eye95
Well-known member
I am proud to make the same mistake that you do!
-
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.
-
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.
police departments running me for warrants every time i show up to film them
- Thread starter onus
- Start date
- Status
I am proud to make the same mistake that you do!
OC for ME
Regular Member
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the circumstances.
Cops may likely claim that they can, and when they finally ID you they will let you go. You were arrested pending ID because they could not verify that you were warrant free. Ironic, you are a LAC but arrested because they cops don't know who you are to verify that you are a LAC. Now, the jurisdiction may have something to say about this, but I believe that cops are loath to arrest anyone simply because they don't know who you are. In MO I can be arrested for not IDing myself as a witness, and I guess I could remain locked up if I don't tell the fuzz what I saw or know. So, it is not a stretch that I could be locked up for not IDing myself.....legalities aside.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I would say withholding your name, DOB etc from government officials would fall under the wording of the 4th.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Government forcing you to surrender you information doesn't make me feel like I have the right to be secure in my person, papers or effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. For them to insist upon this info they would need probable cause , supported by and Oath which would develop into a warrant.
Sure looks to me they wouldn't approve of throwing out wide fishing net and hoping to they get a few keepers.
OC for ME
Regular Member
The citizen is not the one who gets to decide what is reasonable. Unfortunately it takes a like minded judge to tell a cop his definition of what was reasonable at that time was BS.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Unless you posted your name online with your videos. Or own property and pay taxes, or have a public phone, or public utilities, or surrendered your name and DOB in return for license plates. All public information all legal to obtain, even for non LEO's.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I would too, but that does not mean they cannot obtain such information through legal means. Actually withholding your name and DOB would fall under the 5th, IMO, not the 4th. Your name and DOB are public information, you just should not be forced to give it at gunpoint.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Interesting point.
The 5th is an intriguing point. I think the 4th and 5th go hand in hand.
I don't debate the "legality" of it in a positive sense.
If we take the phone book method mentioned earlier, I have no problem with LEA's that have a warrant going through the phone book or other public records and locating the person said warrant is for. What I think is wrong is going through the public information as public officials and running names in the hope of netting someone.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
If that happens it is a very small incidents. MOST times LEA and officers have a suspicion before they tie up valuable radio time, that could cost another officer their life. I have reprimanded officers for tying up the radio, with unnecessary traffic. Now if we fast forward the officer today does not need to use the radio. He has access to all public records in his car on his laptop, just like any other citizen does. The difference he does not pay a fee for the access.
What happened or is happening to Onus is a case of harassment, there is no doubt about it. They are reading his every post on every venue to see the chinks in his armor. And like a fool he gives it to them. He remarks on this site are public, his hatred for police on a gun site is famous. He brings the harassment on himself.
But like I said there is a easy answer for this, a RO. But a RO would also apply to him, he would rather whimper here, giving the police much delight, instead getting blocked from stalking them. Videoing and recording police is legal and acceptable. Following them on your bicycle, posting personal information about them, following them to their homes, interfering with arrests verbally, inciting the public to resist is NOT legal.
I hate bad police officers, but when a person becomes as much as a rectal orifice on society, I can feel no sympathy even if the police bend a few rules. I stop to think of all the incidents of violence by those unstable, and my bias has to go to the police.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I'm glad we can have a rational discussion on the topic. Maybe what I getting at is more semantics in that the way I look at constitutional limits is government agents don't have all the freedoms civilians do and their powers are to be limited and authorized. Of course the privileged class wouldn't have to pay a fee, if it's public information provided from a public cite shouldn't citizens not have to pay a fee too then?
OC for ME
Regular Member
I get that.
What I don't get is how does a cop know it is you by just looking at you. He can't, and thus he must tie your documents to you. This is where cops get into trouble, putting a face to the name yanked off the Interwebz. Somebody is gunna be detained and the LAC may be the victim.
Pull over a car owned by a citizen with warrants out for him. Without a face to a name the cop must detain the driver to verify the driver is either the perp or not. If the cop could compare a photo to the driver, if it ain't him then the cop could say "Sorry, Sir" then "consensually contact" (ironic since the drive has been seized) the citizen as to the whereabouts of the owner of the vehicle. The driver can decline and drive off, maybe, or assist the cop. If the driver does decline to assist would a cop impound the car? Could a cop impound the car?
Anyway, the LAC got detained, the courts will uphold the detention, and the LAC is left with no recourse. All because cops can troll LPs and use the data they gather from the Interwebz to pull over a car that has a registered owner with a warrant.....it is, after all public information.
Even one occurrence should be unacceptable.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
His face is plastered all over the internet. He used to post his picture on his youtube account, not sure if he still does. But this is just in relation to him. Others the circumstances may vary, but it could be previous arrest, previous contact, or the officer actually knows the person.
Primus
Regular Member
Oc just a heads up sir.... your drivers license photo is also in the rmv file. So when you run the plate up comes the registration status. License statues w/photo and basic information that was provided to rmv. So when I run the plate if it comes back to a black male and he has a warrant and I see a white female driving then no rs to stop the car. On the other hand if its a like gender race etc. You have rs to stop to check warrant. Also applies for things like suspended license. If you can clearly see its not the owner then you can't stop the car based on that reason. There's actual lay case law on this topic. Cop pulls guy;girl over to check if its owner. Wasn't the owner but was arrested for something else. Said stop was bad. Well court said that its reasonable to assume that its the owner driving said vehicle. Obviously like I said if its a dude driving and a girls car then you don't have a good stop bases on the owners status.
SVG the way I look is just print up the list of guys. No needs to detain random people. Thats bad for everyone. If I detain you "randomly" on the street its because I'm pretty damn certain that your the guy im looking for. I honestly don't know any guys that do just randomly stop a lot of people and demands name and dob. We are too busy for that around here.
Hope this clears stuff up boys. If cites are needed for the case law just ask and I'll dig it out of my manual. Should be on internet though.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Most warrant checks are not run on the radio anymore, unless the officer is on foot. And even then now some officers are using smart phones for duties. I believe some depts are issuing them. If I am not mistaken RCMP are now using smart phones.
The op is either being harassed because they know it upsets him, or it is his imagination.
The op is either being harassed because they know it upsets him, or it is his imagination.
Deanimator
Regular Member
Actually, it COULD be, depending upon policy and state and local law.
In some places, cops are prohibited from doing records searches for unauthorized purposes. State law or department policy might very well NOT consider that an "authorized" purpose. If not, one could make things rather uncomfortable for them.
Primus
Regular Member
Sir can you cite an example? I ask because as stated by other guys, a warrant is designed to be searches for read and served by peace officers. Consider it a "hey heads up we are looking for this guy" memo. That's what it boils down to. So to restrict any peace officer from reading such "memo" defeats the purpose of putting it out there. Again we are very specifically talking about warrants NOT criminal history etc. Etc.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
I understand that you have very specific "rules of engagement" so to speak, but a blonde haired white guy look just like every other blonde haired white if all you have is a fleeting glimpse. You, as a good cop, have your curiosity piqued. What do you do? Let the probable perp of crime 'X' keep on keeping on, or do you investigate. It may be the guy or it may not be the guy, you do not know. And you will not know until you stop that citizen to satisfy your curiosity.
If you stop him, based on your reasonable suspicion, and discover that it is not that blonde haired perp, but a blonde haired LAC, who just happens to be driving the blonde haired perps car. The LAC has no redress for being detained, unlawfully in his view, and his view does not count by the way. You could satisfied your curiosity.
After determining that the picture did not match the face you let the LAC go, with a apology I suspect, after you ran him for warrants I also suspect.
fini
Primus
Regular Member
Correct. They get let go with an explanation and an apology. Usually within a minute or two after at least a license statistics check which automatically does warrants. I've had numerous cases where the owner would have a suspended license. Person driving meets description. Pull car over realize its not then immediately tell them why they are stopped. Do status check of their license to cover everyone and have a good night sir/ma'am on their way. I've never ever had anyone freak out and demand to be let go. When explained as to why they are being stopped they have always been understanding. In fact I've had a few cases where the real owner is on the passenger seat I've asked if they knew it was suspended they'd say no and be glad I told them so they wouldn't drive.
I respect your opinion and strong believe about no "detainments" but I just don't run into many issues with people. I'm very courteous and explain everything to them. That seems to help a lot.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
This is meaningless, unless an appeal to a popular opinion has credibility now. This is what creates questions of credibility by those intent on instilling confusing. Having someone agree with you is not an indication the truth has been reached, further discussion irevellent. Lame.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Are you you refuting what a warrant is and designed for? I couldn't see your relevant point to the matter at hand underneath all the senseless bashing.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
- Status