• 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.

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

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
"No offense officer, I know you are just doing your job, but over a million Americans died defending these rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving them. Am I free to go."
You're kind of contradicting yourself. If the above isn't "engaging" with the cop, I don't know what is.

  1. I have NO desire to have ANY interaction with him.
  2. I have NO duty to JUSTIFY the invocation of my rights. I just need to invoke them, then shut my mouth.
  3. I have NO concern about his being offended by my LAWFUL protection of my rights. He can like or he can lump it. He'd BETTER accept it.

I don't want to talk to cops. I don't go looking for cops to talk to. I'm SURE not talking to them under compulsion on the street.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I don't see a video link, but I really don't need one. I'm familiar with Evidence Rule 801, which is essentially identical for Ohio and federal courts. For instance, asking "Why?" is not hearsay, since it is not an assertion, nor is it used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. YouTube videos are not a good way to learn the Rules of Evidence...
Okay, I'm lost. Who's asking "Why?"?

Would you expand on your thought?
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
Thanks for your reply.

Although your answer has been repeated many times (no complaint, btw), do you have a cite for that outside of what one can infer from the Terry ruling?

What about the related question "Does a LEO have to tell you why you are being detained?" (once it's been established that you are being detained, of course).

I can site from 11 years as a Patrolman, 4 years as a Detective and 3 years as a Patrol Sergeant. As far as case law, every state may be different. In CT, A LEO can use trickery or deception (basically lie) when speaking to someone (State v LaPointe and State v Correa). Also, a LEO need not relate true reason for stop as long as RAS exists (State v Sulewski)
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
Okay, I'm lost. Who's asking "Why?"?

Would you expand on your thought?
You ask "Why?" When the officer asks/tells you to do certain things (provide ID, give your name, surrender your firearm, etc.), ask "Why?" If the encounter is being recorded - whether by you or by the officer's in-car or personal surveillance camera - it will put the officer in the position of explaining why you are being given orders. If the officer realizes that the grounds for giving orders are weak or non-existent, there may be a tactical shift to making requests. That's where "No" and "I don't want to" comes into play.

Caveats:
  • If the officer is extremely aggressive (a la Canton Officer Harless), just comply, avoid injury, don't ask questions, and let it play out. As long as you're 100% legal, it will be a win in the long run.
  • Don't try to dazzle the cops with your legal learnin'. It won't get you released any faster; some of what you say is bound to be inaccurate (or just plain wrong); and it sounds terribly prefabricated. Even trite expressions that you hear in YouTube videos, like "I do not consent to a search of my person," will instantly sound like "something you got off the internet."
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...Don't try to dazzle the cops with your legal learnin'. It won't get you released any faster; some of what you say is bound to be inaccurate (or just plain wrong); and it sounds terribly prefabricated. Even trite expressions that you hear in YouTube videos, like "I do not consent to a search of my person," will instantly sound like "something you got off the internet."
I'll just state that this guy "Werz" I came across on the internet told me to say so! :lol: :lol:

Thanks for the detail - I'll buy the remainder of your post.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I can site from 11 years as a Patrolman, 4 years as a Detective and 3 years as a Patrol Sergeant. As far as case law, every state may be different. In CT, A LEO can use trickery or deception (basically lie) when speaking to someone (State v LaPointe and State v Correa). Also, a LEO need not relate true reason for stop as long as RAS exists (State v Sulewski)
Interesting, and VERY disturbing.

Clearly, the "right to remain silent" is much more of a right than people realize.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"... If you want to piss him off (not suggested) you could try, "Sorry officer, but when I weigh what it cost in blood and treasure across seven centuries to win these rights, the curiosity of a cop pales into utter insignificance."
Not that there's anything wrong with ******* off an officer, when you know he has no suspicion of illegality. Sometimes it gets Them to talk more than they should.

AB: What’s your date of birth?
CAP: Twelve… May… [embarrassingly old year redacted].
AB: May 12th, 19XX?
AB: What’s your last name?
CAP: Same as it shows on my Georgia Weapon’s License. I don’t have a pen, any of you guys have a pen for the gentleman?
AB: I have a pen
CAP: You are prepared
AB: I’m a professional… You live around here? Do you live around here? … In the immediate area?
CAP: You’ve got the cutest eyes.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Asking why you are being detained can't hurt, but don't waste your breath by asking more than a couple times if the LEO doesn't want to answer.

The circumstances of a stop, and each LEO's attitude, must be quickly evaluated by the OC'er. You may be stopped by one or several LEO's. How you react will be unique in each individual situation.

My personality causes me to be a smart alec. The words "asinine" and "juvenile" also pop up frequently when I'm being talked about. :banana:

My wife likes to use the word "snarky". Of the various definitions I've found, I'm going with "rudely sarcastic". I can get behind that.

If I have been a bad boy, and I know it, you won't find a single smart-a$$ syllable coming out of my mouth. Yes, sir. No, sir. Sorry, sir.

But heaven help them and me if I am stopped and I know I'm right (or don't know I'm wrong). I won't go off on a "I know my rights!", NRA fanboy, gun-totin' nut job rant, but I doubt I'll keep the conversation serious.

You may find an open-minded LEO with whom you can discuss why you are right. If so, go for it. If not, there is no point arguing the law with the local LEO who has you stopped. They are not lawyers (almost never).

Eventually the LEO will get a really mean look on his face and ask me, "Do you think this is FUNNY?!". I just look him in the eye (if I haven't been proned with a knee on the back of my neck) and say...

"Frickin' hilarious!"

Talk about pi$$ing off a cop...

Don't deal with the cops. Enjoy the ride. Enjoy the stay. If you miss dinner, they'll bring you a bologna sandwich. If you have to go number two, have the courtesy to flush several times during. Call your lawyer, then do the yessir/nosir thing in front of the judge.
 

Sigger

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Cincinnati (Springfield Township), Ohio, USA
I made it abundantly clear several times that "I will comply but I do not consent." Then . . .

Me: Am I under arrest?
STPD Cop: No
Me: Am I being detained?
STPD Cop: No
Me: Am I free to go?
STPD Cop: No

We went through this several times. It was clearly not a consensual encounter. I was not under arrest, I was not being detained, but I was not free to go.

Now what?

The answer: STPD Cop lied. I was under arrest (according to my attorney) when they started ordering me around (beginning with surrendering ID against my consent, ending handcuffed in the back of their cruiser). Those 3 questions were useless because the cops are allowed to lie and have the ethical incompetence to do so regularly.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I made it abundantly clear several times that "I will comply but I do not consent." Then . . .

Me: Am I under arrest?
STPD Cop: No
Me: Am I being detained?
STPD Cop: No
Me: Am I free to go?
STPD Cop: No

We went through this several times. It was clearly not a consensual encounter. I was not under arrest, I was not being detained, but I was not free to go.

Now what?

The answer: STPD Cop lied. I was under arrest (according to my attorney) when they started ordering me around (beginning with surrendering ID against my consent, ending handcuffed in the back of their cruiser). Those 3 questions were useless because the cops are allowed to lie and have the ethical incompetence to do so regularly.

This is why US vs Mendenhall has a list of circumstances one can use to judge whether a detention is occurring.

Just because a cop omits to say "you're under arrest" doesn't mean an arrest is not occurring. Same thing for a positive denial. If the cop says "you're not under arrest" but handcuffs you, transports you to the station, books and finger prints you, does that mean you were not arrested just because he said you weren't? Of course, not.

You're not really asking him the questions in order to get honest answers from every cop. You're asking the questions to get an honest answer out of those cops who will give an honest answer. Some won't. Just remember, its not what he says that indicates its a detention. Its whether a reasonable person would conclude he is free walk away based on the totality of the circumstances. (See the list in US v Mendenhall.)


We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.[SUP] [n6][/SUP] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, supra at 19, n. 16; Dunaway v. [p555] New York, 442 U.S. 200, 207, and n. 6; 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 53-55 (1978). In the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
So, the only question that they 'probably' wouldn't lie about is:

"Am I free to leave?"

If it is a consensual encounter, you can leave at any time, even without announcing your intent to do so.

If you get a yes or no answer, no problem. It's when they do not give an answer that gives people pause.

Here is what to do. Ask if you are free to leave, or something similar like:

"Can I go now?"

If they do not answer, slowly attempt to leave. If they stop you physically or even move to block your path, you are being detained. DO NOT RESIST their actions or orders!

At this point, let them know you are not interested in answering any questions. You can say something like:

"Since I'm being detained, I won't answer any questions without my lawyer."

Do not argue with them if they insist you are not being detained. [Myself, I would ask them something like "Then why am I still here, jerkface?" That's a real conversation starter, though.]

When they ask you for ID, if you are OC'ing, simply say:

"I haven't done anything wrong so I'm not required to provide ID."

When they tell you differently, feel free to mention ORC 2921.29, but don't expect that to go anywhere.

If the reason they stopped you was for OC'ing, you are NOT guilty of disorderly conduct or inducing panic. Since there was no crime, you are not guilty of obstruction for not providing ID. Also, refusing to answer questions is not obstruction.


That's it. Three comments.

Can I go?
Detainment 1. Questions 0.
No crime, no ID.

Just remeber, life is short...so have fun!

IANALSYSGYO

(I Am Not A Lawyer So You Should Get Your Own)
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP "I haven't done anything wrong so I'm not required to provide ID."

When they tell you differently, feel free to mention ORC 2921.29, but don't expect that to go anywhere.

If the reason they stopped you was for OC'ing, you are NOT guilty of disorderly conduct or inducing panic. Since there was no crime, you are not guilty of obstruction for not providing ID. Also, refusing to answer questions is not obstruction.

You want to be a little careful with this one.

I don't know about the Oregon statute, but every stop-and-identify statute I've read so far was premised on whether the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) or the statute was modified by case law to require the cop to have RAS, not whether the detainee had actually done anything wrong. It hinges on the information the officer possesses, not the actual guilt or innocence of the detainee.

If you think about it, this makes sense (within the confines of the government's perverted reasoning, anyway). Why give a cop statutory and case law authority to seize someone temporarily and investigate him, but then let the detainee frustrate part of that investigation, and frustrate the stop-and-identify statute itself by letting the detainee decide whether he wants to comply based on his own knowledge of his guilt or innocence. Of course, all detainees will immediately maintain that they are innocent, and the investigation comes to a stop, the person the statute was aimed at nullifying the statute.

Also, the whole point of detention is to give the cop the opportunity to investigate and determine likelihood of guilt or innocence. Or more precisely, determine whether probable cause for an arrest exists. So, actual guilt or innocence is not a part of the picture at this stage. The question is more in the direction of whether the cop can build probable cause for an arrest by investigating and questioning, not make a determination of actual guilt or innocence.

Separately, just because the cop tells you he stopped you for OCing does not mean that is all of his (RAS). We just got through talking about cops lying to the detainee; there is no reason on earth they cannot withhold part of their RAS to see if the detainee will confirm or dispel it by something he says. See the link at the bottom for a discussion of RAS from the perspective of a detained OCer.

Final point. Telling the cop you have done nothing wrong walks directly into the teeth of Miranda--anything you say can be used against you. As Prof. Duane of Regent University Law School explains, if the cops can develop witnesses or evidence that contradicts you, then your comment that you did nothing wrong can be used to paint you as lying to a cop during his investigation, something which may be an offense in its own right.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Correctly-Determine-Whether-the-Cop-has-RAS&
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
Separately, just because the cop tells you he stopped you for OCing does not mean that is all of his (RAS). We just got through talking about cops lying to the detainee; there is no reason on earth they cannot withhold part of their RAS to see if the detainee will confirm or dispel it by something he says. See the link at the bottom for a discussion of RAS from the perspective of a detained OCer. Final point. Telling the cop you have done nothing wrong walks directly into the teeth of Miranda--anything you say can be used against you. As Prof. Duane of Regent University Law School explains, if the cops can develop witnesses or evidence that contradicts you, then your comment that you did nothing wrong can be used to paint you as lying to a cop during his investigation, something which may be an offense in its own right.
Just more reinforcement for why you don't talk to the police without benefit of counsel. You're never going to hurt yourself by thinking that the cop is up to no good and invoking your legal protections.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Citizen said:
You want to be a little careful with this one.

Citizen is absolutely right. I wrote a statement instead of a question and I will edit that post.

The line that says:

"I haven't done anything wrong so I'm not required to provide ID."

should read:

"If I haven't done anything wrong, I'm not required to provide ID."


Citizen said:
...I don't know about the Oregon statute...

I'm only worried about the OHIO statute.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29
 
Last edited:

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
This is why I come here. Thinking minds corroborating on methods that benefit us all.







There has to be hand wringing happening on a forum or two involving a thin colored line.
 
Top