• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Identifying ourselves to police?

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Citizen, "So, for myself, to play it safe, if a cop demands identity, I will give it to him while refusing consent."

The main concern that I have is the OFFICIAL Document which said LEO puts in the record books.

I am a Law Abiding Citizen, pay my Taxes and Vote. I have not disregarded any laws of OC/CC and don't want any RED FLAGS against me.

I DO NOT want a paper trail of some type of *** Legal Concern*** tagged on my good reputation.

So, with that being said, I suppose I would play the situation out and try to determine if the final outcome has a promising conclusion or not, all the while being Very Respectful toward LEO and if it comes down to it, just Plead the 5th and shut my trap before I set myself up for a big hassle.

I guess..... I'm really trying to get a handle on this issue so it will never come down to a major blow out that ends up with myself jeopardizing the well being of my family.

"just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right "
Obama, 08'


So, in the end,,,, Who Wins ?!?! :cool: NO, WHO's on First...:confused:

I have no objection to your position as given above.

In fact, SCOTUS in Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court even mentions that giving a cop identity today may lead them to something else. In fact a version of this has already happened to a California OCer. Cops seized him without RAS while OCing. During the seizure, they searched him and seized his wallet, obtaining identity info therefrom. The cops couldn't figure out a charge, so let him go. Later, a prosecutor got involved, used a twisted interpretation of the law to charge the OCer. Then, during the judicial process convinced the court to redefine the word public in order to make a charge stick. The OCer was convicted. The relevant point here is that if the cops had not IDed the OCer, they wouldn't have been able to go back after him later when the prosecutor decided to twist the statute.

So, I don't object to your strategy.

However, I notice you only quoted out that one sentence without mentioning of discussing the applicability of the rationale leading up to that quote. You see, if you withhold identity, you may get cited or arrested for that. In which case, they still get your identity, but now you also have a trial, legal expenses, and a possible conviction in your immediate future.

As I mentioned in that same post, there is the law. And, then there is how the law is applied. You must have some idea of both. Certainly your opponents--cops and judges--do. This is where the rubber meets the road. Its not just a matter of what the statute, ordinance, or court cases say. Those are almost secondary. The first and most important is that your opponents are people--people who have their own ideas, their own prejudices, their own interests, and their own intentions.

So, I don't particularly object to your strategy. I would however counsel thinking it through a little more thoroughly.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP My view right now is that IF such an a ***OCcurrence*** ever does transpire, then the outcome is totally determined by the (presumed) attitude of the LEO &/OR MYSELF during said HYPOTHETICAL Event.

There is something else that determines the outcome: whether or not you protect your legal position by exercising your rights.

I have come to believe that one of the most important elements of a police encounter is protecting my legal position. This is most easily accomplished by expressly, politely, verbally refusing consent to everything.

See the first two videos at the link below to find out why.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?55914-Get-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here
 

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
Videos are helpful.

The second video is most helpful, from the law professor, & there are many other youtube articles that are to numerous to view all in one setting. I''ll peruse them and narrow down the field of constructive commentary.

Thanks for your help .... again. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The second video is most helpful, from the law professor, & there are many other youtube articles that are to numerous to view all in one setting. I''ll peruse them and narrow down the field of constructive commentary.

Thanks for your help .... again. :cool:

I apologize. First and third video. I forgot Prof. Duane was the second video. You want to watch the third video.

The key point is that consent makes any search legal. Whereas if the search is made over top of you refused consent and the cop did not have legal justification for the search, then your attorney can ask the court to suppress whatever evidence the cops claim they discovered during the search.

Basically it boils down to this. Cops are pushy. If the cop actually had legal justification for a search, he wouldn't bother to ask your permission/consent/approval. He'd just make the search. In reverse, if a cop asks to search it very often means he has no legal justification for the search. Not always--sometimes they ask simply to reinforce their legal position. Legal justification plus consent means twice as legal. I've read a number of court case summaries where the defense attorney's motion to suppress was shot down because the defendant also consented to the search. In conclusion, just because a cop asks for consent to search does not guaranty he has no legal justification. But, for sure if you consent to a search you give him ironclad legality (unless he coerced you into consenting or something like that).

So, the rationale for refusing consent to a search--consent legalizes whatever is consented--can be extended to refusing consent to an encounter. And, refusing to answering questions without an attorney. If you refuse consent to everything, you basically maintain your legal position.

IMPORTANT NOTE: There is always an exception to any rule. You want to be really careful about refusing consent to a breath or blood test when suspected of drunk driving. Know your state law cold. In some states the legal fiction called implied consent means you agree to to breath or blood testing under certain circumstances as a condition of receiving a driver license. Meaning, if you refuse consent, you can lose your drivers license. You want to really know the law in your state and the exact point at which refusal will cost you your license.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Well, the "Drug" issue is non-existent, I don't smoke, drink or chew or go with those that do and I have a clean driving record.

That's the way I want to keep it too, a Clean Record.

I'll check out the *vids* asap and TTYL.

Peace & RKBA Forever ! :cool:

Brace yourself. Whether you actually drink or do drugs is not what matters. What matters is whether at the exact instant the cop looks at your car traveling down the road he sees something that makes him think he may be able to get a drunk off the road and win some attaboy points for himself in the locker room at the station.

The concrete proof that you do not have drugs or alcohol in you only comes after the breath test or blood draw. If you refused that test--the exact one at the exact point specified in your state law--your license is gone for whatever the penalty time is.

All the cop has to do is articulate to the court something that gives the judge enough to agree that the cop observed enough to tag you for DUI or DWI. I personally wouldn't want my license riding on whether the cop embellishes or exaggerates his observations, or just flat out makes them up.
 
Last edited:

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
Brace yourself. Whether you actually drink or do drugs is not what matters. What matters is whether at the exact instant the cop looks at your car traveling down the road he sees something that makes him think he may be able to get a drunk off the road and win some attaboy points for himself in the locker room at the station.

The concrete proof that you do not have drugs or alcohol in you only comes after the breath test or blood draw. If you refused that test--the exact one at the exact point specified in your state law--your license is gone for whatever the penalty time is.

All the cop has to do is articulate to the court something that gives the judge enough to agree that the cop observed enough to tag you for DUI or DWI. I personally wouldn't want my license riding on whether the cop embellishes or exaggerates his observations, or just flat out makes them up.

The penalty in Maine for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer is 1 year MINIMUM loss of license, and the officer can immediately arrest you. I know someone who was unaware of this and denied to take a B.A.C test. He had quite the surprise when he was arrested!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
The penalty in Maine for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer is 1 year MINIMUM loss of license, and the officer can immediately arrest you. I know someone who was unaware of this and denied to take a B.A.C test. He had quite the surprise when he was arrested!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is not entirely true. The statute is Title 29-A Section 2521 The suspension for a first refusal is 275 days, not a full year. And though refusal can be used as evidence against you, the officer needs probable cause before they can demand to administer the test, which means they must have enough evidence to make the arrest without the test.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This is not entirely true. The statute is Title 29-A Section 2521 The suspension for a first refusal is 275 days, not a full year. And though refusal can be used as evidence against you, the officer needs probable cause before they can demand to administer the test, which means they must have enough evidence to make the arrest without the test.

Thanks for the clarification, BS399. My problem (with the system, not your clarification) is that such wording is a little misleading. Fair warning--that people could actually use--would be for the statute to say that the cop needs to report enough circumstances to the judge or magistrate to convince that judge or magistrate that probable cause existed at the time of arrest. Sounds different, doesn't it? That's because it is. Sadly, it doesn't really matter whether probable cause actually existed. What matters is whether the cop's report to the judge or magistrate amounts to probable cause.

The next point that would be helpful, if anybody knows, is what sorts of circumstances in reports from cops do magistrates or judges accept as probable cause. Or, more precisely, how little is needed for a judge to agree that probable cause existed? Obviously, staggering, slurred speech, reeking of gin would be enough. But, how about in the other direction towards a minimum. How about, say, touching a fog line once while driving (which in some states is enough to give RAS for a stop), and having red eyes? Is this enough for a judge to say probable cause of being on a recreational drug?

What would a cop have to lie about in order to get just enough to convince a judge that he did have probable cause?
 
Last edited:

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Thanks for the clarification, BS399. My problem (with the system, not your clarification) is that such wording is a little misleading. Fair warning--that people could actually use--would be for the statute to say that the cop needs to report enough circumstances to the judge or magistrate to convince that judge or magistrate that probable cause existed at the time of arrest. Sounds different, doesn't it? That's because it is. Sadly, it doesn't really matter whether probable cause actually existed. What matters is whether the cop's report to the judge or magistrate amounts to probable cause.

The next point that would be helpful, if anybody knows, is what sorts of circumstances in reports from cops do magistrates or judges accept as probable cause. Or, more precisely, how little is needed for a judge to agree that probable cause existed? Obviously, staggering, slurred speech, reeking of gin would be enough. But, how about in the other direction towards a minimum. How about, say, touching a fog line once while driving (which in some states is enough to give RAS for a stop), and having red eyes? Is this enough for a judge to say probable cause of being on a recreational drug?

What would a cop have to lie about in order to get just enough to convince a judge that he did have probable cause?

Sadly, I agree completely with what you said. It's not how it should work, but I've seen plenty of "fudged" police reports. I would think a prudent judge would say touching a fog line once may give RAS to stop, but more would be needed for probable cause level. I don't know anything about case law to support that theory. It's just what I would think and hope a prudent judge would see.
 
Top