• 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.

Why You Should Always Exercise Your Right To Remain Silent

Cubex DE

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
111
Location
Spokane, WA
the security guard's insurance company (edit: Plaza Security's insurance co.) asked to be dropped from the case in exchange for a fistful of thousand dollar bills

IMHO, he should not have accepted the settlement. The only way something makes its way into case law is if the case runs its course. A settlement means the security company was not necessarily at fault, while a lawsuit resulting in the security company losing would ensure that they (and other security firms) would be very careful not to make such an expensive mistake again.

I hope the officers, particularly the one that said that arresting people was one of the "perks" of being a LEO, are permanently removed from duty: they obviously don't understand (or care to understand) the law and don't mind arresting innocent people just because they have a difference of opinion with them.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The settlement does not create new case law, but it does provide an object lesson. This company will adjust its actions and training. Other security companies will look at what happened here and make similar adjustments. The case against the officers who did a lot more damage is proceeding.

While you or I may have made different choices, we weren't the one who went to jail. The one who goes to jail gets to make the call, and I, for one, will not question it. Our cause has been furthered, so my only comment about the incident is, "Thanks!"
 

tyc

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
137
Location
Pocono Mountains of PA
"AM I FREE TO GO?" Best question to ask when engaged in any police encounter ... otherwise ...

... just SHUT UP!

You should NOT talk to the police for any reason. The 5th Amendment permits you to not say anything

... just SHUT UP!

If and for any reason you feel compelled to be the "nice guy", the "cooperative type", you can not believe the trouble you can get into once you open your big mouth.

,,, just SHUT UP!

There's no need to be nasty about it but ...

... just SHUT UP!

tyc
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
I do agree, Remaining silent is one of the most effective defenses or strategies. But it does help to learn and understand the situation so here is some detention info to better educate and help people to understand the different levels and what is involved in a detention.

RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

Officers were educated on ID'ing, were polite and professional and admitted they were wrong on video

Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html
The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.
The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.
I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.
At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).
This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.

This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226046509410140751&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."


In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

“Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.” St. John v. McColley

The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (1993)

“The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances.” WI v. Kiekhefer (1997)

An anonymous tip is not RAS

ID'ing yourself discussion



General Important Videos: (Click to follow links)

How to Remain silent when questioned by Police

Don't Talk to Cops (PLEASE WATCH, Important for any and all Law Enforcement Encounters)

DUI Refusal

Another DUI refusal

How to refuse a Police Search
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Oooo. I think Motofixxer's post violates the new Rule #19 about colored text. :p:)

(Yeah, we actually have a written forum rule about colored text.)


Great reference post, Moto. Of course, I am favorably inclined because you quoted me. :)
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Oooo. I think Motofixxer's post violates the new Rule #19 about colored text. :p:)

(Yeah, we actually have a written forum rule about colored text.)


Great reference post, Moto. Of course, I am favorably inclined because you quoted me. :)



Nah I'm grandfathered, I had that info listed long before the rule was put in place. :lol: Besides it's not excessive.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Nah I'm grandfathered, I had that info listed long before the rule was put in place. :lol: Besides it's not excessive.

Ah so, not so - late arriving but think excessive; however, let it stand this time due to the bulk of material and that my "color filter" missed it on the first sweep. :cool: Don't make a habit of it, please.

BTW - Signature line policies are being considered for review - Do you wonder why?

New rule: no new rules allowed! :lol:

Heard that one before, don't borrow on the farm to bet on it. :p
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner

New rule no playful criticisms allowed. :p (God I hope not!) LOL.
New Rule: No more rules!! :p:p:)

No rule. No more new rules.....
 
Top