Police definition of "detain"

[Deanimator]

I think there's a couple apt terms that describes "Deanimator's" attitude. Certainly, most here would be offended if posters were to make the sort of comments about a racial group, ethnic group, persons of a certain religion or sexual orientation that he makes about all law enforcement personnel. And make no mistake: He is talking about all law enforcement personnel. Deanimator advocates treating an entire group of people based on the past actions of a very small minority of that group ... And hey, isn't that also "profiling?" Most definitely it falls into the category of stereotyping ...

Funny you should mention that.

On a well known Chicago police blog EVERYONE on (and by extension, from) the South Side of Chicago were referred to SO often as "savages" that it drew the attention of the news media. The blog owner went so far as to ban the use of the term because the public at large were getting entirely too accurate of a picture of how the police REALLY thought about them.

If EVERYBODY on the South Side of Chicago is a "savage", what are those cops?

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. Maybe I overlooked it, but I didn't see where JohnKSa said anything about blind trust or waiving constitutional rights.

Then what exactly WAS his point?

Mine is that any cop I don't KNOW, is just a stranger with a gun. Of course unlike other strangers with guns, he has vast LEGAL power over me, the presumption of veracity and the presumption of justification for all of his actions. Tell me he's not inherently dangerous to me.

I have NO way to know what his motivations are. My ONLY defenses against misbehavior on his part are contained in the Bill of Rights. I would be foolish in the extreme to take ANY of that lightly, ESPECIALLY given where I was born and raised. And the Obrycka case is 100%, iron clad proof of it.

 

[JohnKSa]

So what you're saying is that I should just blindly trust that every cop I meet is honest and believes in the Bill of Rights and waive my Constitutional Rights... up 'til the point where I find out he ISN'T honest and DOESN'T believe in the Bill of Rights, by which time it's MUCH too late?

Given that my statement was: "While it is certainly wise to keep in mind that there are some risks associated with interacting with police and to act accordingly..." and your "So what you're saying..." response bears absolutely no resemblance to that statement, I can only assume that your intent was not to rephrase what I said, but rather to create a strawman.

If you want to discuss this topic, you can respond to what I actually say, or ask for clarification. If you just want to rant, then you can continue starting your posts with: "So what you're saying is..." and then finishing the sentence with something imaginative. The only value of that to you is that it provides you some shred of rationalization for continuing to rant instead of responding reasonably. The value of that to anyone else is nil.

It isn't situationally an adversarial relationship, it's INHERENTLY an adversarial relationship.

It is not. The police are not adversarial to the public in general but they are adversarial to criminals AND sometimes to those who choose to be adversarial towards them.

And you expect me to just VOLUNTARILY discuss matters...

There's nothing in my post that suggests you need to spill your guts everytime a cop asks you for the time of day. What I responded to was your implication that all police were a threat and that you had no reason to believe that any LE interaction was on the up and up.

Mine is that any cop I don't KNOW, is just a stranger with a gun. Of course unlike other strangers with guns, he has vast LEGAL power over me, the presumption of veracity and the presumption of justification for all of his actions. Tell me he's not inherently dangerous to me.

Just as any car that comes near you on the road carries some risk and is "inherently dangerous", so interacting with any person who has the power to harm you carries some risk because they are "inherently dangerous".

That is why I stated that "it is certainly wise to keep in mind that there are some risks associated with interacting with police and to act accordingly".

BUT, in the same way that we don't swerve violently in evasive action just because a car passes near us on the road, or cringe in fear at all the armed persons at the shooting range, there's no need to treat every LEO as "a threat" nor to take the starting assumption that there is not "the slightest reason to believe" that there could be a legitimate, benign, or even beneficial reason for LE/citizen interactions.

 

[Deanimator]

It is not. The police are not adversarial to the public in general but they are adversarial to criminals AND sometimes to those who choose to be adversarial towards them.

1. What "crime" did Karolina Obrycka, her employer and co-workers commit?
2. In what way was Karolina Obrycka, her employer and co-workers "adversarial" to the police... apart from refusing to drop charges against Officer Tony Abbate and accede to their extra-legal demands for evidence in the case?

No comment about the NUMEROUS comments by police regarding an entire group of people in half of a major American city? Comments so numerous that they drew media attention?

If cops call me a "savage", what do I get to call them?

 

[Spats McGee]

Deanimator, you clearly have a deep and abiding distrust of law enforcement. That is most certainly your right. But you have sprinkled the following gems in this thread:

I don't have the SLIGHTEST idea what that cop is up to, and it is in NO way to my benefit to trust a word he says.

The police created that relationship. Don't tell me I have some contemptible "duty" to pretend they didn't.

Jerry Finnegan wasn't "simply trying to obtain information to solve crimes" when his crew kidnapped a minor. They were "simply trying to obtain information to find more victims".

I don't know what that cop's up to and I haven't the slightest reason to believe it's on the up and up. I've got way too many reasons to believe the contrary.

Not every officer is Jerry Finnegan or associated with him. Just bringing him into this as an example tells me you're painting with an awfully broad brush.

So what you're saying is that I should just blindly trust that every cop I meet is honest and believes in the Bill of Rights and waive my Constitutional Rights... up 'til the point where I find out he ISN'T honest and DOESN'T believe in the Bill of Rights, by which time it's MUCH too late?

I didn't say it earlier, but I will now: This is raw, over-the-top exaggeration. JohnKSa said nothing of the sort. It is entirely possible both to talk to the police, and to preserve one's constitutional rights. FWIW, my sample consists of the couple of hundred police officers whose cell numbers are stored in my phone, untold numbers of appellate cases that I've read and 100s of criminal & traffic trials I've had over the years. In my experience, officers don't even consider refusals to search as "uncooperative." They know that people have constitutional rights, and they respect that. I've long since lost count of the DWI cases I've had that included a charge of Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing, but also listed the defendant's demeanor as "cooperative."

Then what exactly WAS his point?

I'm not John, so I'll leave that one to him to answer.

Mine is that any cop I don't KNOW, is just a stranger with a gun. Of course unlike other strangers with guns, he has vast LEGAL power over me, the presumption of veracity and the presumption of justification for all of his actions. Tell me he's not inherently dangerous to me.

He's not inherently dangerous to you. If there's a distinguishing factor, meaning he's "unlike other strangers with guns," then he's not "just a stranger with a gun." He's a stranger with a gun, rules, regulations, and constitutional limitations. Those limitations are backed by law, and if he crosses the line, you can sue both him and the employing entity, which will have much deeper pockets than most strangers with guns.

I have NO way to know what his motivations are. My ONLY defenses against misbehavior on his part are contained in the Bill of Rights. I would be foolish in the extreme to take ANY of that lightly, ESPECIALLY given where I was born and raised. And the Obrycka case is 100%, iron clad proof of it.

One case from six years ago is proof of that one case. Nothing less, but nothing more.

 

[JohnKSa]

1. What "crime" did...
2. In what way was ...

One time on the way home from work, a truck came across the centerline and hit my car head on. Should I swerve in evasive action every time I see a vehicle coming towards me even if there's no suggestion that it will cross the centerline? No. Every day, countless vehicles approach and pass me from the opposite direction without incident. But I do pay attention to what's going on so that if things start to look concerning I can respond appropriately.

One time a person cheated me in a business transaction. Should I treat every person who wishes to engage in a business transaction with me as "a threat" and take the position that there's not the slightest reason for me to believe that the transaction is on the up and up? No. I engage in many business transactions every week without issue. But I do pay attention to the details of the transaction and the behavior of the persons I do business with to protect myself.

If cops call me a "savage", what do I get to call them?

If a cop personally calls YOU a savage during an interaction, that's one thing--you may have some recourse and it would be reasonable to be much more careful in the remainder of the interaction. If a cop calls someone hundreds of miles away from you a savage, that doesn't provide sufficient rationale for you to assume that all cops are a threat to you and that there's no reason to believe that any interaction with them could possibly be legitimate..

 

[Spats McGee]

One time on the way home from work, a truck came across the centerline and hit my car head on. Should I swerve in evasive action every time I see a vehicle coming towards me even if there's no suggestion that it will cross the centerline?

A more accurate analogy would be asking: One time on the way home from work, a truck crossed the center line and hit JohnKSa's car. Should Spats swerve in evasive action every time he sees a vehicle approaching?

Now, can we please get back on topic? The definition of "detain."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...any cop I don't KNOW, is just a stranger with a gun. Of course unlike other strangers with guns,...

• He has been subject to a detailed pre-employment qualification process -- generally including a psychological evaluation, a polygraph examination, an extensive background investigation, and, often, interview with neighbors, friends and family members.
  
  
• He is part of, and subject to the discipline of, a hierarchical chain of command structure exercising authority over his actions and to which chain of command structure he is answerable for his conduct.
  
  
• His actions are subject to constitutional constraints.
  
  
• His employer is answerable to the public (and to you) for his conduct.

You forgot to mention all of that.

 

[Deanimator]

One case from six years ago is proof of that one case. Nothing less, but nothing more.

The court ruled that there was a "Blue Wall of Silence".

Good enough for me.

• He has been subject to an detailed pre-employment qualification process -- generally including a psychological evaluation, a polygraph examination, an extensive background investigation, and, often, interview with neighbors, friends and family members.
  
  
• He is part of, and subject to the discipline of, a hierarchical chain of command structure exercising authority over his actions and to which chain of command structure he is answerable for his conduct.
  
  
• His actions are subject to constitutional constraints.
  
  
• His employer is answerable to the public (and to you) for his conduct.

You forgot to mention all of that.

How'd that work in the case of Officer Gerald Callahan of the Chicago PD?

 

[Spats McGee]

Never mind.

Back on topic, please.

 

[JohnKSa]

How'd the work in the case of Officer Gerald Callahan of the Chicago PD?

I just told you about a case where someone crossed the centerline and hit me head on. If I find and quote examples of another 2, 3, or even 100 instances where that happened, would you then begin swerving evasively every time you see a car approaching from the opposite direction? Why not?

 

[Frank Ettin]

....How'd that work in the case of Officer Gerald Callahan of the Chicago PD?

As Aristotle said, "One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy."

 

[Trunk Monkey]

The simplest definition of "Detained" I have ever heard is "When a reasonable person would not feel that they are free to leave"

 

[BSA1]

If an officer were to say ANY of those phrases to me, I would immediately ask if I was free to leave. If they said "No", I would ask if I am under arrest. If they say "No" again, I would ask again if I am free to leave - and turn away as if I WAS leaving. If they "laid hands" on me to stop me, I would stop, look at them, then their hands, then back at them and ask if I am being arrested. If not, I will again ask if I'm free to leave.

I do NOT wish to have a "consensual conversation" with any LEO unless I called them for a specific reason (not likely).

If you are the subject of an investigative stop, and you attempt to leave, it is likely you will be arrested, and it will be made more than clear to you. You can be legally detained for the purposes of an investigative stop against your will.

1. Do not resist.
2. Consent to NOTHING.
3. Do not speak (other than when REQUIRED by law) without benefit of counsel.

It's an inherently adversarial relationship. Intelligently treat it as such


This is excellent advice. I will add be very careful about answering questions the police dispatcher will ask if you call 911. 911 calls are recorded and admissible in Court of Law. Your conversation will be used against you if you are charged with a crime (See State of Florida v. George Zimmerman).

Also refuse to consent to any type of search, whether it is you, your vehicle, your belongings and your home. It probably will not stop the Officer from conducting the search but it may be ruled illegal in a Court Trial.

If you're told you're not free to leave, or are prevented from leaving, you need to keep your mouth shut until you have legal representation PRESENT. And you need to EXPLICITLY state that you refuse to speak without benefit of counsel. Where legal, RECORDING that refusal is highly recommended.

Use of recording devices such as cell phones are a excellent tool for documenting the encounter. They are going a long way towards holding the Police more accountable for their actions. Interestingly enough most the time the recording shows the Officers were correct with what they did.

Again keep your mouth shut. As Deanimator says;

"An OFFICER can use your silence as evidence of guilt." A COURT can't.

And this is exactly how we got here from there ... because too many citizens now seem to believe that any interaction with law enforcement personnel is adversarial.

If you act toward law enforcement personnel, who are, amazingly enough, simply trying to obtain information to solve crimes or other problems to the benefit of the society, as if they are your personal adversaries, you will obtain exactly the sort of relationship that fits your belief system.

As I have become older and hopefully wiser the reality is the Police are largely responsible for the adversarial relationship they have with many citizens. There are a number of reasons for these but I think Police Administrators and Officers would do well to review and put in practice Sir Robert Peel’s rules for law enforcement.

 

[RickD427]

"An OFFICER can use your silence as evidence of guilt." A COURT can't.

BSA1,

We've already dealt with this falsehood once before in this thread. A COURT certainly can use a subject's silence as evidence of guilt. That's exactly what happened in Salinas v Texas. It wasn't the officer that convicted Salinas, after considering the evidence of his silence. It was the court that did so. And that judgment was upheld at the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Frank Ettin]

.... "An OFFICER can use your silence as evidence of guilt." A COURT can't....

Wrong. Sometimes a court can as well. See Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174, 186 L. Ed. 2d 376, 81 USLW 4467 (2013).

Silence is conduct, and it's long been the fact that conduct can be evidence and that a jury may draw inferences from conduct.

• U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:

  ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....

  
  
• State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656:

  ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'
  
  McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.
  
  We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....

  
  
• State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (Neb., 1991), at 743:

  ... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.
  
  Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...

  
  
• Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:

  ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:
  
  "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt
  
  "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...
  
  See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....

 

[BSA1]

BSA1,
We've already dealt with this falsehood once before in this thread. A COURT certainly can use a subject's silence as evidence of guilt. That's exactly what happened in Salinas v Texas. It wasn't the officer that convicted Salinas, after considering the evidence of his silence. It was the court that did so. And that judgment was upheld at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have studied Salinas v Texas when taking law classes. It is a split decision and a narrow ruling. If you are going to keep citing a case include all of circumstances in the case and the reasoning by the Court.

Circumstances;

The subject was being voluntarily questioned by the Police and was free to leave at any time. After answering some questions he refused to answer when the police asked whether shotgun casings found at the murder scene would match the shotgun that had been found at his house.

However after remaining silent to that question he went on to answer to questions asked after that.

The issue was;

Did the prosecution’s use of defendant’s silence in response to police questioning violate his Fifth Amendment rights, when defendant failed to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination, was not in custody, and had not received Miranda warnings?

Holding / Rule

(Plurality decision) No. A witness generally must expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to benefit from it.

Also read the dissention by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. stating that “no ritualistic formula is necessary to invoke the privilege” and that the circumstances of the case must be considered. The dissent argued that defendant did not need to expressly invoke the privilege because the questioning was in the context of a criminal investigation and the police made defendant, who was not represented by counsel, aware he was a suspect. Moreover, the question at issue was clearly designed to determine whether defendant was guilty.

Once a subject chooses to not to answer a question he/she should remain silent on all subsequent questions.

With this narrow decision and new Justice on the bench use of silence by a defendant may be overturned in a future case.

We had fun with this case in class. The instructor had us argue the opposite side of the case we supported. My key point was once a subject chooses to not to answer a question he/she should remain silent on all subsequent questions. In other words make it clear that you are invoking your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and keep yer big mouth closed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Also read the dissention....

We say the "dissent." And the dissent is still just the dissent.

...My key point was once a subject chooses to not to answer a question he/she should remain silent on all subsequent questions. In other words make it clear that you are invoking your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and keep yer big mouth closed.

In other words you didn't understand Salinas:

1. Salinas, slip op. at 2:

   ...Petitioner’s interview with the police lasted approximately one hour. All agree that the interview was noncustodial, and the parties litigated this case on the assumption that he was not read Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966)...

   
   
2. Salinas, slip op. at 3-4:

   ...The privilege against self-incrimination “is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone’s testimony.” Garner v. United States, 424 U. S. 648, 658, n. 11 (1976). To prevent the privilege from shielding information not properly within its scope, we have long held that a witness who “‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’” at the time he relies on it. Murphy, 465 U. S., at 427 (quoting Monia, 317 U. S., at 427)....

   
   
3. Salinas, slip op at 4-5:

   ....We have previously recognized two exceptions to the requirement that witnesses invoke the privilege, but neither applies here. First, we held in Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 613–615 (1965), that a criminal defendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his own trial....
   
   Second, we have held that a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege must be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. Thus, in Miranda, we said that a suspect who is subjected to the “inherently compelling pressures” of an unwarned custodial interrogation need not invoke the privilege. 384 U. S., at 467–468, and n. 37. Due to the uniquely coercive nature of custodial interrogation, a suspect in custody cannot be said to have voluntarily forgone the privilege“unless [he] fails to claim [it] after being suitably warned.” ...

 

[RickD427]

I have studied Salinas v Texas when taking law classes. It is a split decision and a narrow ruling. If you are going to keep citing a case include all of circumstances in the case and the reasoning by the Court.

Circumstances;

The subject was being voluntarily questioned by the Police and was free to leave at any time. After answering some questions he refused to answer when the police asked whether shotgun casings found at the murder scene would match the shotgun that had been found at his house.

However after remaining silent to that question he went on to answer to questions asked after that.

The issue was;

Did the prosecution’s use of defendant’s silence in response to police questioning violate his Fifth Amendment rights, when defendant failed to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination, was not in custody, and had not received Miranda warnings?

Holding / Rule

(Plurality decision) No. A witness generally must expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to benefit from it.

Also read the dissention by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. stating that “no ritualistic formula is necessary to invoke the privilege” and that the circumstances of the case must be considered. The dissent argued that defendant did not need to expressly invoke the privilege because the questioning was in the context of a criminal investigation and the police made defendant, who was not represented by counsel, aware he was a suspect. Moreover, the question at issue was clearly designed to determine whether defendant was guilty.

Once a subject chooses to not to answer a question he/she should remain silent on all subsequent questions.

With this narrow decision and new Justice on the bench use of silence by a defendant may be overturned in a future case.

We had fun with this case in class. The instructor had us argue the opposite side of the case we supported. My key point was once a subject chooses to not to answer a question he/she should remain silent on all subsequent questions. In other words make it clear that you are invoking your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and keep yer big mouth closed.

BSA1,

I have correctly stated the holding of Salinas in my posting. You're correct in your summary of the case, but what you summarized is what I said. We seem to be in "violent agreement" on the holding.

You attach a lot of meaning to the case being a narrow decision and one that could change with a new Justice. That's true, but that don't change the holding. It is what it is.

The simple fact is that a court may use a defendant's silence against him.

And thanks to Frank for providing much more additional detail on the issue.

 

[lawson4]

I read the Deanimator would not answer an officer's question about the child's abduction that he may have witnessed, because of the adversarial nature of tall contacts with the police. He would decline to answer until his counsel was present a few days later.
I think that may not be true, but that is what his posts tell me.
Rick

 

[JTHunter]

My thanks for all the interesting and informative feedback, esp. Spats and RickD. Here's a little background for my reasoning and some animosity towards "local yokels".

About 30 years ago, I had occasison to have two illuminating encounters with one municipal PD in this area. I had been out hunting with a Marlin Golden 39A .22 levergun but some of the local kids saw me going and followed as they wanted to try the gun. One of the kids dropped the gun and got some of the coal and rock dust (think "black sand") in the workings and I had to remove the firing pin and put it in my pocket. On the way home, I stopped at a neighbor's home as they were getting some roof work done and I was chatting with a mutual friend and neighbor who was doing the work. A little while later, a "local" showed up (after being called by another neighbor) and asked me to come out to his cruiser and bring the rifle with me. When I did, he told me I was under arrest for "carrying on a public street". I replied that I had because he told me to do so. This was long before Illinois' gun laws got updated and the female lawyer I hired to help me FAILED to inform me about the "exemptions" to the UUW provision with which I was charged. Needless to say, because of that failure to inform (one of the reasons I dislike lawyers), I got a sizeable fine AND lost that rifle, the first one I had bought for myself.

FF about two years and I was out working with my two dogs,testing their reactions to gunfire. I was using a .22 pistol with Shorts, then LR ammo, to see if they were gun shy at all. On the way home, I had removed the cylinder and put it in my pants pocket so it was "legal" according to those "exemptions" I had read in the law books in both the local library as well as the law library in the courthouse. While chatting with a neighbor who also had a bird dog, two cruisers showed up and they patted me down. I was told to go home, lock up the dogs and come to the station where they would charge me with "peace disturbance". However (you KNEW that was coming), when I got to the station, the one officer told me I was going to be charged with another UUW statute. I informed the officer about the "exemptions", even quoting chapter and verse AND reminding him that his partner had found the cylinder in my pocket, hence the gun was "broken down and disabled" within the letter of the law. This officer's reply was startling. He said "I don't care about the law. I'm going to book you anyhow!"
I filed a complaint with the police captain in charge of the depart the first business day after that and, three days later, the charges were dropped. I was still out part of the bond I had been forced to cough up.

Both of these incidents, as well as numerous "ordinance violations" a neighbor used to harass me and my dogs were among the reasons I no longer live within those city limits. I could not trust that department to provide aid and assistance when needed.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

a "local" showed up (after being called by another neighbor) and asked me to come out to his cruiser and bring the rifle with me. When I did, he told me I was under arrest for "carrying on a public street". I replied that I had because he told me to do so. This was long before Illinois' gun laws got updated and the female lawyer I hired to help me FAILED to inform me about the "exemptions" to the UUW provision with which I was charged.

Your lawyer also forgot about entrapment? Because, you know... that's what it is a when a law enforcement officer directly instructs you to commit a crime then tries to charge you for following his instructions. Otherwise, ever time a police officer is flagging traffic against a light, they would just line up and pull over everyone that obeyed the officer. It would be hilarious

Traffic officer: Ma'am, you know you ran that light back there?
Driver: But, the other officer was waving us through.
Traffic Officer: Yeah, you guys fall for that all the time. Here's your ticket.

Hell, screw doing actual investigations anymore, drug raids are super easy.

Just walk up to a random person on the street and hand them a bag of weed:
Officer: Here, hold this
Random person: Wait, what? Hey, is this weed?
Officer: OH BUSTED!!! **arrests person for possession of weed**

Uh huh, sure. Why do I think there's more to this story... because, that's not how it works. And it has nothing to do with exemptions in the Illinois gun laws. It's because of the basic framework of the legal system.

 

[Deanimator]

I read the Deanimator would not answer an officer's question about the child's abduction that he may have witnessed, because of the adversarial nature of tall contacts with the police. He would decline to answer until his counsel was present a few days later.
I think that may not be true, but that is what his posts tell me.
Rick

Anything I do or don't say is subject to advise of counsel.
I have NOTHING not required by law to say without benefit of counsel.
The police themselves created that environment.
Let them live with it.

 

[Deanimator]

He said "I don't care about the law. I'm going to book you anyhow!"

Things like that were heard multiple times from local law enforcement in Ohio during the fight for legal concealed carry and during the early days of legal concealed carry.

I've seen and heard it multiple times from other places.

I was once told by a local cop that I could be arrested for actions REQUIRED by current state law as constituting "invoking panic".

And I just remembered that prior to the Republican National Convention, Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association President Steve Loomis called upon Governor John Kasich to in effect RULE BY DECREE and ILLEGALLY ban open carry in downtown Cleveland, while acknowledging that Kasich had no such legal authority.

Apparently, it's possible to enforce the law without either knowing, obeying or even respecting it...

 

[BSA1]

And you wonder why some of my colleagues don't trust the public. By the way, two of your mean cops were gunned down while at lunch yesterday. We die, even for people like you.

And that is a totally, inappropriate comment. No one here has advocated the killing of Police Officers. Your comment does show that LEO's lose sight of who are friends and who are foes. Treat everyone like a criminal so they don't have to make the distinction.

 

[BSA1]

Frank,

I understand the case and the Courts rulings. Four other Justices also had problems with the lower Courts decision. The fact is because the subject did not "expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination" is a elitist opinion. Why did the Court leave unanswered what exact phrase or words the accused should use to invoke their right to self-incrimination? By not doing so it allows lower courts wide leeway in deciding if the accused is entitled to use the 5th Amendment.

Since low educated and low income people cannot afford good lawyers this is also a excellent example of why so many lower educated and minorities are convicted and serve time in prison.

Where is the average person educated in such fine points of the law? Certainly not in public school system.