Produce ID for the police?

Fuller Malarkey · Aug 6, 2012

Cten85 said:
I also train dogs.. That is reaching far....
So you think that getting into a yelling match on the sidewalk with an officer is better for our cause and good PR? I think that if they are CALLED to you, it's better to let them see that you are a law abiding citizen who inderstands where he is coming from. IF he is showing you the same respect. I didnt say give him your ID to go back to the car. I simply mean tell him who you are

There appears to a misunderstanding. The thread title is:

Produce ID for the police?

Your response:

Post #71

Cten85
Regular Member
Join Date Aug 2012
Location West virginia
Posts 6

I voted yes
If the cop is being polite and understanding, I would because I have nothing to hide and I think we need some positive PR. It would help with future relations with my small town officers. I am new to OC and still learning before I attempt it haha

Nothing in your response indicated you opted for a different response than what was considered in the original post question. From this, I concluded you were staying with the topic.

You're free to engage with police any way you wish. Whatever you are seeking support in doing, you'll find it.

Fuller Malarkey · Aug 6, 2012

Cten85 said:
I subscribe to the same methods and have 2 awesome dogs

If you can get through the encounter without yelling AM I BEING DETAINED etc.. Like the people I am watching, then that's great and I support you because you ARE right. But to reference you interest.. Sometimes you have to give a little to get good long term results. I just feel like cooperating with a man who is just doing his extremely dangerous job will lead to a friendly wave hello next time he sees you and you will have his respect. If he leaves you as an irate John doe with a gun.. Well you will be a target of more scrutiny by every officer he talks to about it.

This is a myth I feel no obligation in perpetuating. At the end of this day, check and see how many law enforcement officers were killed compared to roadway workers in the performance of their duties. For the current year, nearly as many police officers have died nationwide due to their poor driving habits as have died from criminal inflicted gunshot wounds. The myth is a tool of manipulation.

2009

Nationwide, including all territories : Total of law enforcement Line of Duty Deaths: 139

Total Highway Work Zone fatalities: 667

I'm not hoping to be unnecessarily abrasive, but I don't carry a weapon to assuage my loneliness or garner favorable attention of police. I carry for protection. In keeping with my analogy of training for desirable behavior, and in response to your assertions of needing to "give a little to get a little": I expect, reasonably, that my rights to free, uninhibited travel and privacy to be respected. In turn, I don't impede a law enforcement officer in the commission of his lawful duties. He can go about his business, and I'll tend to mine. Unless there is a clear, articulable suspicion of a crime I'm engaged in, or conspiring to commit, I am not the officer's business.

Citizen · Aug 6, 2012

I notice the usual sometimes faint, sometimes glaring assumptions that exercising rights are confrontational or jerk-ish. Misplaced assumption. Talking firmly here about exercising rights does not translate into being harsh to a cop.

Consent refusals and exercising rights can be done entirely politely, and even in a friendly way:

"Officer, no offense. I know you're just doing your job, but I would not consent to showing you my ID." (Not how the verb is shifted to the future and is made conditional even though the cop's request/demand was made in the present. It gets the point across while softening the refusal.) Note: it has to be legal to refuse to show ID in your state and locality.

These work. I know because I've done it. Sometimes the cop hated it. Too bad. If he dislikes me gently and politely exercising my rights, the problem is his, not mine for not being a jerk.

The main points are that exercising rights politely is not being a jerk, and that firmness here on this forum does not translate into being a jerk to a cop in the field.

Citizen · Aug 6, 2012

Cten85 said:
I subscribe to the same methods and have 2 awesome dogs

If you can get through the encounter without yelling AM I BEING DETAINED etc.. Like the people I am watching, then that's great and I support you because you ARE right. But to reference you interest.. Sometimes you have to give a little to get good long term results. I just feel like cooperating with a man who is just doing his extremely dangerous job will lead to a friendly wave hello next time he sees you and you will have his respect. If he leaves you as an irate John doe with a gun.. Well you will be a target of more scrutiny by every officer he talks to about it.

Just a couple random ideas.

Officer wants (asks) for cooperation. Possible reply: "Oh, yes officer. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws." Followed by silence in reply to the next question. He'll get the idea. This tactic hinges on the fact that police use the word cooperation as code for waive your rights. Rights that literally over a million Americans have died defending. Personally, I'm not willing to spit on the sacrifice and graves of those million by waiving the very rights they died defending. We also sometimes hear this non-cooperation commentary in the press. "Police press officer Sgt Spokesman said the suspect is not cooperating with their investigation." Now, a person should ask himself, why would an American cop deliberately avoid reporting that a criminal suspect is exercising his rights. Why would he spin it into non-cooperation? It is literally just as easy for the spokesman to say the suspect is exercising his rights. So, why the spin?

Another question to ask oneself. Why does a friendly wave hello require waiving rights? Shouldn't the friendly wave exist anyway? Shouldn't the exercise of rights be met with a high-five by a cop who genuinely respects them and appreciates them and recognizes that too few people know and exercise them?

Citizen · Aug 6, 2012

Maine Expat said:
Slow day Dave? You had to go looking for a week+ old post to dig on?

And after all the numerous times I've posted what MY motivation is you still don't get it.

AGAIN

I'll type a little slower for you this time.

-I belong to Oath Keepers
-My FIRST mission is to the Oath Keepers mission.
-The Oath Keepers' mission is Reach out, Teach & Inspire (RTI) any and all oath takers (LEOs, Military, retirees, vets, etc) to remember their oaths to protect the constitution and KEEP that oath.
-I cannot fulfill my PRIMARY OK mission if I act like a shade tree lawyer and slam the door on a potential OK brother or sister.
-I will NOT turn away an opportunity to talk with an O.T.
-It takes an open door to communicate.

Okay? Got it now Dave?

Sorry for getting snippy, but really. Let a guy do his work the way it works for him and stop assuming he's just a spineless twit who rolls over at the drop of a hat. I will choose when & where to stand, not you.

These are reasonable. One should also understands the risks involved. The biggest problem is that an OCer may not know the cop is a bad one until it is too late. Some of us can still remember the video or audio posted here years ago of an OCer being talked to oh so nicely by two cops. But, back at the patrol car, one cop said to the other, "There has got to be something we can get him for."

Personally, I would have some doubts about any organization that promoted me legally jeopardizing myself in order to fulfill its goals. Also, I can't quite see the opportunity to promote OK in the middle of a police investigative encounter.

And, I personally would avoid calling citizens who've gone to a lot of trouble to the learn the law shade tree lawyers.

In fact, being a citizen knowledgeable about the law is patriotic. Below is a link to a speech given to Parliament by Edmund Burke almost exactly one month before Lexington and Concord. Burke is the man who wrote that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honourable and learned friend on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honours and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious. Abeunt studia in mores. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. (Emphasis added by Citizen)

Paragraph six: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html

Also, politely exercising rights is not "slamming" the door. One can always hunt up the cop after the encounter and thank him for remembering his oath to protect the constitution if he indeed did that during the encounter. In fact, as soon as the cop says you are free to go, one could then ask him for a moment of his time as a new consensual encounter and promote OK to him then. I'll bet a little creative thinking will come up with ways to politely exercise rights and promote OK.

davidmcbeth · Aug 6, 2012

Citizen said:
Just a couple random ideas.

Officer wants (asks) for cooperation. Possible reply: "Oh, yes officer. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws." ?

I tell 'em to piss off ... got any questions? Ask me in court.

Fuller Malarkey · Aug 6, 2012

Cten85 said:
I subscribe to the same methods and have 2 awesome dogs

If you can get through the encounter without yelling AM I BEING DETAINED etc.. Like the people I am watching, then that's great and I support you because you ARE right. But to reference you interest.. Sometimes you have to give a little to get good long term results. I just feel like cooperating with a man who is just doing his extremely dangerous job will lead to a friendly wave hello next time he sees you and you will have his respect. If he leaves you as an irate John doe with a gun.. Well you will be a target of more scrutiny by every officer he talks to about it.

This is just one tool of ending a game police play with citizens. And the "can I see your ID" thing is just that.....a game. If the police had probable cause to support a criminal charge, you'd be cuffed and stuffed in a squad car, and there would be no discussion about who you are or what you are doing.

"Am I being detained, am I free to go?" -doesn't have to be an adversarial question. The question is poised to end the possibility of stepping into a trap. Police are trained to lie and use deception in building a case against you. If you can limit the exposure to the possibility of tying your own noose, with tact and some grace, good on ya. That's one of the reasons I come here; to work out my deliveries for those rare instances when I have an encounter. So I can, with some confidence, disconnect the encounter with the same amount of holes in me I left the house with.

Fallschirjmäger · Aug 6, 2012

Officer Friendly just wants to know who you are, you should just be cooperative.
Okay, I get that; being cooperative and friendly's a "good thing"(patent pending)

Ask Officer Friendly for his state issued identification with his home address just so you know he's a 'good guy' and see what sort of "friendly cooperation" you get.

SavageOne · Aug 6, 2012

twoskinsonemanns said:
I can provide something slightly relevant from WV

(STATE v. SRNSKY http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-suprem...s/1482046.html) where the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned a conviction of Obstruction (among other irrelevant charges) where the conviction of Obstruction was gained because of the defendants refusal to identify himself to LEO. Here a snip from the reversal:

"Consequently, we hold that refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer does not, standing alone, form the basis for a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer in performing official duties. However, the charge of obstructing an officer may be substantiated when a citizen does not supply identification when required to do so by express statutory direction or when the refusal occurs after a law enforcement officer has communicated the reason why the citizen's name is being sought in relation to the officer's official duties."

Fuller Malarkey said:
This is just one tool of ending a game police play with citizens. And the "can I see your ID" thing is just that.....a game. If the police had probable cause to support a criminal charge, you'd be cuffed and stuffed in a squad car, and there would be no discussion about who you are or what you are doing.

"Am I being detained, am I free to go?" -doesn't have to be an adversarial question. The question is poised to end the possibility of stepping into a trap. Police are trained to lie and use deception in building a case against you. If you can limit the exposure to the possibility of tying your own noose, with tact and some grace, good on ya. That's one of the reasons I come here; to work out my deliveries for those rare instances when I have an encounter. So I can, with some confidence, disconnect the encounter with the same amount of holes in me I left the house with.

These got me wondering. Can a LEO legally lie to you about having RAS or PC in order to get you to provide ID? They are legally allowed to to deceive during an investigation.

If ,as shown in twoskins' post,they must communicate the reason why they are asking for ID, could they not simply fabricate a reason that fit the situation and say that such a fabrication was used to further the investigation?

In all probability such a deception would go undiscovered since after getting what they wanted and seeing that the person is not wanted they would never file a report. No paperwork= No trail= No problem. Seems like another good reason for some type of audio/video recorder.

Citizen · Aug 6, 2012

SavageOne said:
These got me wondering. Can a LEO legally lie to you about having RAS or PC in order to get you to provide ID? They are legally allowed to to deceive during an investigation.

If ,as shown in twoskins' post,they must communicate the reason why they are asking for ID, could they not simply fabricate a reason that fit the situation and say that such a fabrication was used to further the investigation?

In all probability such a deception would go undiscovered since after getting what they wanted and seeing that the person is not wanted they would never file a report. No paperwork= No trail= No problem. Seems like another good reason for some type of audio/video recorder.

No, I don't believe a cop can legally lie about RAS in order to induce a person to show ID. The first SCOTUS case is Brown v Texas. In so many words, Brown says the cop must first have legal authority to detain someone before a statute compelling identity becomes operative. It hinges on the RAS angle of Terry v Ohio. RAS is considered reasonable grounds for a cop to detain and investigate someone. Its the reasonableness. In Brown, the court considers it unreasonable to just allow cops to demand identity info based on hunches or arbitrary discretion, so the bar is set at RAS. So, the cop must actually have RAS, not a lie, in order for it to be legal. Now, he might lie to the detainee about the elements of the RAS he has; maybe only tell one piece of the RAS. Or, maybe invent a whole different RAS. But, he still genuinely has to have a real RAS in order to satisfy Brown. Even if he keeps the real RAS to himself, he at least has to have it.

Regarding the aspect where a cop explains why the name is being sought, I'm not so sure that clause addresses our question here. You see, Brown v Texas is a SCOTUS opinion and binding on all lower courts to my understanding. Meaning, the WV Court of Appeals could not undermine a SCOTUS opinion. So, the RAS angle from Brown would still apply--the cop would still genuinely needs RAS. Even if the cop considers it part of his official duties to thoroughly investigate the person, he still needs genuine RAS to seize the person in the first place before he can demand identity as far as we're concerned here in this discussion of Terry Stops. This clause may apply in other scenarios, for example, the cop is going to issue a citation for a more serious misdemeanor and the suspect refuses to identify himself. Or, maybe the person is a witness to a crime and the cop needs his identity in order to subpoena witnesses to trial. Or, maybe there is other WV case law that says identity refusal during a detention is obstruction, and this clause merely clarifies that earlier case. I don't quite take away from that clause that it is establishing for the first time that identity refusal during a detention is obstruction if the reason for the demand is explained.

Oh, I think it goes deeper than deception. I think some police in jurisdictions without statutory or case law authority have been demanding identity and receiving it for so long they've forgotten they don't have authority to make the demand. The big clue is the demand for an ID document. Brown v Texas talks in terms of verbal identity. Kolender v Lawson made it tricky for states to compel demanding an identity document. And, Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court talks in terms of verbal identity. Kolendar combined with need to take into account whether a person even has ID on his person makes writing a stop-and-identify statute/ordinance a little tricky. I've only ever seen one or two that satisfied Kolender and compelled giving an identity document. Yet, the first thing we too often hear from cops is some version of "I wanna see sum ID." Thus, we can immediately conclude too many cops are making demands for which they have no authority. I strongly suspect they've been doing it so long, they forgot they don't have authority. Probably because so many people don't know the law, and are afraid to take the chance that the cop's demand is legal and actionable if they do not comply.

Now, I don't know about y'all but I cannot keep up with a patchwork of local ordinances which can change with every city council meeting or county commissioners meeting. So, to play it safe, I will be handing over an identity document. First, I know I've got a very good chance that it is a demand with no authority because most stop-and-identify laws are limited by Kolendar to verbal identity unless the law satisfies Kolendar on the documentation. So, if the cop makes a demand for an identity document, right off the bat I've got another point for a formal complaint or lawsuit. Second, when I hand over the ID, I'll refuse consent as I am handing it over, meaning I'm only handing it over because of the demand made under color of law. After I do this, he had better have genuine RAS, or I've got another point for complaint or lawsuit. And, since it is my policy at a minimum to formally complain about any investigative encounter that involves my OCd gun, he's going to find out my name anyway when the complaint arrives.

QilvinLEO · Aug 7, 2012

Citizen said:
I notice the usual sometimes faint, sometimes glaring assumptions that exercising rights are confrontational or jerk-ish. Misplaced assumption. Talking firmly here about exercising rights does not translate into being harsh to a cop.

Consent refusals and exercising rights can be done entirely politely, and even in a friendly way:

"Officer, no offense. I know you're just doing your job, but I would not consent to showing you my ID." (Not how the verb is shifted to the future and is made conditional even though the cop's request/demand was made in the present. It gets the point across while softening the refusal.) Note: it has to be legal to refuse to show ID in your state and locality.

These work. I know because I've done it. Sometimes the cop hated it. Too bad. If he dislikes me gently and politely exercising my rights, the problem is his, not mine for not being a jerk.

The main points are that exercising rights politely is not being a jerk, and that firmness here on this forum does not translate into being a jerk to a cop in the field.

<Applaud>

There are so few people that can understand this point. I can say I bet everyone on this forum has broken the law somehow this week. It is probably something stupid, such as rolling past a stop sign, going to far into an intersection, verbally assaulted someone (Check your City Ordinances, probably falls into 3rd degree assault).

"No, actually, I'm perfect and never have done anything wrong officer". Yeah ********, stop lying to yourself.
We all do it.

However, Officers realize all this stuff is complete bullcrap and dont mess with citizens for it.

But if your going to be an ******* while exercising your right, I'm going to use every bit of the power you have given me to enforce the law. Even if I have to wait a week to enforce a stupid law on you.

You are acting within your right to carry that firearm and being an ass while you do it. I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******** law I can because your being as ass. Chances are you will never talk yourself "out" out of a ticket/arrest. But you can EASILY talk yourself INTO one. Attitude is everything.

To the one percent that exercise their right while being polite and professional, Thank you. You are an EXTREME rarity. To the rest of you ******** that cant check your ego at the door, your "showing the man" attitude will cost you. Eventually.

Citizen · Aug 7, 2012

QilvinLEO said:
<Applaud>

There are so few people that can understand this point. I can say I bet everyone on this forum has broken the law somehow this week. It is probably something stupid, such as rolling past a stop sign, going to far into an intersection, verbally assaulted someone (Check your City Ordinances, probably falls into 3rd degree assault).

"No, actually, I'm perfect and never have done anything wrong officer". Yeah ********, stop lying to yourself.
We all do it.

However, Officers realize all this stuff is complete bullcrap and dont mess with citizens for it.

But if your going to be an ******* while exercising your right, I'm going to use every bit of the power you have given me to enforce the law. Even if I have to wait a week to enforce a stupid law on you.

You are acting within your right to carry that firearm and being an ass while you do it. I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******** law I can because your being as ass. Chances are you will never talk yourself "out" out of a ticket/arrest. But you can EASILY talk yourself INTO one. Attitude is everything.

To the one percent that exercise their right while being polite and professional, Thank you. You are an EXTREME rarity. To the rest of you ******** that cant check your ego at the door, your "showing the man" attitude will cost you. Eventually.

QFT (Quoted for Truth, as in to prevent deletion and the story changing)

Fellas,

There is no requirement that rights be exercised politely. The only right in the Bill of Rights that even implies politeness is the last clause of the First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances. So, the QuilvinLEO has little respect for rights exercised impolitely.

In fact, if you don't respect his authoritay! he will write you up for everything he can. Including laws/ordinances he himself just a few lines earlier said were "complete bullcrap." We know this because he just told us that: "I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******* law I can because your being as ass." (emphasis by Citizen) This is just plain vindictiveness.

This is a perfect example of an egotistical, elitist, only-one cop who demands that mere mundanes like you and I respect his authoritay! And, exercise rights in a manner he approves.

Moreover, his last sentence tells us he's not the only cop who thinks that way. I think we can safely presume he probably knows enough cops well enough to know what he's talking about. So, we can believe what he wrote in that last sentence.

Fallschirjmäger · Aug 7, 2012

Thanks for quoting him, Citizen.
It's amazing how much someone will hang themselves when they start getting verbose (aka diarrhea of the mouth.)

Oh, and I'll just paraphrase the good officer a bit if I may:
"To the one percent of officers that exercise their authority while being polite and professional, Thank you. You are an EXTREME rarity. To the rest of you ******** that cant check your ego at the door, your "I'm the MAN and I'm in f'ing Charge" attitude will cost you. Eventually."

Titters for tatters, son.

davidmcbeth · Aug 7, 2012

QilvinLEO said:
<Applaud>

But if your going to be an ******* while exercising your right, I'm going to use every bit of the power you have given me to enforce the law. Even if I have to wait a week to enforce a stupid law on you.

You are acting within your right to carry that firearm and being an ass while you do it. I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******** law I can because your being as ass. Chances are you will never talk yourself "out" out of a ticket/arrest. But you can EASILY talk yourself INTO one. Attitude is everything.

To the one percent that exercise their right while being polite and professional, Thank you. You are an EXTREME rarity. To the rest of you ******** that cant check your ego at the door, your "showing the man" attitude will cost you. Eventually.

You are funny ... seems like everyone you meet treats you like garbage ... ever think its YOU?

Citizen · Aug 7, 2012

Fallschirmjäger said:
Thanks for quoting him, Citizen.
It's amazing how much someone will hang themselves when they start getting verbose (aka diarrhea of the mouth.)

You're welcome. I used to hate seeing these guys show up on the forum. Now, I love it when some cop spouts such elitist, power-savoring drivel. It gives us veterans a whole new chance to educate new readers.

Bring 'em on, I say.

Vitaeus · Aug 8, 2012

Citizen said:
QFT (Quoted for Truth, as in to prevent deletion and the story changing)

Fellas,

There is no requirement that rights be exercised politely. The only right in the Bill of Rights that even implies politeness is the last clause of the First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances. So, the QuilvinLEO has little respect for rights exercised impolitely.

In fact, if you don't respect his authoritay! he will write you up for everything he can. Including laws/ordinances he himself just a few lines earlier said were "complete bullcrap." We know this because he just told us that: "I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******* law I can because your being as ass." (emphasis by Citizen) This is just plain vindictiveness.

This is a perfect example of an egotistical, elitist, only-one cop who demands that mere mundanes like you and I respect his authoritay! And, exercise rights in a manner he approves.

Moreover, his last sentence tells us he's not the only cop who thinks that way. I think we can safely presume he probably knows enough cops well enough to know what he's talking about. So, we can believe what he wrote in that last sentence.

Hmm, I wonder if you could pin down his IP and determine his identity, if you could use this shining example of "Why you don't talk to the cops" to establish his arrests as based on a pretext, since in many jurisdictions a "pretext stop" is grounds for dismissal of some or all of the charges. (Cite for WA: State v. Ladson)

OC for ME · Aug 8, 2012

twoskinsonemanns said:
Hmmm good point. Maybe some sort of mandatory psychological eval might be appropriate.... :lol:

Actually a psych eval would only confirm, yet again, what is common knowlege to we the common folk.

Citizen · Aug 8, 2012

Vitaeus said:
Hmm, I wonder if you could pin down his IP and determine his identity, if you could use this shining example of "Why you don't talk to the cops" to establish his arrests as based on a pretext, since in many jurisdictions a "pretext stop" is grounds for dismissal of some or all of the charges. (Cite for WA: State v. Ladson)

Unfortunately, pretext stops, if grounded on an actual violation of some law, are "constitutional" as far as I know. Meaning, the courts seem to find them constitutional.

Separately, but related, State v Ladson says the same thing. The pretext stop of Ladson was constitutional because there was an actual violation of law, even though it wasn't the violation the cop was fishing for. Basically, the cop had heard the driver was involved in drugs, and when he saw the driver in a car with expired license tabs, he used that expiration as the justification to stop the driver. Ladson was a passenger and got caught with a stolen gun and some drugs.* http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1361092.html

But, that is a little different than QuilinLEO's discussion. Here he's not threatening a pretext stop, he's enforcing laws he thinks are crap after the detainee shows him "insufficient" respect. Presumably, the he is citing the detainee for genuine violation of actual laws.

*I only briefly skimmed the facts of the case presented in the court opinion, but it is interesting to me that Ladson argued the pretext of the traffic stop, not the search of his person that discovered the stolen gun and drugs. He was personally searched as part of the car search incident to the driver's arrest. I'm thinking searching him personally as part of the search incident was unconstitutional. Certainly I would have huge objections if it happened to me under that theory. I'm wondering why he/his lawyer did not pursue that angle as well. I'm wondering if the courts allow that after an arrest, cops can search everybody nearby incident to that arrest; meaning, is this already in the case law. Or, is this maybe a poorly worded decision?

Citizen · Aug 8, 2012

QilvinLEO said:
SNIP You are acting within your right to carry that firearm and being an ass while you do it. I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******** law I can because your being as ass. Chances are you will never talk yourself "out" out of a ticket/arrest. But you can EASILY talk yourself INTO one. Attitude is everything.

Hey fellas,

I just noticed something else damning to his credibility and view of rights. I'll quote it again and this time bold a few words to call attention to it.

"You are acting within your right to carry that firearm and being an ass while you do it."

He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He says you are within your rights to be an ass. Yet, he'll vindictively write you for everything he can if you are an ass. Obviously, he doesn't really believe you are within your rights to be an ass. If he did, he wouldn't write you vindictively. So, when he writes that you are within your rights to be an ass, he's lying. He doesn't believe it.

From another angle, he probably only gives lip service to rights because courts say he must. Certainly not because he believes rights himself. Think about it for a moment. He certainly doesn't believe in the right. It must be some outside force or influence that forces him to pretend to go along with it as lip service. What happens if that outside influence withdraws its real or seeming support? What happens if, say, the courts say being impolite while exercising a right nullifies the right? What do you think he will do if that brake is removed? What about any other right? How many other rights is he paying lip service to?

Click to expand...

OC for ME · Aug 8, 2012

Or, maybe he is tired of getting ripped, by his boss, for not being polite a time or two in the face impolite idiot citizens. It is difficult to be the voice of reason in a sea of unreasonableness.....traffic stops and the nitwit citizen is the greatest test of the perseverance of the professional LEO.

Sometimes a fella just can't take it anymore. But, there is no excuse for rights infringements even in the face of blatant asshattery, this is one of the drawbacks of being a professional.....maintaining your professionalism.

Does this excuse his comments regarding 'payback', nope. Too late for that now.....childish and petty.....to be sure.

I can deal with infringements of my rights when/if they happen, unfortunately I can not prevent rights infringements, only a LEO can.

Produce ID for the police?

If the police want to see your ID because you are OCing, should you give it to them?

Yes

No

Generally yes, but in some cases, no (please post and explain)

Generally no, but in some cases, yes (post and explain)

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Banned

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Active member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member