TheeBadOne
Member
I think most states have vagarency laws on the books.
Police Question
- Thread starter Bigjake
- Start date
- Status
faustulus
Member
Many states where I live still have jim crow laws on the books as well. How do you think those will stand up under appeal.
brownie,
I didn't mean to say you did not act in the best interest of the people you protected nor did I mean to disparage your work in particular. I was going for a more general arguement, that most people do not know the law and many LE use this to their advantage. I have friends who have let LEs search their (my friends) cars when asked. I have refused (politely) several times. Once even held while a drug dog was called to the scene. The apology from the mayor wasn't nearly as nice as the one from the officer who had held me.
I just want to let people know that they have rights and should question pretty much everything. If they are in their back yards looking for their cat, they shouldn't have to prove who they are.
brownie,
I didn't mean to say you did not act in the best interest of the people you protected nor did I mean to disparage your work in particular. I was going for a more general arguement, that most people do not know the law and many LE use this to their advantage. I have friends who have let LEs search their (my friends) cars when asked. I have refused (politely) several times. Once even held while a drug dog was called to the scene. The apology from the mayor wasn't nearly as nice as the one from the officer who had held me.
I just want to let people know that they have rights and should question pretty much everything. If they are in their back yards looking for their cat, they shouldn't have to prove who they are.
brownie0486
Member
faustulus:
I didn't take your comments that way at all, and feel you have brought a valid point to the surface here.
Most LE line officers are familiar with the statutes they enforce regularly on the steets through repetition and having the courts rule later on their actions. It's a learning process for everyone and over time the officers know what the courts will back [ in their actions ] and what they will no back.
The system is not enforced equallly nationwide due in part to the disparity betwen the states laws, and what may be acceptable here isn't necessarily acceptable in another state. Laws are enforced differently by LE from state to state. Certain consitutional laws are enforced equally nationwide but local laws and their enforcement certainly change by state lines and sometimes by county lines.
Having had the opportunity to attend the academy and work the streets enforcing constitutional and local state laws has given me insight into others actions, and at least in my area, being able to understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour not only for myself but the law enforcers I run into at times on the street.
The PI work puts me in strange places at weird hours and of course I am prone to being questioned accordingly, and often. It's the nature of the business if you are active on the streets and you are bound to have contact with LE at one time or another.
The LE community can ask you to open your trunk, let them search the car interior and not be in violation of your rights by asking. You certainly have the right to deny them that request most of the time.
It's not the officers fault you don't know the laws and what he can and can't do. If you grant him permission to search because you didn't know you had the right to say no, it is not his fault, but yours for not having an understanding of your rights.
He has the right to ask and you have the right to deny him his request. I think it upsets the law abiding people that they are asked to open their trunks, etc.
Please bear in mind though that the officer does not know who you are or your background and would not be able to know what and who you are or your intentions toward him on the street.
The tactic of asking your permission to search in no way violates your rights. Many criminals are apprehended this way after they have consented.
I think some of the problem with the general public on this issue is they expect the officer to know what they know about themselves, which of course he usually doesn't. People who are honest and law abiding find it offensive to be asked questions and get the feeling they are being treated or considered as a criminal when that happens.
People need to understand that an officer is confronted continuously with the task of ferreting out the criminals from the law abiders. There are acceptable actions which have been put into place to help them do this through legislation.
There is abuse, there are officers who don't care and have developed the us vs. them attitude. There are also people who are antagonistic toward LE immediately upon contact with them.
We all have our own prejudices and the cops are no different. If you are approached by one and immediately "cop" an attitude with them due to your own prejudices, you should expect his to also surface.
I would not suggest everyday people with no knowledge of the law or their rights begin questioning the LE's every action. It will not lend itself to a happy ending usually.
What I do suggest is to educate yourself on the few laws you may need to know, like MV laws if you drive. Fourth amendment rights where traiffic stops are concerned.
As to looking for the cat in the back yard. The officer was called due to suspicious behaviour [ if it was called by a neighbor ] or the officer saw the action himself while on patrol. If he was dispatched to the scene he has the obligation to check out the complaint and question anyone found during their search of the location [ scene of complaint ].
The guy with the flashlight may be a burlar who is about to break into a home or garage or he may the landowner looking for the cat that didn't come home that night. The officer has no way of knowing who you are until you are ID'ed. He has the obligation to make sure you are not the perp but the landowner who is lawfully on their own property.
If I were asleep in the house I would want and expect him to be checking that guy with the flashlight in my back yard after dark and not be taking just any excuse so he can get back to his cruiser. I would not feel he was diligent in determining who the guy was if he took the answer "I'm looking for my cat" and walked away.
In lieu of asking why he would question who you were at midnight in your back yard it might be easier to understand what he needs to do to "clear" the scene and return to his other functions.
I know I want the officers to be checking the guy in my backyard real close and grant them the latitude to explore all the possibilities available to them to determine he is not an intruder or potential rapist looking for an open window in the back of my home.
I give him the latitude there with no issues at all. I hope if they see someone in my backyard after dark they are as diligent and prudent in their actions as I would be in the same scenario.
Stay safe out there.
Brownie
I didn't take your comments that way at all, and feel you have brought a valid point to the surface here.
Most LE line officers are familiar with the statutes they enforce regularly on the steets through repetition and having the courts rule later on their actions. It's a learning process for everyone and over time the officers know what the courts will back [ in their actions ] and what they will no back.
The system is not enforced equallly nationwide due in part to the disparity betwen the states laws, and what may be acceptable here isn't necessarily acceptable in another state. Laws are enforced differently by LE from state to state. Certain consitutional laws are enforced equally nationwide but local laws and their enforcement certainly change by state lines and sometimes by county lines.
Having had the opportunity to attend the academy and work the streets enforcing constitutional and local state laws has given me insight into others actions, and at least in my area, being able to understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour not only for myself but the law enforcers I run into at times on the street.
The PI work puts me in strange places at weird hours and of course I am prone to being questioned accordingly, and often. It's the nature of the business if you are active on the streets and you are bound to have contact with LE at one time or another.
The LE community can ask you to open your trunk, let them search the car interior and not be in violation of your rights by asking. You certainly have the right to deny them that request most of the time.
It's not the officers fault you don't know the laws and what he can and can't do. If you grant him permission to search because you didn't know you had the right to say no, it is not his fault, but yours for not having an understanding of your rights.
He has the right to ask and you have the right to deny him his request. I think it upsets the law abiding people that they are asked to open their trunks, etc.
Please bear in mind though that the officer does not know who you are or your background and would not be able to know what and who you are or your intentions toward him on the street.
The tactic of asking your permission to search in no way violates your rights. Many criminals are apprehended this way after they have consented.
I think some of the problem with the general public on this issue is they expect the officer to know what they know about themselves, which of course he usually doesn't. People who are honest and law abiding find it offensive to be asked questions and get the feeling they are being treated or considered as a criminal when that happens.
People need to understand that an officer is confronted continuously with the task of ferreting out the criminals from the law abiders. There are acceptable actions which have been put into place to help them do this through legislation.
There is abuse, there are officers who don't care and have developed the us vs. them attitude. There are also people who are antagonistic toward LE immediately upon contact with them.
We all have our own prejudices and the cops are no different. If you are approached by one and immediately "cop" an attitude with them due to your own prejudices, you should expect his to also surface.
I would not suggest everyday people with no knowledge of the law or their rights begin questioning the LE's every action. It will not lend itself to a happy ending usually.
What I do suggest is to educate yourself on the few laws you may need to know, like MV laws if you drive. Fourth amendment rights where traiffic stops are concerned.
As to looking for the cat in the back yard. The officer was called due to suspicious behaviour [ if it was called by a neighbor ] or the officer saw the action himself while on patrol. If he was dispatched to the scene he has the obligation to check out the complaint and question anyone found during their search of the location [ scene of complaint ].
The guy with the flashlight may be a burlar who is about to break into a home or garage or he may the landowner looking for the cat that didn't come home that night. The officer has no way of knowing who you are until you are ID'ed. He has the obligation to make sure you are not the perp but the landowner who is lawfully on their own property.
If I were asleep in the house I would want and expect him to be checking that guy with the flashlight in my back yard after dark and not be taking just any excuse so he can get back to his cruiser. I would not feel he was diligent in determining who the guy was if he took the answer "I'm looking for my cat" and walked away.
In lieu of asking why he would question who you were at midnight in your back yard it might be easier to understand what he needs to do to "clear" the scene and return to his other functions.
I know I want the officers to be checking the guy in my backyard real close and grant them the latitude to explore all the possibilities available to them to determine he is not an intruder or potential rapist looking for an open window in the back of my home.
I give him the latitude there with no issues at all. I hope if they see someone in my backyard after dark they are as diligent and prudent in their actions as I would be in the same scenario.
Stay safe out there.
Brownie
faustulus
Member
Brownie,
I didn't mean to imply that the officer was doing anything wrong in asking to search your car, I just get annoyed that most people don't know you may deny this request.
I understand that a LE doesn't know my background nor my intent, but many that I have encountered expected me to assume their presence was benign. What most people don't realize is that when you are talking to an officer what you say may be used against you at a later date, the Miranda rights only apply when arrested and an interview with an officer can be used in court.
What I want to avoid is putting people in a position to prove their innocence.
I didn't mean to imply that the officer was doing anything wrong in asking to search your car, I just get annoyed that most people don't know you may deny this request.
I understand that a LE doesn't know my background nor my intent, but many that I have encountered expected me to assume their presence was benign. What most people don't realize is that when you are talking to an officer what you say may be used against you at a later date, the Miranda rights only apply when arrested and an interview with an officer can be used in court.
What I want to avoid is putting people in a position to prove their innocence.
brownie0486
Member
faustulus:
I agree with that assessment as well, you are always prudent to answer only the questions you feel relevant to the stop or threshold inquiry and defer the rest to an atty at a later date if necessary.
I know one guy I stopped called his atty on the cell phone while I was back at the cruiser checking wants/warrants. Asked me to speak with him on the cell when I got back to his vehicle.
Atty asked me a few questions about the stop and we were good to go. I had stopped him as the car fit the apb description out at that time in my area.
I didn't have to talk to the atty and normally would not have but the guy came back clean, papers were in order [ license, registration ] and so harm done. I explained the situation and the atty had no problem with the stop.
He was on his way in 15 minutes from the time I pulled him over. He had called the atty as he saw another cruiser pull in behind mine and got nervous [ which I understood at the scene and why I agreed to talk to the atty on the cell ].
I only relate that here as others may note it is something available to them if they choose to use it. I'm sure some other officers would not have been so agreeable but then I don't answer for others as stated before.
I always stayed objective until given a reason not to for some reason. I have found when you keep objectivity you can better relate to the people you are dealing with and better understand their responses to your presence and actions.
As to searching the car--if I'm asked to allow a search, they are asked why they want to search the car, and then denied. By asking if I mind if he searches my car he should be able to articulate why he wants to search it in my opinion. If he had enough cause to search he wouldn't be asking. How do I know?---
Brownie
I agree with that assessment as well, you are always prudent to answer only the questions you feel relevant to the stop or threshold inquiry and defer the rest to an atty at a later date if necessary.
I know one guy I stopped called his atty on the cell phone while I was back at the cruiser checking wants/warrants. Asked me to speak with him on the cell when I got back to his vehicle.
Atty asked me a few questions about the stop and we were good to go. I had stopped him as the car fit the apb description out at that time in my area.
I didn't have to talk to the atty and normally would not have but the guy came back clean, papers were in order [ license, registration ] and so harm done. I explained the situation and the atty had no problem with the stop.
He was on his way in 15 minutes from the time I pulled him over. He had called the atty as he saw another cruiser pull in behind mine and got nervous [ which I understood at the scene and why I agreed to talk to the atty on the cell ].
I only relate that here as others may note it is something available to them if they choose to use it. I'm sure some other officers would not have been so agreeable but then I don't answer for others as stated before.
I always stayed objective until given a reason not to for some reason. I have found when you keep objectivity you can better relate to the people you are dealing with and better understand their responses to your presence and actions.
As to searching the car--if I'm asked to allow a search, they are asked why they want to search the car, and then denied. By asking if I mind if he searches my car he should be able to articulate why he wants to search it in my opinion. If he had enough cause to search he wouldn't be asking. How do I know?---
Brownie
Steve in PA
Member
"I know one guy I stopped called his atty on the cell phone while I was back at the cruiser checking wants/warrants. Asked me to speak with him on the cell when I got back to his vehicle"
Your not serious are you???? I would never have talked to that guy.... he has no business in my traffic stop. He can talk to his client after I'm through with the stop.
"Atty asked me a few questions about the stop and we were good to go"
Good to go???? What if he didn't like your answers???
"I explained the situation and the atty had no problem with the stop."
Again your comments floored me. I don't care if the driver is the pope.....I'm not talking to his lawyer (which would be the big guy in the sky
)............or anyone else on his cell. We routinely back each other up....and if every driver is going to be calling their atty when they see a second car.......its gonna be a long night.
This isn't a flame on how you handled the stop........to each is own.......but when I stop a vehicle..........the stop is between the driver and me.
Your not serious are you???? I would never have talked to that guy.... he has no business in my traffic stop. He can talk to his client after I'm through with the stop.
"Atty asked me a few questions about the stop and we were good to go"
Good to go???? What if he didn't like your answers???
"I explained the situation and the atty had no problem with the stop."
Again your comments floored me. I don't care if the driver is the pope.....I'm not talking to his lawyer (which would be the big guy in the sky
)............or anyone else on his cell. We routinely back each other up....and if every driver is going to be calling their atty when they see a second car.......its gonna be a long night.This isn't a flame on how you handled the stop........to each is own.......but when I stop a vehicle..........the stop is between the driver and me.
brownie0486
Member
Steve in PA:
As I stated I would not normally get that involved and don't recommend it and know why you posted your response.
In this case the guy was 74? [ memory ]. He was visibly shaken at the stop and how I approached the vehicle initially. He was almost in tears and I thought he was going to need possible medical assistance at the scene.
He had the atty on the phone, asked me very meekly if I could speak to him and as there were no issues at that point I made the decision to help alleviate the old timers fears.
I usually give senior citizens much latitude as I would want my grandad treated the same way due to the age and possible medical problems they may have.
I just thought at that time it was being sensitive to his request and in so doing generated some good will between us. He was pretty much back to normal by the time we parted ways.
Brownie
As I stated I would not normally get that involved and don't recommend it and know why you posted your response.
In this case the guy was 74? [ memory ]. He was visibly shaken at the stop and how I approached the vehicle initially. He was almost in tears and I thought he was going to need possible medical assistance at the scene.
He had the atty on the phone, asked me very meekly if I could speak to him and as there were no issues at that point I made the decision to help alleviate the old timers fears.
I usually give senior citizens much latitude as I would want my grandad treated the same way due to the age and possible medical problems they may have.
I just thought at that time it was being sensitive to his request and in so doing generated some good will between us. He was pretty much back to normal by the time we parted ways.
Brownie
brownie0486
Member
deleted as duplicate
Steve in PA
Member
Hey........ain't nuttin but a thang bro
Its not in my sop......but,...........I might have done the same thing.
Its not in my sop......but,...........I might have done the same thing.
- Status