Harrassed by the cops while eating lunch

[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]

Bill Hook

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...

 

[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.

and

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.

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]

Coronach

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.

 

[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 center

But 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]

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?

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]

buzz_knox and Mike Irwin

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]

Mike Irwin

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]

I'd feel good about it

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]

buzz_knox

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.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Definition

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]

Bill Hook...

"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.