Does a LEO have to give you his RAS if you ask for it?

color of law wrote -
So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.

Click to expand...

Fuller Malarkey said:

I don't think that KBCraig implied that. If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does. I haven't found anything that states a cop has to explain his RAS to your/my satisfaction to affect a detention. Sounds like focusing on RAS might be a mis-guided direction of time and effort if the objective is to keep your foot out of the detention trap. It might come into play as a diversion or get the cop to question their actions, if you get one inexperienced enough to fall for it. Those intent on dominating you....will.

Click to expand...

??????If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does.??????

Believe means - To expect or suppose; think. So, what am I to believe? If you believe you are under arrest, then you are under arrest. If you believe you are being detained, then you are detained. But, if the cop can't articulate his reason for sticking his nose into my business then I can only BELIEVE that he is trying to have a consensual conversation. At which point I walk away.

The cop now has a choice, let me walk or throws my butt to the ground. If the cop throws me to the ground and places me under arrest I will be charged with something. And I'm sure I will know what the charge is.

You are free to BELIEVE whatever you like, but I will get an answer one way or another..........

And yes, the cop can make-up whatever cock and bull story he wishes - for me it better be good.

color of law said:

??????If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does.??????

Believe means - To expect or suppose; think. So, what am I to believe? If you believe you are under arrest, then you are under arrest. If you believe you are being detained, then you are detained. But, if the cop can't articulate his reason for sticking his nose into my business then I can only BELIEVE that he is trying to have a consensual conversation. At which point I walk away.

The cop now has a choice, let me walk or throws my butt to the ground. If the cop throws me to the ground and places me under arrest I will be charged with something. And I'm sure I will know what the charge is.

You are free to BELIEVE whatever you like, but I will get an answer one way or another..........

And yes, the cop can make-up whatever cock and bull story he wishes - for me it better be good.

Click to expand...

Problem is, these things don't always play out like you imagine them in your head. For example:

[video=youtube;ayb80Rf1L04]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayb80Rf1L04&list=PL086464E7F317C65D&index=4&feature=plpp_video[/video]

How far do you push getting your acceptable definition of RAS before khaki pants shoots you because he "feared for his life", or interpreted your insistence of RAS to your liking as resisting? You're still free to choose....some reality should be recognized, however.

The way I see it, if he's got something on me, he is going to detain me. If he doesn't, he's going to detain me. And if I know for a fact that I have committed no crime, no talky. I think the question "am I being detained" leaves the officer too many outs. If you change it to "For what crime are you detaining me?" That gets to the point and throws them off. And I think it would lead them into saying "Im not". Then you're off. "Ill be on my way."

color of law said:

??????If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does.??????

Believe means - To expect or suppose; think. So, what am I to believe? If you believe you are under arrest, then you are under arrest. If you believe you are being detained, then you are detained. But, if the cop can't articulate his reason for sticking his nose into my business then I can only BELIEVE that he is trying to have a consensual conversation. At which point I walk away.

The cop now has a choice, let me walk or throws my butt to the ground. If the cop throws me to the ground and places me under arrest I will be charged with something. And I'm sure I will know what the charge is.

You are free to BELIEVE whatever you like, but I will get an answer one way or another..........

And yes, the cop can make-up whatever cock and bull story he wishes - for me it better be good.

Click to expand...

[video]http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8799989[/video]

Not much exchange of views in this video. Tag 'em and bag 'em. I don't entertain much notion the cops are obligated to prove their point to me. This cop seems to think he has what he needs to detain, and conversation probably wouldn't influence his decision, ya think? I am of the notion I'm better off not stepping in the detention trap, if I'm able to. Immediately having the cop define my status and acting accordingly is my plan. If I'm detained, shut up. If I'm not, we have nothing to discuss. Or share, as far as what my picture looks like on a state issued document.


Me, hypothetically approached by Officers Friendly and Tackleberry:


Officer F: "Hey. We need to talk to you".

Me: "There's been some mistake. I didn't call you."

Officer T: "No mistake. We need to talk to you. Now".

Me: Really? As you, uh, failed to mention any crime you suspect me of committing, I'll trust there is none, and I'll be on my way".

Their response will determine what I believe about my immediate civil standing.....detained or not detained.

My thoughts are that engaging in a RAS debate is exactly what attorneys tell us not to do....the discussion can become whatever the cop needs it to be to justify whatever they want to justify. Resisting, obstruction, disorderly. Contempt of cop. Remember, when the word firearm enters the report, the cop automatically gets dealt the trump card. He can rarely do any wrong, as he, against all odds, is placing his well being in harm's way, gallantly insuring his and society's safety.....

Tucker6900 said:

The way I see it, if he's got something on me, he is going to detain me. If he doesn't, he's going to detain me. And if I know for a fact that I have committed no crime, no talky. I think the question "am I being detained" leaves the officer too many outs. If you change it to "For what crime are you detaining me?" That gets to the point and throws them off. And I think it would lead them into saying "Im not". Then you're off. "Ill be on my way."

Click to expand...

My lawyer prefers "Am I free to leave?"

It COMPLETELY sidesteps legal jargon and the cop's probable ignorance of (or dishonesty about) same.

I don't want ANYTHING to do with the police... AT ALL.

I certainly don't want to stand around debating Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues with them.

Given that I don't want to talk to cops AT ALL, the fewer words exchanged the better.

I don't CARE why I'm being detained, only WHETHER I am.

And if I am, I have NO intention of engaging the cop in any way not SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY LAW. NO consent to ANY searches will be granted, EVER.

And he doesn't have to SAY I'm being detained. All that's required is whether the totality of his actions and inactions would cause a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that they were not free to leave. At that point, any communications from my side are OVER until my lawyer is present.

Tucker6900 said:

The way I see it, if he's got something on me, he is going to detain me. If he doesn't, he's going to detain me. And if I know for a fact that I have committed no crime, no talky. I think the question "am I being detained" leaves the officer too many outs. If you change it to "For what crime are you detaining me?" That gets to the point and throws them off. And I think it would lead them into saying "Im not". Then you're off. "Ill be on my way."

Click to expand...

I do carry a voice recorder and my planned response is very specific; "What Reasonable Articulateable Suspicion do you have that I have committed a crime, I am committing a crime or that I am about to commit a crime"? and wait for him/her to hang themselves. If they say "I just want to talk to you" then they have no RAS, I am not being detained and I will say "I don't feel like talking right now, bye". Like any battle plan it may go to hell at first contact but that is the plan.

"Am I free to leave?" if "Yes" then "Goodbye" if "No" then "I want a lawyer"

If under arrest then the fifth amendment of due process comes into play. You/I cannot be deprived of due process, an arrest without a charge would violate due process. The officer must follow the constitution, you/I have a right to know why our liberty has been deprived even if it is for a short period of time.

Fuller Malarkey said:

"....While we discuss how we can walk upright on our hind legs like free human beings in spite of the opposition, cops stop in here and take what they find back to their own forums, where they work out the matching methods of overcoming our rights..."

Click to expand...

I have no doubt at all that they do, witness SGTSCOTT31, I believe was his name.
However, that works both ways, I frequent the police boards and have been "vetted"by one or two; such as their process is. (Yes, it helps to have a friend in LE, who will lend you his credentials.)
For those who say "we" bash cops, I can only point out that the bashing goes the other way as well, and there are no rules against on on any police board I've come across so far.

Fallschirmjäger said:

I have no doubt at all that they do, witness SGTSCOTT31, I believe was his name.
However, that works both ways, I frequent the police boards and have been "vetted"by one or two; such as their process is. (Yes, it helps to have a friend in LE, who will lend you his credentials.)
For those who say "we" bash cops, I can only point out that the bashing goes the other way as well, and there are no rules against on on any police board I've come across so far.

Click to expand...

True, but current members on LEO boards can and have lost their jobs for what they post.

Fuller Malarkey said:

Problem is, these things don't always play out like you imagine them in your head. For example:

VIDEO removed

How far do you push getting your acceptable definition of RAS before khaki pants shoots you because he "feared for his life", or interpreted your insistence of RAS to your liking as resisting? You're still free to choose....some reality should be recognized, however.

Click to expand...

And what is your point. The second I was approached, with back-up holding an ASSAULT RIFLE, and my private property is ripped off my person then mums the word. I have just been arrested.

Here is a cop's standard response to queries: ask me in court.

And that should be your response to his inquires

color of law said:

"Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?"

So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.

Click to expand...

May help to make statements which are legal conclusions, just like officers make when they say you violated... "Since you refuse to state any RAS then I presume you have none and act accordingly" if no answer walk away. A basic maxim of law is that a statement unrebutted is assumed to be true.

Motofixxer said:

May help to make statements which are legal conclusions, just like officers make when they say you violated... "Since you refuse to state any RAS then I presume you have none and act accordingly" if no answer walk away. A basic maxim of law is that a statement unrebutted is assumed to be true.

Click to expand...

CoL will definitely agree with that!

BB62 said:

The question is "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?" (a related question is "Does he have to be truthful about it?")

As is customary with this sort of discussion, cites to authority are most valuable.Ladies? Gentlemen?

Click to expand...

Here is the bottom line:

Whether an officer has a reasonable suspicion based upon "specific and articulable facts * * * taken together with rational inferences from those facts" [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)] is a decision to be made by a judge at a suppression hearing. The officer's subjective belief at the time of the encounter is irrelevant. So long as the officer is able to articulate sufficient facts on the record, judges can, and often do, decide in favor of the government on legal theories completely different from the ones under which the officer proceeded at the time of the encounter.


Attempting to tie down the officer on his legal theory may make you feel better at the time, but it won't benefit you in the long run. Many people think if the encounter is recorded and they ask those kinds of questions, the judge will think they're quite clever. Unfortunately, that's not what the judge will think.

color of law said:

And what is your point. The second I was approached, with back-up holding an ASSAULT RIFLE, and my private property is ripped off my person then mums the word. I have just been arrested.

Click to expand...

The point is when someone has you outgunned, your gun removed, and you're in a very unpredictable situation with very unaccountable people.........hearing your acceptable version of RAS might not be your primary concern. It wouldn't be mine. Detained, or not detained....that is the question.

The video you snipped is an example. Similar to yours. Arguing RAS would not have altered the course of events in a positive way for the carrier. Khaki pants was antagonistically pushing for a reaction so he could shoot. You can do as you choose. I choose not to be a one trick pony with my life at stake.

Just answer everything with a question, therefore you have no statements to be had. "What crime do you suspect me of committing?" "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?" Rinse and repeat that a few times. When asked for ID or your CHL "Am I doing something that would require me to have one?" "Can I see your ID? What's your badge number? Who's your supervisor?" or the statement in a form of a question "Did you know that I have all the relevant laws, PD memos, and case laws printed on the piece of paper in my pocket? Would you like to read them?" "Am I free to go?" "Can I have my sidearm back please?"

Werz said:

Here is the bottom line:

Whether an officer has a reasonable suspicion based upon "specific and articulable facts * * * taken together with rational inferences from those facts" [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)] is a decision to be made by a judge at a suppression hearing. The officer's subjective belief at the time of the encounter is irrelevant. So long as the officer is able to articulate sufficient facts on the record, judges can, and often do, decide in favor of the government on legal theories completely different from the ones under which the officer proceeded at the time of the encounter.

[T]he Fourth Amendment's concern with "reasonableness" allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 814 (1996)​

Attempting to tie down the officer on his legal theory may make you feel better at the time, but it won't benefit you in the long run. Many people think if the encounter is recorded and they ask those kinds of questions, the judge will think they're quite clever. Unfortunately, that's not what the judge will think.

Click to expand...

(my emphasis)
Thanks for the cites to authority.

What do you think the judge will think?

BB62 said:

What do you think the judge will think?

Click to expand...

What do you think of this guy?

YouTube - 9 Seconds

Werz said:

What do you think of this guy?
YouTube - 9 Seconds

Click to expand...

I think he needs to work on his video and sound editing skills, they're obviously quite sub-par.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger The only one who's curiosity he has to satisfy is the trial judge...

Click to expand...

BB62 said:

Cite?

Click to expand...

I'm gonna make 4th Amendment experts outa y'all yet!

The authority is in the last paragraph of Terry v Ohio: "Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html