, their kids misbehave, their partner had chilli for lunch, the Eltee mentioned the coffee stain on his shirt again, they had to work all night and then sit through a deposition, etc. They may have 'tudes, part of being human.

Of course, they treat people as criminals or potential criminals. The police exist to gather evidence of crimes for the prosecutor, not to debrief the innocent. They are well within beer breath range of criminals who lie to them everyday. They get jaded.

All the more reason to Eddie Haskell up.:D

BTW, being of any certain racial background is not "reasonable suspicion." However, sake of argument, a non-WASP copper stops me for being The Man. I behave in the same way--Eddie Haskell up. I don't run, I don't fight, I don't run my mouth and hurt my §1983 case later.

He arrests me for WWW (walking while being a whitey). O.K., I bond out and the fun in administrative and civil court begins.:D

[Bill Hook]

I think that's a large gap between the traffic code and "internal passports".

How does sitting in your car, off a public thoroughfare have anything to do with traffic codes? I had to produce ID, which isn't required to sit, last I heard. Were I on a public street, I'd have less of a problem because said officer could make a stop on the pretense of a traffic violation.

BTW, since cops treat those they meet as criminals and potential criminals, would it be wrong, as a citizen (if that word has any meaning left), to treat cops as JBTs and potential JBTs?

[Mike Irwin]

Should have come out of the car, guns blazing and shot him multiple times for having the audacity to interrupt your salad...

You're on private property of a building that isn't occupied. Trespassing.

You weren't harassed.

You were introduced to what a police officer does ever day on the job.

It's funny how many people hork on cops no matter what they do --- lazy donut eating slugs or jackbooted Nazi bastard thugs...

Relax, Bill, and be glad that the cop showed the propensity to stop... just in case the next time you're sitting in a pool of your own blood from the shank that some thug rammed into your neck in an effort to steal your wallet while you were eating lunch...

Next time, if you don't want to feel that you're being harassed, go to the park.

[Bill Hook]

You're on private property of a building that isn't occupied. Trespassing.

Not posted.

Relax, Bill, and be glad that the cop showed the propensity to stop... just in case the next time you're sitting in a pool of your own blood from the shank that some thug rammed into your neck in an effort to steal your wallet while you were eating lunch...

Uh, that's why I CCW. I seriously doubt the cops will be there to stop the thug you mentioned, only to take pictures and file a report.

[tcdrennen]

Over 20 years ago now I was going through a bad patch and literally living in my van for about 3 months. One evening, I was eating my dinner (from the fast food place about 50 yards away) and reading under the street lamp in a large shopping center/strip mall. Pleasant evening, windows rolled down, minding my own business.

PD rolls up (3 cars!) and the Sgt. asks me what I'm doing, then please step out, mind if we take a look. Me: eating & reading under this nice light, sure, okay. They poke around a bit, I ask what's up - turns out Ii'd been there over an hour (good book!), the center was closing down around me, and the manager of a diamond store about 75 yards away got nervous about the strange person sitting in the van for so long.

Everyone is relaxed and polite, they basically tell me it's time to move along, g'night, everyone leaves.

Was I doing anything to be "harrassed" over? No. Were the cops doing their job properly? Absolutely.

As to mid day in the lot of an abandoned building - you could be casing something, surveilling activity for a future break in plan, whatever. "Whatcha doing?" is reasonable proactive police work, and running your info is probably mandatory (or should be) - that way if anything DOES go down, they have eliminated YOU as a suspect (Witness - 'there was a strange car in that lot over there just before the bank robbery!' Police - 'not him, he was just eating his lunch and checked clean' AND/OR 'hey, that guy might have seen something, let's give him a call.'

Relax and enjoy it :scrutiny: - your tax dollars at work. :uhoh: :rolleyes:

[El Tejon]

Bill, depending on state law, one may be required to possess a driver's license while in control of the vehicle. Check local listings. Regardless one is also required to identify himself or herself, when stopped (may be in the traffice code or may be somewhere else).

O.K., I tell the po-po who I am. Not withstanding what the courts hold, to me it seems like reasonable search and seizure. I'm out in public, it's not like he kicked in my office or home door.:D

"BOOM! O.k., who are you?" "Well, officer my name is right there on the office door that you kicked in.":p

[12-34hom]

I had a situation like this happen to me.

Gent sitting in a closed business [gas station], i made a couple of passes by him, decided to check his status.

Got to the window of the truck - asked him whats going on?

"Just sitting here looking at the stars"

I ask for ID & proof of insurance for his vehicle.

His reply = What do you need that for??

I reply, "Checking the status of your drivers license sir" & to find out if there are any warrants for your arrest outstanding.

At that point, he goes off the deep end.... :fire:

The basic tirade, harrasment, you don't need to know, your abusing my rights, etc...

After a few minutes of this, he grudingly gives me his drivers license.

He checks out ok, i tell him have a nice evening.

I find out later he calls my boss, he gets told "just doing his job" - not good enough for him - calls the Sheriffs office - gets told the same thing...:neener:

People like him and you Bill Hook, are just part of the job.... rather amusing.

"Have a nice day sir"...

;)

12-34hom.

[Bill Hook]

As to mid day in the lot of an abandoned building - you could be casing something, surveilling activity for a future break in plan, whatever. "Whatcha doing?" is reasonable proactive police work, and running your info is probably mandatory (or should be) - that way if anything DOES go down, they have eliminated YOU as a suspect (Witness - 'there was a strange car in that lot over there just before the bank robbery!' Police - 'not him, he was just eating his lunch and checked clean' AND/OR 'hey, that guy might have seen something, let's give him a call.'

You know, I don't wish to give up any of my rights so that the collective can feel a little safer. Furthermore, I can't think of anything nearby that was worth stealing or breaking into. There's a deli across the street and a strip mall a hundred yards or so behind that - no jewelery store.

Additionally, the officer was apparent behind me (I didn't run) and he could run the plates if he had suspicions. If the car is clean, why worry too much about the occupant? If the vehicle is seen again, after a crime, then you have a lead. Of course, I could use a different car, but it is just as likely that I would not be a direct participant in the crime, but only acting as surveillance. The greatest likelihood, however, is that I was minding my own business.

[TheeBadOne]

The best "Badge Heavy" complaint I heard of was when a big local 6'4" 265 lb loud mouth went to complain about a speeding ticket he was given.

Claim: "He violated my civil rights"!!!!!!!

Substance of said claim: "He called me by my first name"!!!

OMG :rolleyes:

[Bill Hook]

People like him and you Bill Hook, are just part of the job.... rather amusing.

You mean another innocent citizen you harassed to no useful end? :rolleyes: You sound easily amused. ;)

I didn't complain to the cop (why argue with a flunky, when it's his boss that matters), but I just may complain to the brass and city hall. I might also write a few businesses to let them know why I won't be spending my money there anymore.

[Mike Irwin]

"Not posted."

Not applicable, really. Depending on the laws of your community, it could still be construed as trespassing, as there's no "viable" reason for you to be in the lot.

It still breaks down to you being on someone else's property. Tell me, if someone was sitting in your driveway eating lunch while you're not home, would you be offended if the police stopped to ask the individual what was going on?


"That's why I have a CCW."

Yep, that makes us invincible.


"You know, I don't wish to give up any of my rights so that the collective can feel a little safer."

Then stay OFF of other people's property.

[TheeBadOne]

Furthermore, I can't think of anything nearby that was worth stealing or breaking into.
Many many many reasons not covered here besides what you posted, including but not limited to:

Slinging dope

Stalking/harrasment

MV theft

Additionally, the officer was apparent behind me (I didn't run) and he could run the plates if he had suspicions. If the car is clean, why worry too much about the occupant? If the vehicle is seen again, after a crime, then you have a lead.
Well, for one thing, can you tell me how a car comes up stolen when the Cops run it? Well, first it has to be reported by the owner, then it has to be entered. The time inbetween it doesn't come up stolen when run. This can be hours or days. Also, the car may not register to the driver. It may be borrowed, or it may be purchased with cash by someone who doesn't want their name attached to it.

Think of it this way. Your car is stolen but you don't find out about it missing until after work (5 PM). After you report it you find out that an Officer spoke to the driver (thief) of your car at 2 PM while he was parked in a suspicious manner (to the Officer). You think, great, now we know who he is!!! :) The Officer then tells you, red faced and looking down, "Ah, no, I Ah, didn't, Ah, get his ID... :uhoh:

[El Tejon]

Bill, that's just it, you're not giving up any rights. The 4th sez reasonable not absolute. "What's all this then?" falls within reasonable.

I like to be left alone as well (however only attractive young women seem to abide by that wish), however I understand that there are circumstances where Charlie Bo-bo can hassle me if he so desires--what's all this then, traffic stop, a suscipious looking yuppie scum call, warrant out for me, et al. All I am stressing is that it is vital for CCWers to understand this and to be cool when/if it does transpire. :)

Btw, if the cop was squared away, he ran a 27 on the car before he approached.;)

[12-34hom]

Jeeze Bill, you sound like your easily offended...;)

12-34hom.

[Coronach]

You're on private property of a building that isn't occupied. Trespassing.Not posted.Irrelevant. If its not your property, you do not have the right to be there. If the building is known to be vacant, as you stated, the cop has a duty to see who is doing what on that property. He may even have been requested to do so by the property owner. Yes, this is still done, even in the year 2003.Relax, Bill, and be glad that the cop showed the propensity to stop... just in case the next time you're sitting in a pool of your own blood from the shank that some thug rammed into your neck in an effort to steal your wallet while you were eating lunch...Uh, that's why I CCW. I seriously doubt the cops will be there to stop the thug you mentioned, only to take pictures and file a report.Yes, but if they actually try to be proactive in catching/deterring/preventing such crimes, they're "harassing" you. This is a neat catch-22, no? If the cops are only there to pick up the pieces, they're useless report takers. If the cops do anything more proactive than that, they're the stormtroopers of oppression interrupting you on your lunch break.He may have been doing nothing "wrong," but I see that it it is only a baby step from this to having to possess internal passports and keep them on your person at all times. Nothing like having LE treat you like a suspected criminal in every encounter. Nothing like being treated like a suspected criminal to errode support for LE.
andHow does sitting in your car, off a public thoroughfare have anything to do with traffic codes? I had to produce ID, which isn't required to sit, last I heard. Were I on a public street, I'd have less of a problem because said officer could make a stop on the pretense of a traffic violation.You did not 'have' to produce ID. He requested it. You provided it. Are we really so far down the road to the 100% Nerf Nanny State that a request made in conversation causes us to knee-jerk and cry JBT? I mean, really.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the police officers walking the beat were doing this extensively through most of the 1900s. Yes, even back in the Good Old Days.
BTW, from some of the responses I see, it sounds as if many would support racial profiling. Black person (not me) in a nearly all-white neighborhood would be cause for suspicion, no?No.

Mike

[Bill Hook]

"That's why I have a CCW."

Yep, that makes us invincible.


Certainly more intelligent that relying on police for protection.

Irrelevant. If its not your property, you do not have the right to be there. If the building is known to be vacant, as you stated, the cop has a duty to see who is doing what on that property. He may even have been requested to do so by the property owner. Yes, this is still done, even in the year 2003.

How so? I could be doing the same thing at a shopping center. The owner/manager is the one who should be making this determination, not the police.

You did not 'have' to produce ID. He requested it. You provided it. Are we really so far down the road to the 100% Nerf Nanny State that a request made in conversation causes us to knee-jerk and cry JBT? I mean, really.

I may not have HAD to, legally. You and I both know that the cop could've found a pretense to further detain me had I done so. Really.

[TheeBadOne]

Yes, but if they actually try to be proactive in catching/deterring/preventing such crimes, they're "harassing" you. This is a neat catch-22, no? If the cops are only there to pick up the pieces, they're useless report takers. If the cops do anything more proactive than that, they're the stormtroopers of oppression interrupting you on your lunch break.
Very well said. :cool:

[Joe Demko]

I might also write a few businesses to let them know why I won't be spending my money there anymore.

Yeah. The loss of your business is going to cause McDonald's (or whomever) to bring their corporate might to bear against that JBT and his Fascist boss. The profit off of your salad is critical to their multinational goals.

You weren't harrassed. Your rights weren't violated. Get over yourself.

[jimpeel]

With a salad? Right down the street from city hall and within 30 ft of a residential street and within 100 yds of one of the busiest secondary roads in the state? OKC happened at 9AM, in broad daylight, on a major thoroughfare.

You have no idea whether the owners of the property had asked the PD for heightened patrols because of people going the property . In the absence of the property being posted "No Tresspassing" you had lawful business on the property (eating a relaxing lunch) under the "usual and customary public access" laws. If you did not have to violate a barrier or there was no sign prohibiting access, you did no wrong.

That's why the cop gave you your license back and left you there rahter than hooking and hauling you for a tresspass violation or ordering you to leave under threat thereof.

[Coronach]

How so? I could be doing the same thing at a shopping centerBut you weren't.The owner/manager is the one who should be making this determination, not the police.As far as filing charges on you for criminal trespass, you're basically correct. However, when it comes to walking up to your car and daring to disturb you while you're trying to find the last crouton, ehh...not so much. What you seem to be unwilling to accept is that you were engaged in conversation by another person. Nowhere is it written that the police need probable cause to walk up and talk to you.I may not have HAD to, legally. You and I both know that the cop could've found a pretense to further detain me had I done so. Really. Actually, no. I don't 'know' that. If everything occurred exacty as you said and (now, this is the kicker) the officer was not actively investigating something else that had just occurred, the officer would likely ask why you were reluctant to give your ID, shrug, and go back to his cruiser. People do that to me- not often, but it happens.

However, if the cop was actively investigating something, and his approaching you was not nearly as random as it seemed, things could get interesting at that point. And this is an important fact for anyone (off-duty LEO or CCWer) to realize. Cops pull over the wrong cars on investigatory stops every day. Been there, done that.

Mike

[buzz_knox]

You know, I don't wish to give up any of my rights so that the collective can feel a little safer.

You seem content to violate someone else's property rights when you care to i.e. trespassing.

[Mike Irwin]

"Certainly more intelligent that relying on police for protection."

I didn't say anything about intelligence, Bill. That's non sequitor to the situation that you're describing.

I agree that having a CCW is prudent, that's why I have one. But I'm not foolish enough to fall into the trap of thinking that my CCW makes me some sort of Supergodturbocrimefightingimprenablecitizensoldier.


"How so? I could be doing the same thing at a shopping center. The owner/manager is the one who should be making this determination, not the police."


So, if a police officer sees someone walking around the outside of your home, and knows for a fact that there isn't anyone at home, he should wait for YOU to determine that you're about to be the victim of a crime?

Then I'm sure we'd be hearing "Those damned lazy good for nothing cops let my house be robbed!"

Here's a little slice of reality for you.

In Virginia (I don't know where you are), the property owners/managers typically give police permissiong and authority to act on situations such as these WITHOUT having to rely on the direction of the property manager/owner.

So, in other words, the owner/property manager has already made that determination, and the police are acting on their wishes.


You're bitching and moaning about being harassed. You weren't. Get over the desire to be a victim.

[Mike Irwin]

"Cops pull over the wrong cars on investigatory stops every day. Been there, done that."

You jackbooted Naziistic thug, you... :)

[jimpeel]

"Not posted."

Not applicable, really. Depending on the laws of your community, it could still be construed as trespassing, as there's no "viable" reason for you to be in the lot.

It still breaks down to you being on someone else's property. Tell me, if someone was sitting in your driveway eating lunch while you're not home, would you be offended if the police stopped to ask the individual what was going on? In the absence of barriers or signage there is an implied "usual and customary public access" to commercial property.

Your driveway of your home is a specious argument as that is not commercial property. In the absence of a barrier or signage on your driveway, your sole relief in this instance would be to ask the person to leave. If they refused, you could then have the authorities punctuate that request for you -- if you could get them to respond to such a paltry request.

[Mike Irwin]

Situation remains the same, though, Jim.

An individual without a clear and apparent reason to be where he is.

Being questioned on intents and purposes is NOT being harassed.

[buzz_knox]

In the absence of barriers or signage there is an implied "usual and customary public access" to commercial property.

Such access is properly limited to reasonable uses of said property, namely access to the property for the purposes of engaging in business.

[jimpeel]

Such access is properly limited to reasonable uses of said property, namely access to the property for the purposes of engaging in business. Not so. You may be on the property for other reasons as well. You could be waiting for your mother to get off of the bus at the busstop that is adjacent to the parking lot. That is not tresspass.


Situation remains the same, though, Jim.

An individual without a clear and apparent reason to be where he is.

Being questioned on intents and purposes is NOT being harassed. I was not addressing the "harrassment" issue. I agree that he was not harrassed.

I was addressing the part about how he was not breaking any law or regulation by merely sitting on property that is open to usual and customary public access peacably eating a salad.

There is nothing in the threadoparent's post to indicate that he was asked to leave the property; so the cop must have determined that his presence there was innocuous and lawful.

[12-34hom]

Mike Irwin,

In the words of Sonny Crockett = There are no victims only volunteers

12-34hom.

[jimpeel]

As to the "clear and apparent reason" portion of your argument, have you ever gone into the mall, parked your car, and walked in carrying a large sign that says "I'm going into Penney's to buy a new shirt"? Of course not. You need no "clear and apparent reason" to be on a property that is open to usual and customary public access. Otherwise the bad guys who break into cars at malls would not be able to get on the property in the first place.

[buzz_knox]

Not so. You may be on the property for other reasons as well. You could be waiting for your mother to get off of the bus at the busstop that is adjacent to the parking lot. That is not tresspass.

I think that's arguable. It might be a de minimis violation, but I would still argue that if you are not partaking of the business, then you are not properly on the property. The question is could the businessowner have you removed, and while I believe most wouldn't care, I also believe the answer is yes.

[dav]

Was a time I would have claimed it was harassment.

Back when I was a "rebel" in high school.

Now I would be glad to see that police were being thorough and doing their jobs.

Kudos to this patrolman.

David Row
San Diego

[Mike Irwin]

Jim,

"I was addressing the part about how he was not breaking any law or regulation by merely sitting on property that is open to usual and customary public access peacably eating a salad."

I should make myself clear, which I haven't done.

I agree that he was likely not breaking any laws by being on the property.

However, his being on the property, out of place as it were, did, and should, raise flags.

The question of "usual and customary public access" is one that is VERY tough to describe or define, and often is used as a counter to either trespassing or loitering charges.

Usual and customary public access in this particular case, however, isn't as clear -- in this case, the business is closed, so the same standards for usual and customary public access cannot be applied. No business = no general reason for anyone to be in the lot for more than a few moments = a good call on the part of the police officer to check out what this individual was doing in the parking lot of a business that was closed.

[jimpeel]

I think that's arguable. It might be a de minimis violation, but I would still argue that if you are not partaking of the business, then you are not properly on the property. The question is could the businessowner have you removed, and while I believe most wouldn't care, I also believe the answer is yes.Key words "businessowner have you removed". Properly, that would be "businessowner ask you to remove yourself"; but who's counting? :)

You are correct when you state "I believe most wouldn't care" because most business owners would rather not sever good public relations with someone who was there waiting for mom to get off the bus so they could go inside and buy her that $2,500 necklace she's had her eye on. :neener:

[TheeBadOne]

Harassment:

(either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone anxious or fearful. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thus a one time meeting/occurance does not rise to the level of "harassment". Just thought I'd point that out.

[FPrice]

"You know, I don't wish to give up any of my rights so that the collective can feel a little safer."

You know Bill, I have been reading and re-reading this thread and for the life of me I just can't figure out which of your rights you gave up or were violated.

The fact that you have gotten so worked up about such a trivial incident makes me wonder. This was NOT the end of the world nor was it the first step to the end of the world and the loss of all personal rights as we know them.

Sometimes you just have to get over it.

[jimpeel]

Usual and customary public access in this particular case, however, isn't as clear -- in this case, the business is closed, so the same standards for usual and customary public access cannot be applied. No business = no general reason for anyone to be in the lot for more than a few moments = a good call on the part of the police officer to check out what this individual was doing in the parking lot of a business that was closed.I manage a motel and we also have on the property a restaurant, a gas station, and a large truck parking area.

The gas station and restaurant close at 9PM and the motel closes at 11PM. By your standard, if the businesses are closed, no trucks should come on the property to park as they have no business there other than to park and sleep; thereby cheating my motel out of a night's stay.

Even though I am the resident manager of the property encompassing the motel, restaurant, and truck parking area, I have no control over who may pass over or onto the property unless they do something that is not in keeping with good standards of conduct.

There is an area that is posted with a "No Parking" sign but I have people park there all of the time. They ask about the signage but I tell them that I am the arbiter of who parks there or not. The only way that the PD would cite, or hook and haul, a vehicle from that area is if I called and requested they do so.

I could place general signage in place of the current sign that must include the words "NO PARKING" and the vehicle code and the phone number of the police department and that sign must also be of a certain size or larger. In that instance, the police could enforce the no parking restriction autonomously. Otherwise, they must wait for a complainant.

[fix]

I would have handed him my license and registration and politely informed him that I planned on finishing my lunch while he ran his checks. If he asked me to get out of the car for some reason, I might get a little upset but otherwise I wouldn't feel harassed.

[TheeBadOne]

Bill, next time bring two salads and invite him to join you for lunch. :)

[hops]

Boo-Hooo.....

20 years ago I'm changing a flat tyre on my 3 month old expensive car. Patrol man interrupts me to check ID and registration. Only 'cause I can think of is that I looked 18 at the time and was dressed in old jeans and white t-shirt with long greasy hair. I was annoyed, but had the satisfaction of him probably being slightly shocked to see that I owned the car outright. Ha!

Or, the time a CHP car trailed me for a few miles - 55 limit, I'm doing 60 on the nose. I'm sure he ran a check on the plates- and then just passed me.

Or, I dropped a friend off at 2:30 am at his house - 1/3 mile from my house. I drive backwards up the street, less than 50 yards to the main road. PD crusier sees this and pulls me over. Runs the id and plates and lets me go home. (He passed me on the main road and did a u-turn to pull me over)

Or, going to work at 11;30 pm, doing 45 in a 40. Get pulled over not for speeding but to see what my sort of car (old beat up station wagon) is doing in an industrial neighbourhood at that hour. Runs the plates and id, I tell him I'm going to work, he says where - I point to across the street from where he stopped me. He told me that he pulled me over, because of a great number of breakins - I had my car battery stolen 2 weeks or so later in the lot at work.

So, I do not mind them checking me. It's at times annoying, but so are other things in life.

Now, wire taps and other types of checking are a whole different issue.

[Bill Hook]

I didn't say anything about intelligence, Bill. That's non sequitor to the situation that you're describing.

You quoted just a brief portion of what I said out of context, in response to a composed scenario. The whole point is a non-sequitor. CCW is better than relying on the police to be there when you need them.

Harassment: ....

The pattern is this 'burb has a history of doing these sorts of things to others. Which is why I'm worked up. The main job of the cops there is to cruise up and down the road running radar and writing tickets.

Yeah. The loss of your business is going to cause McDonald's (or whomever) to bring their corporate might to bear against that JBT and his Fascist boss. The profit off of your salad is critical to their multinational goals.

You weren't harrassed. Your rights weren't violated. Get over yourself.

Yes. McD's doesn't care about my $4 (though this adds up to $20/wk, ~$1000/yr). The local grocery doesn't care about $100/wk, ~$5000/year either. Same for the movie theater, assorted restaurants and the local Starbuck's, never mind the 8% sales tax on all this. :rolleyes: Someone obviously put some thought into their opinion - NOT.

You know Bill, I have been reading and re-reading this thread and for the life of me I just can't figure out which of your rights you gave up or were violated.

Privacy.

The fact that you have gotten so worked up about such a trivial incident makes me wonder. This was NOT the end of the world nor was it the first step to the end of the world and the loss of all personal rights as we know them.

So you say. My feeling is that I'm pretty average and middle-class and that I don't fit anyone's profile. I've been singled out for special attention by the TSA several times. This cop may have had cause that I am unaware (he didn't name any reason he suspected me), or he may have been bored writing tickets (which I more strongly suspect). If no one objects to this sort of stupidity, what's next? We're already locked in a big wave of (not unjustified) hysteria and pols are clamoring to reign in our freedoms; this seems symptomatic of the issue. I'm not real big into police throwing their weight around.


However, his being on the property, out of place as it were, did, and should, raise flags.

It hasn't any of several dozen other occasions, so why now?





Thanks to Jim Peel for making the points about public use of commercial property.

[Coronach]

Jimpeel,

You'll find that laws such as that vary from state to state, both in statutory and case law. The point is that while he may not be committing a crime of criminal trespass, he is still on someone else's property and, as that property is currently vacant, he is obviously not there to do business. Is this a crime? Nope. Is he still trespassing in the non-official, non-legal, non-binding sense of the word? Absolutely. But its nothing that any of us have not done and will likely do again. He was eating a salad- no harm, no foul.

What the police would do in this instance is exactly what they did- make contact with him, see whats up, and leave the man alone to finish his meal.

Mike

[GySgt]

No offense Mr. Hook, but you miss the point.....

The World doesn't revolve around you and the Officer was justified in checking you out. I sense another issue here, not sure what it is, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder of some sort. You did mention your vehicle"I drive a fairly new Japanese near-luxury marque that would fit in in this upper-middle class 'burb." I've noticed that some individuals who drive luxury cars, (Mercedes, Caddy's, BMW's and particularly Lexus's) seem to think that they aren't subject to the same rules as everyone else. It's really quite simple, the car does not make the man and you are no better, or worse than anyone else...therefore he ran you. My advice is to quit whining, suck it up and be a man. Perhaps you could call, or write his Supervisor and commend their Department for having such diligent and polite Police Officers.........

Good Luck, GySgt

[Bill Hook]

What the police would do in this instance is exactly what they did- make contact with him, see whats up, and leave the man alone to finish his meal.

That's just it. He took around 5 minutes to run my ID and get back to me, then hung around behind me for another 20 or so minutes, as if he were trying to intimidate me into leaving. If he had a report to write, then he could've gone off to "trespass" somewhere else to finish it.

BTW, aren't cops trespassing when they're on private property, such as parking lots, working on reports?

[TheeBadOne]

The main job of the cops there is to cruise up and down the road running radar and writing tickets.
Unless you're the Supervisor of the Officer in question, you don't know what his/their main job is, period. Sounds like he was a "Patrolman", which means he patrols the city/district enforcing state and local laws as well as performing crime prevention (which he did by checking/clearing you).
"You know Bill, I have been reading and re-reading this thread and for the life of me I just can't figure out which of your rights you gave up or were violated."

Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? I suspect you lose a lot of your privacy when you walk out your front door. If your neighbor looks at you as you leave, aren't you losing your privacy? When you do through the MacDonald's drive-thru aren't you giving up privacy as the window teller looks down into your car while handing you your food? If you pay by check aren't you giving up your privacy?
Is everyone suppose to look the other way while you are out in public?

All the best

TBO

[Bill Hook]

You did mention your vehicle"I drive a fairly new Japanese near-luxury marque that would fit in in this upper-middle class 'burb."

I mentioned it since other threads here have indicated cops pay special attention to those driving beaters, especially in upper-middle class areas.



Perhaps you could call, or write his Supervisor and commend their Department for having such diligent and polite Police Officers....

Not a chance. He didn't apologize for wasting my time, say "thank you," or explain his interest in me.


EDIT: So, it sounds as though he had a cavalier attitude, IMO. He's a public servant, not my master.

Hence, the chip on my shoulder.

[TheeBadOne]

Not a chance. He didn't apologize for wasting my time, say "thank you," or explain his interest in me.
WoW, what a tough crowd! :eek:

[Bill Hook]

Is everyone suppose to look the other way while you are out in public?

No, but I don't have to have any unwanted contacts, if I choose.

[Coronach]

It hasn't any of several dozen other occasions, so why now?A very interesting question. perhaps more things go on in this sleepy little burb than you know. ;) I for one, am greeted with looks of amazement when I take a report of a car break-in, and blithely inform the victim "yeah, we get about a dozen of them in this parking lot each week." The usual screech is "But...this is a nice section of town!?!?!" :rolleyes:

A passage from a book I'm rereading, even now:"And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names. "Strider" I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown." ;)

Mike

[TheeBadOne]

No, but I don't have to have any unwanted contacts, if I choose.
So if somone walks up to you and asks for directions, or for spare change they are SOB's!? :confused:

[Bill Hook]

So if somone walks up to you and asks for directions, or for spare change they are SOB's!?

Usually, those who ask for change ARE, since they're hustlers. The point is I can keep walking/driving and ignore them. Not so with cops.

[Coronach]

No, but I don't have to have any unwanted contacts, if I choose.Ah! Well, I suspect you should probably get used to disappointment. People will come up and talk to you all day long in a free country.

Now, that said, the officer should have thanked you for your time and apologized for interrupting your lunch. Thats just basic good manners.

Mike

[jimpeel]

That's just it. He took around 5 minutes to run my ID and get back to me, During which time you, knowing you had done nothing wrong, continued to peaceably consume your salad.then hung around behind me for another 20 or so minutes, as if he were trying to intimidate me into leaving. Apparently, he felt that this site would likewise be a good place for him to sit and complete some of his paperwork; including his writeup of his contact with you for his records. They do that in case they are called to testify to what they saw in that area prior to the guy they just let go doing something abberant. They are also, by departmental regulation, required to keep thoose records.

[Bill Hook]

Apparently, he felt that this site would likewise be a good place for him to sit and complete some of his paperwork;

That may be so, but I think he could've moved the cruiser from off my back bumper and gone up to the upper portion of the lot on the other side of the building. I'm guessing he intentionally didn't move.

[Coronach]

Apparently, he felt that this site would likewise be a good place for him to sit and complete some of his paperwork; including his writeup of his contact with you for his records. They do that in case they are called to testify to what they saw in that area prior to the guy they just let go doing something abberant. They are also, by departmental regulation, required to keep thoose records.This also varies from area to area. I am not required to document anything, for example. However, as he ran the edged-weapon-in-question's license, that would almost certainly be recorded, and solid officer-safety skills would dictate that he mark with radio prior to making contact, and clearing afterwards with the disposition. This would also all be recorded. If he felt that Bill Hook's actions were in any way suspicious, he would likley do some sort of Field Interview report...but this will also vary heavily from place to place. Me? I'd just note the name and face, car and tag, and carry on with my duties.

Actually, what this sounds like is he was going there to finish a report or eat his own lunch, and found a vehicle and person in his favorite hole. My holes are out of the way enough that no one else "should" be there, so I'd certainly make contact and see whats what as well.

Mike

[sw442642]

So, I imagine if someone posted a complaint about being racially profiled, folks would have big fit that the cop was justified because of yada, yada, yada ...

Seriously, now - so what. The cop was doing his job. I've called the cops when I saw a strange car for a long time in my neighborhood.

Forget it.

[hammer4nc]

Here's a question of involving manners, and possible double standards:

Suppose Mr. Hook, while waiting for the officer to process his suspect, decided to approach the officer and ask for his identification, and his boss's phone number?

Assume Mr. Hook wanted to cell phone police HQ and speak to police supervision in real time, for what ever reason (could be to complain, praise or verify).

I believe, when officers request ID, its not sufficient that the suspect just verbally state his name and license number. Nor is it sufficient to just flash the license by opening the wallet. The officer must handle the license and take it to his patrol car.

So, would/should the officer surrender his ID to Mr. Hook, so he can make the call, and possibly record badge number or other information?

This question is somewhat rhetorical, meant to expose what I perceive is a major blind spot on the part of the police defenders in this thread. That is, innocent people can take umbrage at being treated like a suspect. Granting, that the police have a legitimate duty to prevent crime by investigating suspicious activity. Once its proved that the officer's hunch was faulty (as in this case), don't you all think the officer should go out of his way to explain, or otherwise erase the lingering bad "juju" he created by running an innocent citizen for no overt reason?

I would think sensitivity to citizens' feelings (at being falsely suspected)would be taught in day 1 of the "community relations" class at the police academy. Instead, what I'm hearing in this thread is a variation of "its the citizens job to understand the officers tough job...suck it up".

My guess is that officers would cop a major 'tude, when they are treated like a "suspect". Food for thought.

[TallPine]

Doesn't sound like that big of a deal to me ...


Reminds me of the time on the interstate that I passed a hiway patrol who was doing 5mph under the speed limit.

He immediately lit me up, and I got good and mad knowing I wasn't speeding.

Patrolman informs me that the back door on my truck camper was swinging in the breeze ... :o

[Andrew Rothman]

Really? I suspect you lose a lot of your privacy when you walk out your front door. If your neighbor looks at you as you leave, aren't you losing your privacy? When you do through the MacDonald's drive-thru aren't you giving up privacy as the window teller looks down into your car while handing you your food? If you pay by check aren't you giving up your privacy?
Is everyone suppose to look the other way while you are out in public?

Aw, give me a break.

The issue here is simple:

We have a simple human right NOT to be treated as suspects in absence of any suspicious behavior. (Eating your McDonald's lunch in broad daylight across the street from McDonald's is NOT suspicious behavior!)

We have the right to live in a society where the local gendarmes do NOT demand, "Your papers, citizen!"

It's that simple.

[Bill Hook]

MPayne,

Exactly.

hammer4,

Thanks for exposing the double standard.

[Carlos]

Bill, you're so easily offended and sensitive, I question your ability to competently handle or even own firearms. If you fly off the handle so easily, hmmm, get my drift?

You definitely need to get over it.

[Daniel T]

Bill, you're so easily offended and sensitive, I question your ability to competently handle or even own firearms. If you fly off the handle so easily, hmmm, get my drift?

You definitely need to get over it.

Fly off the handle? Someone needs to get a grip, and it's not Bill. Maybe you can point out exactly where Bill lost his temper? Complaining about the police is not a reason to asininely question someone's competence.

[Jeff White]

Mpayne said;
Aw, give me a break.

The issue here is simple:

We have a simple human right NOT to be treated as suspects in absence of any suspicious behavior. (Eating your McDonald's lunch in broad daylight across the street from McDonald's is NOT suspicious behavior!)

We have the right to live in a society where the local gendarmes do NOT demand, "Your papers, citizen!"

It's that simple.

This has been explained a couple of times. If you want to eat your lunch do it in a place where people normally eat their lunch. The park, the McDonalds parking lot etc. If you are sitting on an empty parking lot of an abandoned business, you are engaged in suspicious activity. It's suspicious because it's not normal for someone to be there. Look at the time this occured, 2:00 pm...a little past normal lunch hour. Maybe that's one of the factors in why the officer checked.

As for a double standard, if I'm in a place where I would stand out, and the police went by, I'd expect them to check on me. Now where I work, all the other officers know my vehicle so someone would probably stop and chat. If I am away from where I work, I would fully expect to be checked out if my activity didn't fit in with what usually happened there.

As for providing ID to a private citizen who asked for it, I've never had a problem doing that when in plainclothes. I have never had anyone ask when I was in uniform in a marked squad.

hammer4nc,

From the description Bill Hook provided, I don't think he was treated as a suspect in a crime. He was asked to explain his presence on private property. If you owned that abandoned business, wouldn't you want the police to check out anyone sitting on the parking lot? What if someone damaged your building or torched it, wouldn't it be easier to solve if the police had a record of who was in the area when? Perhaps someone would pick another target for vandalism or arson because they had been checked while on the property and a major property crime was averted?

Jeff

[TheeBadOne]

Nice post, but this same info has been presented several times by several people. I suspect your presentation of it will be ignored or greeted with more of the same (meaning I think this thread has run it's course of my participation. Asked/Answered several times).

All the best

TBO

[Bill Hook]

Bill, you're so easily offended and sensitive, I question your ability to competently handle or even own firearms. If you fly off the handle so easily, hmmm, get my drift?

You definitely need to get over it.

:rolleyes:

I'd question your ability to find the end the bullet comes out.

[Bill Hook]

What if someone damaged your building or torched it, wouldn't it be easier to solve if the police had a record of who was in the area when? Perhaps someone would pick another target for vandalism or arson because they had been checked while on the property and a major property crime was averted?

In broad daylight?

If you want to eat your lunch do it in a place where people normally eat their lunch. The park, the McDonalds parking lot etc. If you are sitting on an empty parking lot of an abandoned business, you are engaged in suspicious activity.

Physically, it is nearly impossible to eat in the McD's lot, due to size and manouvering constraints when exiting the drive-thru, and the building is IMMEDIATELY adjacent to McD's. I see other cars there often and don't notice the police coming around rousting them. In fact, the most disturbing incident I saw happened around a month ago, when a man was banging on a woman's truck window yelling about her having cut him off twice, but he left w/o getting physical, after about 5 minutes of this.

Where were the cops, 2 blocks up the street, when this happened? Yet, I mind my business and have to display ID?

[Jeff White]

The question was;
What if someone damaged your building or torched it, wouldn't it be easier to solve if the police had a record of who was in the area when? Perhaps someone would pick another target for vandalism or arson because they had been checked while on the property and a major property crime was averted?

Bill Hook asked;

In broad daylight?

Yes, in broad daylight. We were constantly running kids out of an abandoned school building here in broad daylight. Finally the district sold it and it was remodeled into apartments. An arsonist may be looking the building over in the daylight while he plans his job. I'm sure that your presence was noted in the computer when the officer ran your ID. I can almost guarnatee you that if the building had suspiciously burned down within a few days of you being checked on the lot, a dective or Fire Marshal would have called you for an interview. But don't feel singled out, they would call everyone they knew was on the property.

A good officer knows who belongs where on his beat. It's just good old fashioned police work to check out people and things that are out of the ordinary.

Come to think of it, I have been in a situation where the circumstances were reversed. Several years ago I was sitting on a parking lot staking out the car wash next door. We had a gang of thieves who were emptying the change machines on almost a nightly basis. It was a little after one am and the owner of the property I was sitting on came up and asked what I was doing there. I showed him my badge and ID and told him I was watching something in the neighborhood. Asked him to call dispatch to verify, but I guess the binoculars, portable radio and my ID was enough. I didn't feel like the property owner was violating any of my rights.

Jeff

[Andrew Rothman]

If you are sitting on an empty parking lot of an abandoned business, you are engaged in suspicious activity

Omigosh! He's eating a salad! He must be an eco-terrorist!

Give me yet another break. That dog won't hunt.

[Larry Ashcraft]

BTW, aren't cops trespassing when they're on private property, such as parking lots, working on reports?
Maybe so. They use my parking lot at night A LOT, because of the location (good view up and down a major thoroughfare, good view of convenience store parking lot next door and the ability to catch a major route in any direction less than a block away). They also occasionally use it during the day, either for writing reports or for a speed trap.

You know what? They are welcome to wear out my pavement. My business is fairly secluded and I've had very little trouble with broken windows, tagging, etc. I think you'll find that most business owners appreciate a high police profile, especially at night when we are at home in our comfortable beds.

[Betty]

Let's all keep the thread civil and steer away from the "asinine" this-n-that and "you're stoo-pid" type commentaries, thank you. :scrutiny:

[JPM70535]

From all the replies to the post it appears that the majority of respondents understand that the LEO was just doing what he is paid to do, investigate situations that appear to be out of the norm. An abandoned building parking lot may or may not meet this standard depending on factors such as time of day, location, crime stats. in area, etc. In any event, it just seems to me that this LEO opted to be pro-active, that is he decided to check out what to him was a suspicious activity. By all accounts, the LEO was courteous and when his suspicions had been put to rest, he left. Can't fault anything he did.

BTW, a lot of what has been called racial profiling is not. Example: Low income housing area, populated almost exclusively by minorities. Joe college drives around and around, in his Mercedes, obviously looking for something at 2AM. LEO stops Joe college and checks him out. Finding nothing improper or illegal, LEO cautions Joe college of potential for violence against him. Racial Profiling?

In over 20 years of LE, I never failed to stop and investigate what to me was a suspicious situation. a situation like that above, is the perfect example. A well dressed white man driving in the above described neighborhood at 2AM is not normal. I always CHECKED IT OUT!

[Coronach]

Even though this is getting into "asked and answered (and ignored)" territory...

Hammer4NCHere's a question of involving manners, and possible double standards:

Suppose Mr. Hook, while waiting for the officer to process his suspect (sic), decided to approach the officer and ask for his identification, and his boss's phone number? Assume Mr. Hook wanted to cell phone police HQ and speak to police supervision in real time, for what ever reason (could be to complain, praise or verify). *shrug* Running with the assumption that this is solely a consentual encounter (read: the officer does not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to respectively arrest or detain Bill Hook), he would likely provide it and allow him to call. Someone wants to talk to my boss? Thats fine. Heck, I'll summon him to the scene for you. Regardless, if someone wants my name and badge number, they get it.I believe, when officers request ID, its not sufficient that the suspect just verbally state his name and license number. Nor is it sufficient to just flash the license by opening the wallet. The officer must handle the license and take it to his patrol car.You, sir, would be incorrect. In a consentual encounter, which we will assume this to be, he doesn't have to provide anything. The rub is in the assumption.So, would/should the officer surrender his ID to Mr. Hook, so he can make the call, and possibly record badge number or other information?Nope.This question is somewhat rhetorical, meant to expose what I perceive is a major blind spot on the part of the police defenders in this thread. That is, innocent people can take umbrage at being treated like a suspect. Granting, that the police have a legitimate duty to prevent crime by investigating suspicious activity. Once its proved that the officer's hunch was faulty (as in this case), don't you all think the officer should go out of his way to explain, or otherwise erase the lingering bad "juju" he created by running an innocent citizen for no overt reason?As I was not there, I will not condemn or praise the officer's manners. I have already stated that if he did not thank Bill Hook for his time and behave courteously, he should have.I would think sensitivity to citizens' feelings (at being falsely suspected)would be taught in day 1 of the "community relations" class at the police academy. Instead, what I'm hearing in this thread is a variation of "its the citizens job to understand the officers tough job...suck it up".I respectfully suggest that people are seeing what they wish to see.My guess is that officers would cop a major 'tude, when they are treated like a "suspect". Food for thought.I dunno. People call in complaints on cops all day long. Comes with the territory.

Mpayne:We have the right to live in a society where the local gendarmes do NOT demand, "Your papers, citizen!"For about the 14th time now, if this was a consentual encounter, the ID was not demanded. It was requested, and provided. There is a difference.Omigosh! He's eating a salad! He must be an eco-terrorist!

Give me yet another break. That dog won't hunt.Lets see...casing the vacant buildings for a break in, casing the McD's for a robbery, casing the cars in the McD's lot for car break-ins, the list of possible criminal activity goes on and on. WHat was he doing? Eating a salad on somone else's property, which after a very brief conversation he continued doing. I'm still not seeing the big deal.

Mike

[Orthonym]

the little man in this particular boat, when he wrote above, "...Actually, what this sounds like is he was going there to finish a report or eat his own lunch, and found a vehicle and person in his favorite hole. ..." SNORK!

[CZ52GUY]

One entry found for harass.


Main Entry: ha·rass
Pronunciation: h&-'ras, 'har-&s
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: French harasser, from Middle French, from harer to set a dog on, from Old French hare, interj. used to incite dogs, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German hier here -- more at HERE
Date: 1617
1 a : EXHAUST, FATIGUE b : to annoy persistently
2 : to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>
synonym see WORRY
- ha·rass·er noun
- ha·rass·ment /-m&nt/ noun

We can split hairs about definition...legal or informal phrasing during a discussion.

Mr. Hook's encounter probably doesn't fit the legal definition of harassment. He was annoyed.

I'd contend that for many, there is no such thing as a consentual encounter with a police officer. That is a mixed blessing, because it means that we respect the badge and what it represents. The flip side, is that while most officers I'm sure are fine upstanding members of the community, there are notable infamous exceptions. The civilian end of the encounter must always consider whether the officer in question is one of the very few bad apples.

The reaction to Mr. Hook's comments have been interesting. He is told that he must submit to authority, get over it, and move on.

I would contend that the reaction by some over the idea that someone would dare be agitated by an encounter of this type, and to post those feelings on a public board, approaches the level of agitation Mr. Hook described in his original post.

The larger issue is related to communication. Within a board like this, is a demographic that should be largely supportive of prudent law enforcement. Many have provided reasoned arguments as to the why's and wherefore's of the encounter. The officer in question did not provide sufficient communication to make this poster feel comfortable that this was not an "I'm the law, so I decide who parks where" interaction.

Mr. Hook was minding his own business and I believe acting in good faith when trying to find a quiet place to eat his lunch.

Based on all I've read, the officer was within his legal rights to engage Mr. Hook in discussion regarding his intentions when parking at a vacant establishment.

The encounter ended in a less than optimal way because the reason for the interaction was not clearly apparent after its conclusion.

Many of us want to be supportive of law enforcement, but wish to be treated with reciprocal respect as citizens. Law abiding citizens should not have to be intimidated by LEO encounters, but many of us are because of the widely reported incidents of severe abuse of authority by a small minority who shame the occupation with their criminal acts.

Just as Mr. Hook has been advised (some respectfully, some scornfully, to move on and "get over it") I would respectfully indicate to LEO brethren in THR that in the 21st century, many of us are as watchful of those wearing the badge as those wearing baggy pants, nose rings, and 20 tatoos per appendage. In the 21st century, you will need to get used to additional scrutiny from those you serve, and the greater the skill you employ in communicating to us during encounters, the stronger our alliance can be.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[Sean Smith]

This is one of those topics where none of my comments would pass the forum rules. :evil:

Well, maybe one: I would point out that police are allowed to go up to people and talk to them. In fact, it is probably encouraged. ;)

[Pilgrim]

Man says Fresno police actions, arrest unjust

By Jerry Bier
The Fresno Bee
(Published Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 5:38 AM)

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/7802553p-8692657c.html


Carlos Molinero says he was sitting in his car waiting for his brother when Fresno police shined a bright light on him, ordered him from the car at gunpoint, handcuffed him, beat him and then attacked him with a K-9 dog.
All for no reason, Molinero contends in a civil-rights lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

It wasn't until five months after the Jan. 13 run-in and after he had filed a claim with the city that Molinero was charged with anything -- misdemeanor resisting arrest, according to his attorney Leslie W. Westmoreland.

"The resisting comes when Carlos, writhing in pain, tries to get away from the dog," Westmoreland said wryly.

Rosemary T. McGuire, an attorney representing the city, said she had not yet seen police records and could not comment on details of the arrest.

However, McGuire has filed motions to have the complaint dismissed, arguing it fails to state a sufficient legal claim.

The lawsuit names the city of Fresno and officers Sean Plymale and Kennan Rodems, along with "trainers and keepers of canine officer Tymo."

Westmoreland said Molinero, who had gotten off work and was wearing a shirt from the auto parts store where he works, had no record and was not wanted by law enforcement.

The attorney speculated that Molinero, who was 22 at the time, may have come under police suspicion because of reported crimes in the area, near Renn and Belmont avenues, and because his car had a cracked rear window.

"He complied with their orders, but apparently not to their satisfaction," Westmoreland said.

According to the complaint, Molinero was sitting in his car at the home of his brother's girlfriend when Rodems approached his vehicle from the rear, then shined a spotlight on him and pointed his gun at him, telling him to "show his hands."

Molinero said he complied by putting his hands out his window and dropping his keys to the pavement. He said Rodems warned him to keep his hands apart or he "would [expletive] shoot you."

Plymale arrived with the dog, Tymo, and both officers told him to get out of the vehicle. Molinero said he got out and lay on the pavement and was handcuffed with his wrists behind his back.

The complaint says Molinero tried to adjust his body and Rodems "shoved [his] neck with his knee and then struck him on the back of his head with a closed fist two or three times."

Because he was moving, Rodems was unable to cuff Molinero, the lawsuit says, and Plymale "unleashed the growling canine" on him and the dog immediately bit into his right leg.

Six to seven additional police units arrived, Molinero says, and an ambulance. Medical personnel treated the wound, according to the lawsuit.

Molinero's brother, David, who is also a plaintiff in the case, arrived and witnessed Molinero "writhing in pain and bleeding as he was being treated and hauled away," the lawsuit says.

Molinero was arrested at University Medical Center on suspicion of resisting arrest, but Westmoreland said it was not until months later, after he had filed a claim on Molinero's behalf, that the misdemeanor charges were filed.

After he was treated in the hospital, Molinero spent two days in jail, Westmoreland said.

The misdemeanor criminal charges against Molinero are pending, with the next court date scheduled for Dec. 2.

The federal lawsuit contends police violated Molinero's constitutional right to be free from excessive force and also charges them with battery, negligence and infliction of emotional distress.

It seeks an unspecified amount of damages against the city and the officers, both of whom have been honored in the past by the department for their work.

Rodems also is named as a defendant in a federal civil lawsuit in the shooting of Rhonda Jackson, who was wounded in February 2001 after officers were called to her apartment by relatives who said she was armed with a shotgun and threatening suicide.

[Bill Hook]

I won't be suing, but this incident shows that the police can retaliate against you after the fact if you don't comply, either by citing you, detaining you, or filing charges.

[tcsd1236]

"The encounter ended in a less than optimal way because the reason for the interaction was not clearly apparent after its conclusion."

"The officer in question did not provide sufficient communication to make this poster feel comfortable that this was not an "I'm the law, so I decide who parks where" interaction."

And I'm not so certain that the thread starter was entitled to that information. Why an officer needs to explain his actions in full just because the person in the car might want to know is beyond me. Sure, we might give some sort of a cursory answer, but really, nothing else is required. It might very well be that the thread starter, given the attitude he has displayed in the thread, would sit there and try to debate the officer about what the officer was doing.

The reality is that we are often advised of a problem in a particular location or area..break ins, larceny, etc, and told to check the area during our patrols. Some business owners simply ask us to check their property, especially if its isolated or unoccupied, as was the case in this incident.The information we are basing our checks on is not always public knowledge, nor should we have to sit there and explain to every disgruntled person why they are being checked on.

[Bill Hook]

It might very well be that the thread starter, given the attitude he has displayed in the thread, would sit there and try to debate the officer about what the officer was doing.

You mean the attitude that public servants need to be accountable? :rolleyes:

nor should we have to sit there and explain to every disgruntled person why they are being checked on.

Gee, another high-handed LEO. Who'd a thunk it?

Probably don't need any of those annoying warrants either. And think all "civilians" should just lie down and take it.

[Coronach]

I won't be suing, but this incident shows that the police can retaliate against you after the fact if you don't comply, either by citing you, detaining you, or filing charges.Actually, one has nothing to do with the other. The only similarity is that in both instances the encounter began with officers walking up to a car. :rolleyes:

Mike

[Bill Hook]

Actually, one has nothing to do with the other. The only similarity is that in both instances the encounter began with officers walking up to a car.

I'd say there is a great deal of similarity, in the fact that neither incident had much in the way of probable cause. They were at least able to pin a bogus "resisting" charge on this guy, (probably used the dog on him since he's hispanic) which is the only real difference I note.

Oh, my car doesn't have dents or cracked windows either, which are telltale signs of criminality. :rolleyes:

[Coronach]

It might very well be that the thread starter, given the attitude he has displayed in the thread, would sit there and try to debate the officer about what the officer was doing.You mean the attitude that public servants need to be accountable?No, public servants should always be accountable. However, they do not need to explain their actions to the full satisfaction of everyone they encounter. Some people are never happy, and some people are ceaselessly argumentative. If you wish accountability, I would suggest that you call his department and inquire what that was all about. However, as nearly everyone has told you, this was an example of solid police work, and I would expect that they will tell you the same.

Again, that said, the officer should be courteous to you, unless you did something to merit a lack of courtesy.


nor should we have to sit there and explain to every disgruntled person why they are being checked on.



Gee, another high-handed LEO. Who'd a thunk it?

Probably don't need any of those annoying warrants either. And think all "civilians" should just lie down and take it.Well, ignoring your attempt to place words in his mouth, lets just go with what he said. If you're already angry with the officer (as implied by 'disgruntled'), he is not going to sit there and argue with you. It serves as little purpose as this thread does, at this point. Your mind is seemingly made up, and no amount of rational explaination is going to sway you. So, rather than continue to escalate the situation, he will bid you a good day, and you can avail yourself of the aforementioned avenues to obtain accountability. Note what was said:Sure, we might give some sort of a cursory answer, but really, nothing else is required. It might very well be that the thread starter, given the attitude he has displayed in the thread, would sit there and try to debate the officer about what the officer was doing.The officer explains, briefly, what is being done and why. He is not required to give details of police activities, nor should he be. "Well, we're doing surveilance of this area looking for a mopery suspect." :scrutiny: I'm sure reasonable individuals can see why a cursory explaination is all that should be required. As to his latter point about engaging in argument, this is spot on. I think this thread has borne that out nicely.

Mike

[Coronach]

I'd say there is a great deal of similarity, in the fact that neither incident had much in the way of probable cause. They were at least able to pin a bogus "resisting" charge on this guy, (probably used the dog on him since he's hispanic) which is the only real difference I note.

Oh, my car doesn't have dents or cracked windows either, which are telltale signs of criminality.You risk much credibility by basing your argument on the plaintiff's brief for a civil case, I assure you. ;) And your willingness to see what you wish to see is telling.

Mike ;)

[Bill Hook]

I'm sure reasonable individuals can see why a cursory explaination is all that should be required.

I'd be happy with the courtesy of a brief explanation. The idea that NO explanation is required is unacceptable.

[Bill Hook]

And your willingness to see what you wish to see is telling.

Likewise.

Logically, don't you think it stange that all the po-po can muster is a "resisting" charge if there were something more to the incident?

[RustyHammer]

Just be glad you didn't have a dozen donuts .... he'd have handcuffed you and tossed you in the back of the car for sure. (While he devoured the evidence, naturally!)

:neener:

P.S. Maybe he thought you were SMOKING the salad?

[CZ52GUY]

And I'm not so certain that the thread starter was entitled to that information. Why an officer needs to explain his actions in full just because the person in the car might want to know is beyond me. Sure, we might give some sort of a cursory answer, but really, nothing else is required. It might very well be that the thread starter, given the attitude he has displayed in the thread, would sit there and try to debate the officer about what the officer was doing.

What is legally required vs. what is going to determine whether the public at large sees LEO's as public servants providing protection or as a threat is based on how the LEO communicates with those he/she serves. Law abiding taxpayers should not fear LEO, but many do. That's a problem for all of us which can be mitigated to some degree if reciprocal respect is the rule. Reciprocal respect can be achieved through skillful communication on the part of the LEO. Many of us want to do our part, but the "submit or else" attitude of some in the LEO community makes us suspicious when we shouldn't have to be.


The reality is that we are often advised of a problem in a particular location or area..break ins, larceny, etc, and told to check the area during our patrols. Some business owners simply ask us to check their property, especially if its isolated or unoccupied, as was the case in this incident.The information we are basing our checks on is not always public knowledge, nor should we have to sit there and explain to every disgruntled person why they are being checked on.

The skill in the communication may indeed require discretion in the amount of information divulged. However, adults know when they are being treated respectfully. The Golden Rule can go a long way, even between a LEO and a law abiding civilian. That is something that needs to go both ways.

I've had encounters with LEO's that have been positive, and those that have been less so. I've always tried to do my part to consider the difficult job they do, the value they provide to the community, and that they are human beings with spouses and kids hoping they get home in one piece, just as mine hope that for me. I merely point out that beyond the "legalese", we are all THR members that should be on the same side...seeking prudent professional law enforcement. There will be times when civilians will scrutinize and respectfully question LEO behavior. Please consider it an opportunity to review practice and improve relations.


Best wishes,

CZ52'

[Coronach]

I'd be happy with the courtesy of a brief explanation. The idea that NO explanation is required is unacceptable.Then I'm not sure what you're arguing about, as even the person with whom you directed those comments stated that a cursory explaination should be given.
And your willingness to see what you wish to see is telling.Likewise.I'll only note that I am not the one saying things like "probably used the dog because he was hispanic" and "probably don't like warrants either." To anyone reading this thread, that is a sure indicator of bias.Logically, don't you think it stange that all the po-po can muster is a "resisting" charge if there were something more to the incident?Logically, I think it is foolish to base any argument upon a scant newspaper article based heavily upon a press release prepared by the plaintiff's lawyer. However, if you insist, you'll note that he was slated in jail for something, even though the resisting arrest charges were supposedly filed much later. Theres is much that the newspaper article is not telling you. This is why relying upon it for anything is foolish. Even more so as it has nothing to do with your encounter.

Mike

[Bill Hook]

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing about, as even the person with whom you directed those comments stated that a cursory explaination should be given.


we might give some sort of a cursory answer



I'll only note that I am not the one saying things like "probably used the dog because he was hispanic" and "probably don't like warrants either." To anyone reading this thread, that is a sure indicator of bias.

And I'm not the one saying that I might be entitled, if the officer can deign to do so, an explanation. Cops sure seem to break out the Tazers and K-9s with ethnic "suspects."

[Coronach]

Ah, point.

I took that to mean that "the answer we give might be cursory," with the implication that a response would be given, just that it might not be the full story, and might not be open to debate. I still do, but I won't pretend to know what tcsd1234567890 was trying to say.

Regardless, I have stated from jump that he should be courteous to you, including giving some answer to your inquiry as to why he was doing what he was doing. If he wasn't courteous, he should have been.

Mike

PS "Cops sure seem to break out the Tazers and K-9s with ethnic "suspects."" :rolleyes: Not even worthy of a response.

[tcsd1236]

Posted by Hook:

"You mean the attitude that public servants need to be accountable? "

Public sector employee, thanks very much. The officers here have been more than reasonable with their explaination for you of why the officer was acting properly. Based on your comments here, its apparent that you'd have been oh-so-happy to sit there and argue with the officer, given the chance. We don't have time to debate that kind of thing when we're working. Certainly a short explaination would be advisible, but as I said, sometimes thats confidential information. And we really don't have time to stand around a parking lot for 10 or 15 minutes with someone we do a field interview with and debate whether we were correct in making contact with them.

[cordex]

From what I've read here the officer wanted to know what was going on and wanted to make sure everything was okay. This doesn't strike me as wrong. However, he failed in his duty as a public employee to ensure that Bill - one of his employers - did not leave feeling needlessly pestered. Some police need to learn basic customer satisfaction skills. As several police here have suggested, short explaination of why he took interest and perhaps some friendly small-talk. It is not all that much to ask.

Personally, I think an officer should work to make sure that the law abiding people he contacts go away with a good feeling about speaking with the officer. Of course, they can't be 100% successful, but some (thankfully, only a few) of the police attitudes displayed on this thread are unnecessarily confrontational. "I don't have to explain myself to you, civilian" is not conducive to developing positive police/community relationships.

I thank the officers who have tried to calmly and politely explain their side of the story.

[Bill Hook]

Public sector employee

Euphemism.

[tcsd1236]

Call it what you want. Its more correct than "public servant".

[Bill Hook]

Its more correct than "public servant".

You're right - the public ARE the servants when it comes time to deal with public sector employees.

[Coronach]

From what I've read here the officer wanted to know what was going on and wanted to make sure everything was okay. This doesn't strike me as wrong. However, he failed in his duty as a public employee to ensure that Bill - one of his employers - did not leave feeling needlessly pestered. Some police need to learn basic customer satisfaction skills. As several police here have suggested, short explaination of why he took interest and perhaps some friendly small-talk. It is not all that much to ask.
Well, one of two things happened...either the officer didn't do his part in being courteous, or Bill Hook refused to be satisfied. As I was not there, I can only speculate as to which. If he was discourteous, Bill Hook has a legit gripe, if a smaller one than he claims. "The officer was rude!" is quite a few steps away from "The JBT invaded my privacy and violated my rights!"

And...as I'm posting this, I see that the needless argumentation has continued. :rolleyes: Anyway...as I said, I can really only speculate as to which of the persons involved in this interaction was discourteous.

Mike

[cordex]

Call it what you want. Its more correct than "public servant".
In the private sector, when a company fails to treat its customers well, it goes out of business. Therefore, employees who treat customers badly get fired. Private companies must work to serve their paying customers well, or they lose contracts, they lose customers and they lose money.

It should be the same in the public sector.

[Bill Hook]

Private policing. Hire those firms that provide the best service.

[cordex]

Snow Crash, dude.

[Don Gwinn]

I don't even know what that last post means, but five pages of this is enough. If anyone wants to continue this, do it privately, please. I've got to go wrap my head in duct tape so it doesn't explode when I get back to the classroom.