The F.B.I. Knocked on my door yesterday

[orionengnr]

(sigh)

Guess I'll unsubscribe now. It was fun while it lasted, but when we get to this point it's like listening to two six year olds..

"Did Not!"
"Did Too!"
"Did Not!"
...and so on.

of course, that's how it was done when I was six. These days they are probably dropping the F-Bomb at six...

and we get enough of that already...

 

[hammer4nc]

All this talk of hate is really low road, and seems to be frequently used by some members in desperation.

It's really your choice, you can open the door and tell me what you saw or didn't see, or I can call backup, arrest you for Obstructing a Peace Officer or Obstructing Justice and take you to jail and you can pay your attorney a few hundred to a few thousand dollars to tell you that you should have opened the door and talked to me for a minute. It's your choice. To me it seems a pretty expensive way of proving you won't let the man put you down.

I love these rhetorical questions!

Well, we see how this power trip fantasy actually played out in the real world...citation is voided in less than 24 hours, the officer is forever immortalized in a training video showing how NOT to handle recalcitrant witnesses/suspects.

Reminds a person of the Officer Alonzo character from the movie "Training Day"..."Ya wanna go to jail, or ya wanna go home?", then re-asking the question as if its really not just a rhetorical dig.

Knowing what I know of Chief Perlov, the headstrong Raleigh officer was probably given a similar choice in her office. "Ya wanna reprimand in your file, or ya wanna personally take a gift basket to this lady when you go apologize? Well, what's it gonna be? (Gift baskets are popular here in the south.)

 

[Derek Zeanah]

My two experiences with LE types that turn me sour on the whole blind trust issue both happened in the CA National Guard.

1. A staff sergeant in my platoon was a full-time cop with LAPD, and loved to tell a story about a "mouthy whore" who wouldn't help him out, so he produced a vial of crack, said it was hers, and sent her away for a while (3 years from memory, but it's been a while). A bunch of Ventura County Sherriffs laughed along with these types of stories each time, while I was horrified. (Note: a mod has called "B.S." on this one and claims it was one meathead making up lies to impress his buddies. The fact that cops thought this was entertaining it terrifying, and that assumes it's NOT true. The whole Rampart thing came down a while later, which IIRC was his department...)

2. I ran into a disagreement with the leadership over whether college or drill were more important, and a new CO decided to deny my (previously approved) request to miss drill for a debate championship. No biggie -- I missed anyway, and had to meet with the 1SG (who's full-time FBI as his day job). I explained that this was the state finals, that I placed first place, that my goal was to win a debate scholarship to UCLA, that this was important to that goal, that this had been requested (and I thought approved) months in advance, and that this was the reason I missed drill -- not some huge aversion to crawling in the mud. He was understanding, we talked about goals in life and how things were doing and came up with a half-dozen ways I could make up the drill. Then he submitted a report to the CO that completely misrepresented our conversation.

The thing that gets me on this one is that it's a felony to lie to a federal law enforcement official. If this had been a "real" issue (rather than a lose rank administratively thing) like what Martha Stewart went through, then I'd conceivably go to jail based on nothing more than his word, which in this case was nothing but a lie.

<shivers>

I trust cops I know -- moderators here for instance. The rest I protect myself from. There's no telling who you're up against. I'd say I'd play along with locals but not with feds without video/audio/witness present, but as far as I'm aware it's totally OK for a federal LE type to lie about his identiy, misremember/misunderstand/misrepresent a statement, then testify that I lied to a federal LE type.

No thanks. You want to talk to me about some non-life threatening issue? Cool. We'll have someone else present, it'll be off my property, and it'll be at a time that I find convenient. Better yet, you can ask your questions in writing and I'll reply the same so there are no misunderstandings later (learned this from a "let's save some time" phone call with a lawyer once, who "creatively interpreted" our conversation. Never again, thanks.)

Though I must say, small-town cops seem a different breed from big city cops. Both experiences listed here were with the latter, though I now live in the former.

 

[bruss01]

Rouge Cops??? I knew it!They're...they're...everywhere!

Using Taxpayer's money to buy Rouge, and lipstick, and Mascara, and Eye Liner... Probably shopping at Victoria's Secret on my dime!

And...and...buying Strapless undergarments and... and... parading around to offend the sensibilities of good folk every where!

This madness must Stop! Who will stand with me? Who, I ask?

J. Edgar Hoover - Victoria's secret wasn't around then, but he'd have been a regular customer, from what I've heard.

 

[bruss01]

Often, we don't know if a potential witness is "friendly" to the subject or beholden to him/her for reasons of love, indebtedness, friendship, etc. Showing up unannounced removes the chances that witnesses will cook up a story with the subject. If you think that's arrogant, you are entitled to that opinion.

I'm proud of what I do for a living and I don't make apologies for it.
JY

Fine, don't make any apologies - I'm not about to have a conversation with someone who can take what I say out of context, misconstrue, read into something I haven't said and fabricate some kind of "probable cause" or later accuse me of "lying to the authorities". Someone who has the authority to harm me, endanger my freedom, beat me up and haul me away because he had a "feeling" and a buddy and a department who will back him to the hilt, regardless of the facts. Expecially if I've had a long hard day, may be short on sleep, maybe had a drink or two in the privacy of my own home. When he's alert, had plenty of time to frame exactly what he wants to say and how to say it. I won't be ambushed like that. If you just want to know how long that car down the street has been parked there, whether the sofa in the street belongs to me, whether that's my dog running loose, fine, I'm happy to answer. Through the door or window. Most cops are good folks trying to do a difficult job, I'm not out to make their job difficult - I'm out to protect myself from the gnashing gears of a mindless judiciary machine that chews up the innocent along with the guilty. Which is sometimes fed by cops that are over agressive, or just plain "bad".

Every profession has it's bad apples - I'm a computer guy and have no love for "hackers" who steal peoples identities or commit fraud. You good cops, SHOW that you're good cops by working with people, not against them, and don't treat people like paranoid nutcases because these "bad cop" incidents can and do happen! Pretending they don't won't make them go away - in fact the first step in addressing a problem is to admit there is one.

Don't expect me to be happy and cooperative if you expect to barge in on my evening at home. If you're professional, then ACT professional - conduct your business as a PROFESSIONAL and drop me a note or give me a call at a reasonable time of day, with advance notice. If that makes your job a tad less easy and conveninent, tough.

 

[NineseveN]

Wow thread is sad. I’m sure you're all good folks, but the things I see from both the LEO's and the citizens in this thread are disheartening.

First of all, it seems some have the attitude that it is okay to go out of their way to be difficult when LEO's are interested in talking to them. They assume every cop is a so-called JBT simply because they wear the uniform and the badge. There is a difference between "verify, then trust" and "everyone is a Jack Booted Thug". I can appreciate not wanted to deal with Law Enforcement on anything but even terms, and sometimes an appointment is a good idea, sometimes it's better to help the officer out and let him or her get on with doing their job.

On the other side we have machismo so thick that it produces a gag reflex when I see it. Putting the screws to a free citizen simply because you don't like what they're saying is abusive and wrong. If someone doesn't feel comfortable talking with an LEO under a certain circumstance, and the situation is not immediate and in dire need of attention, where's the justification for being such a hard ass putting them in cuffs or issuing a citation?

Both sides are engaged in a hopelessly circular argument and quite frankly, it's disgusting to see such things on The High Road. I think both sides need to remember who it is that Law Enforcement serves and exercise some better judgment. Using your power to make life difficult for someone that may have reasonable concerns that compel them to desire for more even grounds when discussing matters with you as a police officer is abuse and it hurts the perception of Police Officers and our faith in the law, and abusing your position as a free citizen only hurts how LEO's treat us all under similar circumstances (as evident in this thread) and could possibly hurt your neighbor as well. If the police are trying to solve a crime that was perpetrated on your neighbor, you're not helping them by being a jerk and slowing down the investigation based on mistrust of those with badges or just because you can...and using your authority as an LEO as a penile supplement hurts you every time you ask for cooperation from the very citizens you should be serving.

I'm glad I'm not an LEO in Molon Labe's neck of the woods, and I am equally glad I don't live within Jeff White's or Johnny Yuma's jurisdiction. Frankly, I think all of you need to be humbled.

 

[Johnny_Yuma]

Actually, Molon

A few things, Jeff:

1. I am under no legal obligation to speak with you under any circumstances.

You are. Misprision of a federal felony is in itself a felony act. Absent a 5th Amendment exception, persons with knowledge of a crime are obligated to speak with us and to speak truthfully.

2. If an LEO approaches someone (who otherwise is minding their own business), and that person refuses to speak, they are not guilty of obstruction of justice. A person is only guilty of obstruction of justice when they go out of their way to actively interfere with an LEO's duty.

See above.

3. If you approached our home and refused to leave under my orders, I would have you arrested for trespassing.

Knock yourself out. There is no federal trespassing statute and federal officers acting within the scope of their employment are immune from local and state prosecution. As long as I'm not in an area where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, I can (and have done so) stand in a driveway for hours waiting on the occupant in order to serve a subpoena, etc.

It's not my preferred way of doing things but a felony investigation is not going to grind to a halt just because you feel like being hornry.

Take Care,

JY

 

[Jeff White]

First off, you all the citizens for whom we work, elected the legislators who passed the laws that enable us to do our jobs.

If you insist that we arrest you before you will talk to us about a crime you may have witnessed, that can be arranged too. A call to the states attorney can get a warrant issued or I can put a BOLO into the computer and the next time an officer sees you out and about, he can stop you and detain you until you talk to the investigating officer.

I'm quite sick of the macho chest thumping that goes on around here, with people advocating that others break the law by obstructing peace officers or obstructing justice.

The police, your employees I might add, have the legal right to do their job. Knocking on someone's door and asking them to open it and talk for a minute regarding official business is not harrassment and it's not trespass. The laws are in place to compel people to at least identify themselves and tell us they don't want to talk to us. I have no problem, and I don't know any other officer around here who would have a problem with anyone calling the office and verifying our identity.

Attitudes like Molon Labe recommends are just going to lead you down the road to more trouble. It would be better to just ignore the knock at the door and pretend you're not home, then to start a confrontation. But if you pretend you're not home, and we need to talk to you, we'll be back. If we can't ever catch you at home a BOLO will go into the computer and the next officer who sees you out and about will stop you and detain you for the investigating officer.

No one says you have to invite us in for coffee. You can step out on the porch so I can identify who I'm speaking with, tell me you were watching the pretty girl walk down the other side of the street and missed the entire incident, and I'm on my way.

Ordering me off the property through a closed door is going to make me wonder why you don't want to talk. Are you concealing evidence of a crime? Did you just abduct a child from the bus stop and you're about to molest then murder her? Is the batch of meth you're cooking in the basement about finished? Have you beaten your wife and kids and don't want me to see their bruises when you open the door.

Molon Labe, is your militia group one of the ones that believes the elected sheriff is the only legal authority? Do you refuse to get a drivers license or register your car because you've found nothing in the constitution that authorizes that?

hammer4nc,
I don't see that case as anything like Molon Labe's recommendation. I guarantee you that in Molon Labe's case the obstructing charges would stick.

Let's just keep this adversarial relationship going. That's real smart. Just tell everyone all these internet myths about how you don't have to talk to the police, how you can have them arrested for trespass and sue them for harrassment if they have the audacity to ask you a question while they are conducting an investigation. That's going to help close the gap between freedom loving, law abiding gun owners and us jack booted thugs....:banghead:

Certain members have taken a thread on a legitimate issue, (what do official credentials look like, and how do I verify them) and turned into another militia vs. JBT thread and publically advocated that people commit the crime of obstruction. How is that The High Road?

Jeff

 

[Molon Labe]

JY:

Unless I already know and trust him, I won't talk to an LEO who approaches me (other than to order him to vacate my property). This is my natural right as a human being, and I don't give a rat's a$$ what a written law has to say about it.

So am I some whacked-out anarchist? Nope. I abide by all written laws that do not violate my natural rights. If a written law does violate my natural rights, I simply don't recognize it; it is null and void in my book.

The law of self-preservation is higher than written law. - Thomas Jefferson

Molon Labe... Do you refuse to get a drivers license or register your car because you've found nothing in the constitution that authorizes that?

Of course not; states are free to pass laws as long as said laws do not violate the federal constitution. So a licensing system for driving on public roads is perfectly legal. It also does not violate my natural rights.

I'm a mild-mannered electrical engineer, JW, not a wild-eyed nutcase.

 

[bruss01]

Ordering me off the property through a closed door is going to make me wonder why you don't want to talk. Are you concealing evidence of a crime? Did you just abduct a child from the bus stop and you're about to molest then murder her? Is the batch of meth you're cooking in the basement about finished? Have you beaten your wife and kids and don't want me to see their bruises when you open the door.

This kind of thinking really bothers me. The idea that someone simply exercising their right to privacy implies that they have "something to hide". Does that translate into "probable cause"? The idea that only the guilty have rights is unfathomable to me. Or rather, that innocent people should routinely waive their rights because it somehow benefits society. What point is there in having a right (whether to arms, privacy or free speech) if one is routinely expected to waive it? Thomas Jefferson would be really turning over in his grave over that one. I support the basic mission of the Law Enforcement community, but if we're getting to the point that we value security over liberty, we really need to re-examine that.

Certain members have taken a thread on a legitimate issue, (what do official credentials look like, and how do I verify them) and turned into another militia vs. JBT thread and publically advocated that people commit the crime of obstruction. How is that The High Road?

I think that's a misconstrual - This thread seems to be more about what is the best course of action when someone you don't know shows up at your door and claims the authority of a badge to make demands on your time and cooperation. They may be a bad guy posing as a cop, a good cop, or a bad cop. You never know until after the fact. I think what Molon Labe meant by "Presume every LEO a JBT until proven otherwise" is the same type of safety rule we use regarding firearms (loaded?/unloaded?) - if you don't know whether danger exists, assume it does until you know differently. Not an inferral that every cop is a bad cop or even that bad cops are common - most of us agree they're not. You may just be unlucky and happened across an officer who meant well, but proceeded to make every possible mistake, misjudgement and misunderstanding possible. Citizens deserve protection from both malice and mistake at the hands of LEO's, and I intend to take every opportunity for that protection available to me. Johnny Yuma states LEOs basically have a carte blanche to coerce cooperation from citizens peaceably residing in their own homes, a concept I find only one step removed from being compelled to quarter soldiers in our homes. The fact that LEO's on this board seem to revel in the amount of power they wield over ordinary citizens is frightening. Am I the only one who is alarmed by this? Although I'm the first to concede that most LEOs are fine upstanding individuals, you can't tell me that a license to exert authority this broad attracts only the good-hearted and altruistic sort of man. Hence the caution - when in doubt, err on the safe side.

I realize that police work is hard. The more rights the citizens have, the harder it is. That explains why the KGB had such an easy time of things, no pesky rights to "obstruct" them in their work. In a Republic such as ours, the fact that police work is hard is a good symptom, I think. If it ever gets too easy, that's when we need to watch out. We seem to be ever slipping in that direction, I fear.

Believing that we have God-given rights that deserve to be exercised and protected... that is somehow not "The High Road"? On the contrary, I believe that is a very high road indeed.

 

[MNgoldenbear]

...You can step out on the porch so I can identify who I'm speaking with, tell me you were watching the pretty girl walk down the other side of the street and missed the entire incident, and I'm on my way.

Perhaps I missed it. Were you okay with a citizen verifying ID with PD first? If so, I'd say fair is fair -- if I'm in my home and have verified you are legit, not a problem to ID & chat, though you may or may not hear what you think you want to. As far as being able to ID the citizen, I guess I've been away from the city too long. Out here, most doors have a lot of glass in them, and the LEOs recognize most people's voices and we know them. (Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not.) Quite frankly, around here, it wouldn't be unheard of to invite you in for coffee.

Ordering me off the property through a closed door is going to make me wonder why you don't want to talk. Are you concealing evidence of a crime? Did you just abduct a child from the bus stop and you're about to molest then murder her? Is the batch of meth you're cooking in the basement about finished? Have you beaten your wife and kids and don't want me to see their bruises when you open the door.

Granted, a LEO has to trust instinct and observe carefully, but there are other reasons for people to be less than chatty with LEOs which are not illegal. I'm sure whatever the reason, it's always a PITA, but every job has those parts.

I don't think it was necessary to start with name-calling (don't know who started up, but it does seem to have gotten to the level of my Jr. High classes), but I suppose in many places, it is prudent to treat someone flashing a badge like any other stranger until they are positively IDed as being who they claim to be, and are acting on legitimate grounds.

 

[Jeff White]

bruss01 said;

This kind of thinking really bothers me. The idea that someone simply exercising their right to privacy implies that they have "something to hide".

Where is it written that your right to privacy can interfere with a criminal investigation? I've stated and JY has stated that you can be legally compelled to talk with us.

Does that translate into "probable cause"?

No, but it could translate into a reasonable suspicion that something is wrong there and that could cause a further investigation.

The idea that only the guilty have rights is unfathomable to me. Or rather, that innocent people should routinely waive their rights because it somehow benefits society.

Where does it say that you have a right not to talk to the police out side of the 5th Amendment? How is opening the door and talking to an officer waiving your rights?

What point is there in having a right (whether to arms, privacy or free speech) if one is routinely expected to waive it?

Again, what right are you waiving by opening the door and identifying yourself to the officer?

I support the basic mission of the Law Enforcement community, but if we're getting to the point that we value security over liberty, we really need to re-examine that.

No, you don't support the basic mission of law enforcement, if you think it's ok to obstruct an investigation. In fact you are advocating a criminal act.

I think that's a misconstrual - This thread seems to be more about what is the best course of action when someone you don't know shows up at your door and claims the authority of a badge to make demands on your time and cooperation. They may be a bad guy posing as a cop, a good cop, or a bad cop. You never know until after the fact. I think what Molon Labe meant by "Presume every LEO a JBT until proven otherwise" is the same type of safety rule we use regarding firearms (loaded?/unloaded?)

Good cop or JBT, it doesn't matter, you can't obstruct justice. There is aboslutely nothing wrong with verifying who is at your door, if you have any doubt. But once you do that, you can open the door let the officer know who he's speaking with and say you didn't see anything if you want. What Molon Labe is advocating is commiting a crime. He's also advocating setting up a confrontation that he will not win. And for what? To stick it to the man? To let everyone in an online community know how tough he is?

Let me ask you this; are there any responsibilities that go with your rights? Shouldn't a citizen provide the police with information he may have regarding a crime?

Molon Labe said;

Unless I already know and trust him, I won't talk to an LEO who approaches me (other than to order him to vacate my property). This is my natural right as a human being, and I don't give a rat's a$$ what a written law has to say about it.

I certainly hope you never are unfortunate enough to be involved in any important investigation where it is assumed you may have vital information. What will you do when the officer refuses to leave after you order him off your property? What will you do when your natural rights run head on into the law?

Jeff

 

[Molon Labe]

I certainly hope you never are unfortunate enough to be involved in any important investigation where it is assumed you may have vital information. What will you do when the officer refuses to leave after you order him off your property? What will you do when your natural rights run head on into the law?

Like I said, I won't talk to the JBT and I'll order him off my property. If he does not comply I'll have him arrested.

What Molon Labe is advocating is commiting a crime.

A crime for minding my own business? Now that's a good one! I'm confident the jury will be equally appalled.

He's also advocating setting up a confrontation that he will not win.

You obviously do not know me very well. I am not a fool, I have plenty of resources, I'm the most stubborn SOB on the planet, and I usually win. Having said that, I feel sorry for an LEO who thinks he has carte blanche on my inalienable rights. It will be his Unlucky Day™.

Let's cut to the chase, Jeff... you're wondering if I will shoot the JBT. The answer is no. I would rather have a nice chunk of money sitting in the bank. As would my lawyer.

 

[bruss01]

Where is it written that your right to privacy can interfere with a criminal investigation? I've stated and JY has stated that you can be legally compelled to talk with us.
No, you don't support the basic mission of law enforcement, if you think it's ok to obstruct an investigation. In fact you are advocating a criminal act.

Jeff, you have a (sometimes difficult) job to do as an LEO, and I appreciate that. I DO support the basic mission, which is the upholding of justice and peace. You are correct that I do not support all of the means being employed in pursuit of that mission. I would expect that if I destroyed evidence of a crime, or intentionally parked my car in such a way to block in your squad car, that would be "obstructing" justice. You're telling me that simply saying "I've got nothing to say" or "Let's talk about this tomorrow morning" is obstructing justice? Didn't forcing people to talk go out with the Spanish Inquisition? The intent is not to interfere, it is to not participate until I elect to do so. Go ahead, investigate, just leave me out of it. I am not (knowingly) advocating anyone perform an illegal act, but if your and JY's interpretation of the law is correct, we may be in need of some "Civil Disobedience" and some major lawsuits to set things right. Just because something is a law doesn't make it right - Jim Crow laws, Segregation etc were not right, and forcing people to talk when they have "nothing to say" isn't right either. I claim it as a natural right, and I believe it is protected under the 9th and 10th amendments. Yeah, that may be a tough legal battle, and one I hope I never have to face. I don't have a lot of confidence in our current system upholding those rights.

You have my respect as a public protector doing a dificult and valuable job - but I am terribly afraid of this climate in which we have made blanket "cooperation with the police" a legal mandate instead of a civic opportunity. This is another example of why I have come to regard LEOs in general as potential threats, no matter how innocent of any wrongdoing I may be or how decent the officer in question may be. They system itself is flawed. My house, my papers and effects are protected by the 4th amendment, but the contents of my head, my very thoughts and recollections are not? That freedom of speech does not include the right to say nothing at all? THAT, my friend, is fundamentally flawed.

Let me ask you this; are there any responsibilities that go with your rights? Shouldn't a citizen provide the police with information he may have regarding a crime?

I wholeheartedly agree that citizens should act in the interest of peace and justice. To the extent that entails providing information to Law Enforcement, I agree that the citizen should participate at his own discretion, not at the whim of the powers that be or in response to coercive threats. The more "enabling" laws are passed granting sweeping or autocratic powers, the more people will come to fear the police than rather than cheer the police.

 

[FXR]

Jeff:

My concern with the scenario you presented is that a LEO is under no obligation to tell me the truth about what they are investigating...it could be me, it could be someone who used to live in my house, or it could be the crack dealer across the street. If the FBI/DEA/Border Patrol etc. is standing at my door, all I can be really sure of is that they are investigating "something", and that may or may not be me. Using the threat of arrest when all I do is stay silent is the wrong way to gain my cooperation. On the other hand, I wouldn't stonewall a LEO either if their questions were a part of an investigation that didn't include me. (See anecdotes below)

So, given that they've properly identified themselves, I get to make a choice that will affect the subsequent tone and tenor of the conversation.

Everyone else:

I think immediate verbal "non-cooperation" is tantamount to throwing yourself out a side exit and shouting "You'll never take me alive!" (As a previous poster jokingly suggested).

On the other hand, inviting them all in for high tea might lead to unnecessary questions, too.

For the record, I've had two cases of LEO's show up on my doorstep asking questions.

First case: Uniformed local officer showed up asking for adult child of previous owner of house (this was about a month after we took posesssion of the house). I genuinely knew nothing about his whereabouts and reported same to officer. He didn't ask to come in, we talked through the screen door. He left, end of situation.

Second case: FBI (one agent) showed up asking about a neighbor for a background check related to a security clearance investigation. I stepped outside on the porch and answered his questions courteously. He was polite to me and I responded in kind and we both went back about our business after 15 minutes. No problems or complaints from me.

I did note that the FBI agent held up his ID nice and high and made it real obvious that he was being clear about who he was and what agency he represented. I appreciated that. None of that "flash the ID real quick" like they do in the movies. He waited until he was sure I read it and acknowledged who he was.

I also have to appreciate the irony of this thread; here we are discussing LEO's asking questions on one's doorstep rather than doing a "no-knock" and mowing down everyone inside. I'm not a LEO but I have to sympathize with their situation; how exactly are they supposed to investigate a crime, by telepathy? I'd suggest polite cooperation for as long as reasonable.

K

 

[Lupinus]

No one says you have to invite us in for coffee. You can step out on the porch so I can identify who I'm speaking with, tell me you were watching the pretty girl walk down the other side of the street and missed the entire incident, and I'm on my way.

I don't have to. I can just as easily tell you that through a door thats cracked open.

Ordering me off the property through a closed door is going to make me wonder why you don't want to talk. Are you concealing evidence of a crime? Did you just abduct a child from the bus stop and you're about to molest then murder her? Is the batch of meth you're cooking in the basement about finished? Have you beaten your wife and kids and don't want me to see their bruises when you open the door.

So much for that innocent untill proven guilty thing Not wanting to comply to your whim isn't showing I have something to hide. It's showing I'm not going to submit to a request I have decided is needless. If you ask to speak with me cause the little girl down the street was just kidnapped, odds are I will gladly offer any information I have. But I don't have to let you in or come outside or submitt to any of your other orders I deam unnessisary for me to give you information.

Let's just keep this adversarial relationship going. That's real smart. Just tell everyone all these internet myths about how you don't have to talk to the police, how you can have them arrested for trespass and sue them for harrassment if they have the audacity to ask you a question while they are conducting an investigation. That's going to help close the gap between freedom loving, law abiding gun owners and us jack booted thugs....

AHEM, excuse me. Who is the one saying they will call for backup, bust down your door, and arrest you. Don't recall it being molen.

Good cop or JBT, it doesn't matter, you can't obstruct justice. There is aboslutely nothing wrong with verifying who is at your door, if you have any doubt. But once you do that, you can open the door let the officer know who he's speaking with and say you didn't see anything if you want. What Molon Labe is advocating is commiting a crime. He's also advocating setting up a confrontation that he will not win. And for what? To stick it to the man? To let everyone in an online community know how tough he is?

No what he is advocating is excessive and much more then is nessisary. But it isn't criminal. If he says "Saw nothing now get off my property" he has just said he knows nothing therefor answering your question. Untill you can prove he did that isn't obstrction, it's just giving an answer you don't like and if you want to go jbt and twist his arm (figuratvly of corse) then you are now tresspassing on private property. Agian, what he is saying is excessive, but not criminal once he answers your question reguardless of if you like the answer or it contradics what another witness saw.

 

[Old Dog]

Unless I already know and trust him, I won't talk to an LEO who approaches me (other than to order him to vacate my property). This is my natural right as a human being, and I don't give a rat's a$$ what a written law has to say about it.

Guess you don't give a rat's a$$ about karma, either.

Hypothetical situation: your house is broken into one day while you and the family aren't home. Several of your neighbors witness the crime, see the burglars' faces, see the automobile the burglars are driving ... but, alas, when you report the crime and the detectives are canvassing the neighborhood to find out if anyone, anyone at all, may have seen anything suspicious around the time your house was cleaned out ... ALL of your neighbors, who automatically mistrust all LEOs (as they are, of course, JBTs until proven otherwise) ... refuse to talk to the detectives ... crime goes unsolved, you are out several thousand dollars worth of belongings ...

Yeah, great attitude, buddy. One of the biggest reasons criminals get away with crimes -- because no one has the moral compass pointing in the right direction ... too many have lost the way, and don't understand the concept of responsibility to one's community.

 

[Jeff White]

Molon Labe said;

Like I said, I won't talk to the JBT and I'll order him off my property. If he does not comply I'll have him arrested.

Ok, let's get this nonsense over with now. What will you have him arrested for? Trespass, hardly...An officer has every right to be there on legitimate business. He didn't break into your house he's simply standing there waiting for you to answer the door.

A crime for minding my own business? Now that's a good one! I'm confident the jury will be equally appalled.

I don't think case law will back you up, but if you want to learn an expensive lesson, go right ahead.

You obviously do not know me very well. I am not a fool, I have plenty of resources, I'm the most stubborn SOB on the planet, and I usually win. Having said that, I feel sorry for an LEO who thinks he has carte blanche on my inalienable rights. It will be his Unlucky Day™.

At the end of the day, you will be the one facing charges, locked up and thinking about how stupid it was to refuse to identify yourself and at least say you didn't know anything about the incident. I suppose if you want to look at yourself as a martyr for the cause of freedom, you'll have won.

Let's cut to the chase, Jeff... you're wondering if I will shoot the JBT. The answer is no. I would rather have a nice chunk of money sitting in the bank. As would my lawyer.

And just what would you do when the warrant arrived and the officers told you to come out and surrender yourself? You'll need a nice chunk of money to pay your lawyer to get you out of the mess you just got yourself into. Your lawyer will have a nice chunk of money all right, but its coming out of your pocket my friend.

In real life, if I wanted to talk to you because you were a witness to a minor crime and you had that attitude at the door, I'd most likely shake my head, walk away and make a note regarding a possible officer safety issue if someone had to respond to a call at that address. But if it was believed that you had knowledge pertaining to a major crime, you can bet the other methods, obstruction charges, BOLO to have detained etc. would be used to get you to tell us you didn't know anything.

Jeff

 

[hammer4nc]

FXR touched on an important point that deserves scrutiny:

My concern with the scenario you presented is that a LEO is under no obligation to tell me the truth about what they are investigating...

LEO's have embraced deception with gusto, to advance their investigations, and for other purposes. And court decisions have routinely backed police practice of "breaking the law to enforce the law" (whatever it takes, war on whatever mentality). To some extent, a tendency of folks to distrust of law enforcement these days, could be viewed as of their own making, yes?

Old dog sez:

One of the biggest reasons criminals get away with crimes -- because no one has the moral compass pointing in the right direction ... too many have lost the way, and don't understand the concept of responsibility to one's community.

Acknowledge (some) segment of LEO, as well as (some) citizens in that critique, and we have common ground.

 

[dman4384]

acting as you describe is welcome to make an appointment to meet me with his attorney. Of course, the first question I ask during the appointment is "When was the last time you spoke with the subject?" It's the guys who want to obstruct, jerk us around, and play games that get grand jury subpoenas. If a witness wants to talk with their attorney first or was just on the way out to pick up the kids from school, we will usually make an appointment. Others just want to play games (read back through this thread and see if you can spot any game-players). Inevitably, they aren't able to make the appointment or they go and chit-chat with the subject before the appointment . After doing this job for a few years you learn to differentiate the attitudes and language indicative of a helpful witness from one who is giddy at the prospect of taunting the government. There are a lot more of the latter than you could possibly imagine.

JY

Thanks for answering my question. With that additional information I really have to say that is quite reasonable and I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

 

[megatronrules]

I agree with the other posters you should always verify the person's identity if they claim to be any kind of LEO,anyone can get a badge. Also isn't impersonating a federal agent more severe than impersonating a local or state LEO? I mean coulden't this in and of itself get someone some pretty stiff prison time?

 

[JohnKSa]

Why do the LEO's posting on this thread seem to view it as critical for the citizen to either invite the LEO(s) in, or for the citizen to come out of the house?

If six strangers show up on my doorstep, I'm REALLY going to feel uncomfortable doing either--for that matter, even if only one stranger shows up unannounced.

So, if I decide to talk through the front door, what law is being broken?

If I tell them that I'm uncomfortable with this situation and I would feel much better if I could come to their local office during normal business hours and speak with them there, what kind of law does that break?

If I tell them that this situation is unacceptable to me and that I would rather have them come visit me at work during normal business hours, what law is being violated?

If I request that they leave and come back accompanied by a local uniformed police officer in a marked police cruiser, am I still "obstructing a peace officer"?

It seems to me that there's a big difference between being unwilling to talk and being unwilling to open the door to an unannounced stranger. It also seems to me that the LEO's posting on this thread don't see this difference at all.

 

[NineseveN]

Why do the LEO's posting on this thread seem to view it as critical for the citizen to either invite the LEO(s) in, or for the citizen to come out of the house?

If six strangers show up on my doorstep, I'm REALLY going to feel uncomfortable doing either--for that matter, even if only one stranger shows up unannounced.

So, if I decide to talk through the front door, what law is being broken?

If I tell them that I'm uncomfortable with this situation and I would feel much better if I could come to their local office during normal business hours and speak with them there, what kind of law does that break?

If I tell them that this situation is unacceptable to me and that I would rather have them come visit me at work during normal business hours, what law is being violated?

If I request that they leave and come back accompanied by a local uniformed police officer in a marked police cruiser, am I still "obstructing a peace officer"?

It seems to me that there's a big difference between being unwilling to talk and being unwilling to open the door to an unannounced stranger. It also seems to me that the LEO's posting on this thread don't see this difference at all.

Welcome to the New World Order.

In all honesty, I see nothing wrong with what you specifically said, the examples you gave are pretty spot on for the way I might handle the situation if I felt uncomfortable. Sad to say, I guess that'd make me a criminal.

 

[Jeff White]

JohnKSa asked;

There are a couple of reasons. One, we like to know who we're talking to. Unless the officer personally knows you, (at which point you probably wouldn't be uncomfortable and this wouldn't be an issue), how is he going to know he's actually talking to JohnKSa through the closed door?

The other reason is safety for everyone concerned. How does the officer know you're not standing behind the door talking, while you're setting the headspace and timing on your .50 caliber M2HB? Ok, I'm teasing a little here, but I think you get the point.

If I tell them that I'm uncomfortable with this situation and I would feel much better if I could come to their local office during normal business hours and speak with them there, what kind of law does that break?

If I tell them that this situation is unacceptable to me and that I would rather have them come visit me at work during normal business hours, what law is being violated?

Maybe none, maybe it could be construed as obstruction, depending on what they wanted to talk to you about. Like Johnny Yuma said, sometimes there are reasons that we need to talk to someone right away.

If I request that they leave and come back accompanied by a local uniformed police officer in a marked police cruiser, am I still "obstructing a peace officer"?

Again the reason they are at your door to start with will determine if this is possible. If you are a suspect or person of interest and they think that there is a possiblilty that you may use that time to dispose of evidence or skip town, they most likely won't leave you alone. Probably the best you will get out of them is that you'll all stand there and wait while a uniformed officer is dispatched.

I can't understand the paranoia that permeates through this thread. What kind of skeletons are in THR members closets that makes them think every time the police knock on your door, they are there to shoot your cat, beat up your family and haul you off to the gulag?

Here are the reasons I end up at someone's door:

1. They were a witness to a crime or an accident that I'm investigating.

2. I've been sent by dispatch to do a welfare check because some out of town relative can't get through on the phone and has called the local police to have us come by and make sure you're ok.

3. I'm looking for someone who is either a suspect or witness and your address is the last address we have on the person. (sounds pretty similar to the story that started this thread.)

4. There is a warrant for your arrest or the arrest of someone who resides at the house.

5. There has been a crime in your neighborhood and I'm knocking on every door looking for someone who may have witnessed something. Often even if people didn't actually see the crime, they may have other helpful information, a vehicle they hadn't seen in the neighborhood before, people who were new to the neighborhood etc.

6. There has been a nuisance complaint, your party is too loud, your dog's barking is keeping the neighbors awake etc.

7. I was driving by on patrol and saw the trunk open on your car at 2 am, did you leave it open or did someone break in. The same thing for garages that are normally closed etc.

8. A welfare check on children because a non custodial parent was feeling like causing you some troble and called the child abuse hotline. Sorry folks, we have to respond and we have to see the kids.

If I have to make contact late at night, I have dispatch call the people (if they have a phone) and tell them we are outside. If I need to talk to you about a routine matter, I've been known to leave a statement (that's pretty common practice around here) and you can fill it out at your leisure and call dispatch and one of us will come by and get it when you're done. But if I've got reason to belive that the information you may have is time sensitive, naturally I'm going to want to talk to you as soon as possible. If I'm there with an arrest warrant, then your coming with me then. Of course it's not unusual for an officer around here to stop with someone who has a misdemeanor warrant at the ATM so they can get cash to make bond so they don't have to sit in jail until someone gets home from work to bond you out. I've stood by while people made a couple phone calls to try to arrange bond before we ever headed off to the jail.

None of these are particularly sinister reasons to contact people. Contrary to what you may believe, we don't sit around the station and randomly pick names of people to frame for crimes. And all the threads about home invaders dressed as the police. One of you members who is so afraid of that do a google search and tell me how many times has that particular crime happend where the victims weren't drug dealers. If you don't deal in recreational drugs, the chances of someone putting a hit squad of fake cops together to do a home invasion on you are pretty close to zero.

What do some of you have in your past that you think we'll lie to gain access to your home?

You know, most of us would rather do things the easy way. But if we need to talk with you right then, Molon Labe's response is going to escalate the situation to the point where someone will be arrested when they didn't need to be.

Jeff

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Hi Kermit-

You could simply dial 9-1-1 and tell dispatch there are a half-dozen guys on your patio who say they are FBI agents, but you can't be certain because you've never violated the law. Ask them to please send uniformed officers ASAP to assist. It sure couldn't hurt and I think they would understand the brief delay.

~ Blue Jays ~

I agree with this statement. If you did decide to open the door with a gun make sure it is not noticable. I was CID for several years and alot of the FBI guys are old MI/CID guys and they think nothing of shooting first asking questions later. The chances of it being something to be fearful of are about the same as winnning the lotto but if you do feel threatened their is no shame in taking precautions like calling local law enforcement.