Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Police lying to us

  1. #1
    Regular Member Old Virginia Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SE Va., , Occupied CSA
    Posts
    366

    Police lying to us

    I was listening to the talk radio out of Norfolk, and heard someone (calling himself a local LEO) telling the radio listeners that here is how the police can get you to "consent" to a search:
    He said, if they stop you, they will say, "I'm going to search you now, OK?" And HE said, if the citizen does not speak a refusal for that to happen, then you have just consented to a search, and the search may commence! Can anyone here verify if that is legally allowed? Is any minor variation on that basic theme allowed? I was shocked to hear this, and thought, "Wow, this is unethical in my book, but who knows what a court has decided about this." IANAL. but it seems wrong to me, and people ought to be aware of this. A polite "good guy" might easily be intimidated into a so-called consent this way, whereas a street-wise thug may holler hell NO!
    VCDL, Army Vet, Virginia Native

    Hey, Libtards, it's the "Bill of Rights," not the "Bill of Needs" . . . . .

    If the 2A does not apply to modern weapons, then the 1A does not apply to modern communications like the Internet! How do you like them apples!?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South Chesterfield, VA
    Posts
    315
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...d.php?t=118949

    Not quite the exact same, but the courts seem to hold that consent must be given willingly.

    Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Virginia Joe View Post
    I was listening to the talk radio out of Norfolk, and heard someone (calling himself a local LEO) telling the radio listeners that here is how the police can get you to "consent" to a search:
    He said, if they stop you, they will say, "I'm going to search you now, OK?" And HE said, if the citizen does not speak a refusal for that to happen, then you have just consented to a search, and the search may commence! Can anyone here verify if that is legally allowed? Is any minor variation on that basic theme allowed? I was shocked to hear this, and thought, "Wow, this is unethical in my book, but who knows what a court has decided about this." IANAL. but it seems wrong to me, and people ought to be aware of this. A polite "good guy" might easily be intimidated into a so-called consent this way, whereas a street-wise thug may holler hell NO!
    The fact that he said, "I'm going to search you now, OK?" makes it a question.

    A more accurate Re-phrasing of his question:

    "Is it OK if I search you?"
    "Do you consent to a search?"

    In each case, your answer should be the same: "No. I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person, papers or property," said loudly enough to be heard by anyone else nearby and your video/audio recorder. You DO carry a recorder, don't you? One that can transmit the file to a website or cloud in real-time?
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619
    Silence does not infer consent. One does not give up their 4th Amend right by being silent or non-objecting.

    While "I do not consent to any search, but will not resist." may be preferable, such is not manditory IMO.

    Think anything "discovered" would be poisoned fruit.

    Would a LEO have any reason to lie about lying?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    "do you have anything illegal (on you/in the car)?"

    "no"

    "do you mind if i take a look?"

    the average person will not want to have the seemingly logical "inconsistency" of saying there's nothing illegal and refusing consent...even though legally it is entirely permissible for a citizen to say "no" and "no" to the two questions. Psychologically, people will want to say "no" and "yes" in a bid to convince the officer they have nothing to hide...the legal effect is of course granting consent.

    Sure, it's tricky and ensnares the unwitting...but the law doesn't care about the uninformed.

    Best bet is to say "i'm not answering any questions" in response to the first question...repeat for all follow-up questions until arrested or released.

    Second-best bet is to say "no" and "no, i'd like to be on my way."

  6. #6
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Silence does not infer consent. One does not give up their 4th Amend right by being silent or non-objecting.

    While "I do not consent to any search, but will not resist." may be preferable, such is not manditory IMO.

    Think anything "discovered" would be poisoned fruit.

    Would a LEO have any reason to lie about lying?
    I'd be a little concerned about not answering, Grape. With the SCOTUS saying that the 5th Amendment right must be verbalized in order to be effective, it does not seem like a stretch that some judge would say that the LEO gave the citizen the chance to decline the search and he didn't say anything, so...

    Even just saying "No!" should be enough to decline the 'consensual' search, but I prefer making the whole statement, removing all doubt that I'm declining.
    Last edited by JamesCanby; 01-16-2014 at 01:36 PM.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  7. #7
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    The fact that he said, "I'm going to search you now, OK?" makes it a question.

    A more accurate Re-phrasing of his question:

    "Is it OK if I search you?"
    "Do you consent to a search?"

    In each case, your answer should be the same: "No. I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person, papers or property," said loudly enough to be heard by anyone else nearby and your video/audio recorder. You DO carry a recorder, don't you? One that can transmit the file to a website or cloud in real-time?
    The problem is that it is phrased in such a way that the 'OK' seems to me more of a 'Do you understand what I am telling you I am about to do?' rather than a question of permission. Done this way on purpose no doubt so as to intimidate the people's into 'consenting' by default when they aren't actually consenting but affirming that they understand (whilst thinking the cop is just being nice and telling them before hand about his actions thinking he is doing this under apparent authority and they have no choice in the matter)

    Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Baked on Grease; 01-16-2014 at 07:57 PM.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Whether they ask "I'm going to search you now, okay?" or "Did you brush your teeth this morning?" the ONLY safe answer is, "I do not consent to searches, I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present, am I free to go?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    I'd be a little concerned about not answering, Grape. With the SCOTUS saying that the 5th Amendment right must be verbalized in order to be effective, it does not seem like a stretch that some judge would say that the LEO gave the citizen the chance to decline the search and he didn't say anything, so...

    Even just saying "No!" should be enough to decline the 'consensual' search, but I prefer making the whole statement, removing all doubt that I'm declining.
    I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but IMHO, that SCOTUS case was way over-hyped. The defendant was Chatty Charlie until one specific question came up, whereupon he stopped talking and started "looking guilty." SCOTUS ruled that the prosecutor could use an account of those observed facts during the trial in an attempt to persuade the jury that he knew something about the crime he was being questioned for. I didn't see that as much of a threat to the 5th Amendment, especially for anyone who knows what KYBMS means and does it.

    TFred

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Virginia Joe View Post
    I was listening to the talk radio out of Norfolk, and heard someone (calling himself a local LEO) telling the radio listeners that here is how the police can get you to "consent" to a search:
    He said, if they stop you, they will say, "I'm going to search you now, OK?" And HE said, if the citizen does not speak a refusal for that to happen, then you have just consented to a search, and the search may commence! Can anyone here verify if that is legally allowed? Is any minor variation on that basic theme allowed? I was shocked to hear this, and thought, "Wow, this is unethical in my book, but who knows what a court has decided about this." IANAL. but it seems wrong to me, and people ought to be aware of this. A polite "good guy" might easily be intimidated into a so-called consent this way, whereas a street-wise thug may holler hell NO!
    I have read a number of case excerpts at FourthAmendment(dot)com that would strongly imply police have the burden to prove that consent for a search was given. Meaning, no assumptions. But, I have no idea which state appellate courts those came from.

    How the law reads in VA, I don't know. We may need User to answer this for us.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    I'd be a little concerned about not answering, Grape. With the SCOTUS saying that the 5th Amendment right must be verbalized in order to be effective, it does not seem like a stretch that some judge would say that the LEO gave the citizen the chance to decline the search and he didn't say anything, so...

    Even just saying "No!" should be enough to decline the 'consensual' search, but I prefer making the whole statement, removing all doubt that I'm declining.
    I prefer to soften it a bit. "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job, but I do not consent to any searches."

    Even softer, "....I would not consent to any searches."

    If a fella likes the terse approach, he could just say "refused" or "refusal". Refusal is cops' own word for when someone does not consent to a search. A cop's gonna have a real hard time explaining how he didn't understand what that meant.

    (chuckle) I suppose a fella could twist things around a little bit, too. "I'm sorry, officer, but I am afraid humility compels me decline the honor of being searched by such a dedicated public servant as yourself. No, really. Its just too much; I don't deserve it. I simply cannot accept such a gracious gesture on you part. I must refuse." Just treat it as though being decorated with an unearned medal or some other high honor. I bet the cop stops dead in his tracks and takes a full thirty seconds to shift gears.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-16-2014 at 10:24 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but IMHO, that SCOTUS case was way over-hyped. The defendant was Chatty Charlie until one specific question came up, whereupon he stopped talking and started "looking guilty." SCOTUS ruled that the prosecutor could use an account of those observed facts during the trial in an attempt to persuade the jury that he knew something about the crime he was being questioned for. I didn't see that as much of a threat to the 5th Amendment, especially for anyone who knows what KYBMS means and does it.

    TFred
    The problem is that its a step backwards. Exercising a right became something that could be used against a person.

    During the terrifying years of the Star Chamber Court and the High Commission defendants who refused to answer were convicted pro confesso (as though they had confessed). One high church official literally articulated almost verbatim the words cops too often use, "If they are innocent, they have nothing to fear."

    Those government bodies disfigured people (branding), cut off ears*, and slit nostrils.

    Just to show how evil some of the judges were, one man sentenced to having his ears cut off was discovered to have already suffered that penalty previously. The judge noticed stumps--and had those cut off.

    The right against self-incrimination was won at heavy, bloody price.

    Dare we allow the government to backslide?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    "do you have anything illegal (on you/in the car)?"

    "no"

    "do you mind if i take a look?"

    the average person will not want to have the seemingly logical "inconsistency" of saying there's nothing illegal and refusing consent...even though legally it is entirely permissible for a citizen to say "no" and "no" to the two questions. Psychologically, people will want to say "no" and "yes" in a bid to convince the officer they have nothing to hide...the legal effect is of course granting consent.

    Sure, it's tricky and ensnares the unwitting...but the law doesn't care about the uninformed.

    Best bet is to say "i'm not answering any questions" in response to the first question...repeat for all follow-up questions until arrested or released.

    Second-best bet is to say "no" and "no, i'd like to be on my way."
    Maybe reply with : Do you have anything illegal on your person, in your car, at your station or your home? If you'll let me do a complete search of them then, afterwards, I will grant your request. I mean if he/she/they have nothing to hide why not?

    Seems only fair.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The problem is that its a step backwards. Exercising a right became something that could be used against a person.

    During the terrifying years of the Star Chamber Court and the High Commission defendants who refused to answer were convicted pro confesso (as though they had confessed). One high church official literally articulated almost verbatim the words cops too often use, "If they are innocent, they have nothing to fear."

    Those government bodies disfigured people (branding), cut off ears*, and slit nostrils.

    Just to show how evil some of the judges were, one man sentenced to having his ears cut off was discovered to have already suffered that penalty previously. The judge noticed stumps--and had those cut off.

    The right against self-incrimination was won at heavy, bloody price.

    Dare we allow the government to backslide?
    Trust me, I'm a LONG way from there... but the guy didn't exercise his right, he was talking all night.

    Imagine an interrogation that goes like this:

    I'm too lazy for all the quotation marks...

    Did you kill John? No. Did you kill Jane? No. Did you steal John's car? No. Did you steal Jane's car? No. Did you tell Joe where John kept the money hidden? ..... silence....

    Do you really think that presenting that sequence of conversation to a jury violates the Fifth Amendment?

    ETA: Remember, the Fifth Amendment protects us from compelled self-incrimination. ["nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"] Doesn't say anything about keeping silent. This guy was not compelled to answer any questions, nor was he compelled to act differently when he got to the hard question.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 01-17-2014 at 01:40 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Fact # 1 Police lie.

    I had a conversation with a former ABC Agent that is now an FBI agent that said he lies all the time while conducting "investigations" and sees nothing wrong with it. He claimed the only time he was required to tell the truth is under oath per "the courts".

    Speaks volumes about the police and the courts!

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    "I'm going to search you now, OK?"
    "Officer, are you telling me, or asking me?" "BTW, officer, your slip is showing."

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Trust me, I'm a LONG way from there... but the guy didn't exercise his right, he was talking all night.

    Imagine an interrogation that goes like this:

    I'm too lazy for all the quotation marks...

    Did you kill John? No. Did you kill Jane? No. Did you steal John's car? No. Did you steal Jane's car? No. Did you tell Joe where John kept the money hidden? ..... silence....

    Do you really think that presenting that sequence of conversation to a jury violates the Fifth Amendment?

    ETA: Remember, the Fifth Amendment protects us from compelled self-incrimination. ["nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"] Doesn't say anything about keeping silent. This guy was not compelled to answer any questions, nor was he compelled to act differently when he got to the hard question.

    TFred
    Yes, he did exercise his right--he went silent. And, his exercise of a right--his silence--was used to incriminate him. In this case, because of the timing of when he went silent.

    This is just a court-room version of what many of us already discussed years ago about street encounters with police. We already figured out years ago that it looks bad to the cop and would increase his suspicions if we silenced during a police encounter rather than right at the beginning. Same thing here, only in this case it became evidence in a courtroom.

    Its just a matter of the timing, TFred. Do I really have to do all the imagining here? Today the silence about whether matching shotgun shells or whatever will be found at your house is evidence. Tomorrow, for sure and without any doubt, it will be mid-silence about anything will justify suspicion. And, hey, if mid-silence can be used as evidence, it obviously follows that mid-silence must also give probable cause for a search. Or, Oh! He was friendly until we asked his name. Then he went silent. He must have a warrant or restraining order. "Gimme your ID!"

    Also, its curious how the cops set him up. They chatted innocently enough about this and that. But, he went silent the moment they made it clear they were investigating him rather than just investigating the crime. How about that as a technique? You think you're doing your civic duty helping a cop investigate something, maybe a missing child when its not even known whether the child wandered off or was kidnapped. And, then the cop starts getting a little personal, investigating you. You go silent, and later when the body is found in the woods, and you're the handiest suspect, and the kids fingerprints are found on your car from when his ball got stuck under your car, you find yourself in a huge heap of trouble even though you were fishing but can't prove it.

    The way the police handled the defendant's questioning in the instant case is far, far too easy to ensnare a innocent person. Set him up with tame questions, then go for the meat and see whether he goes silent. They got him if he goes silent. They got him if he tells the truth but the police have evidence that contradicts him.

    Exercising a right is exercising a right. This case was just another in a long, long series of government driving a wedge into a right.

    One criminal who gets away only affects the people he comes into contact with. Government affects every single person in its jurisdiction. And, in the instant case, we don't know that this criminal would have gotten away with it without this police tactic or ruling. Meaning, the police might still have come up with enough evidence to convict if they had just done proper police work without playing games with our rights.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    I had a conversation with a former ABC Agent that is now an FBI agent that said he lies all the time while conducting "investigations" and sees nothing wrong with it. He claimed the only time he was required to tell the truth is under oath per "the courts".

    Speaks volumes about the police and the courts!
    Wow. Sounds like he's proud of his developed skill.

    Seems what you encountered isn't all that isolated:

    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oaklan...nt?oid=3693931

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/163479...t-los-angeles#

    Is it just me, or is it a bit over the top to expect me to believe "some additional training" will correct a tendency to lie, fabricate, manipulate and deceive?

    If that works, why don't they just send those convicted of those crimes through the same training?

    Jail overcrowding solved.

    Google "Brady List" sometime. The Scarlet List of Liars in the industry. Some departments have entire "Liar's Squads", cops unable to testify due to their integrity being in the toilet.

    ETA: This may shed some light on the need for new hires, someone not tarnished by the erosion of corruption that collects on some like metal to a magnet. They can be sent in for warrants, and I imagine it's easier to send in fresh faces to places like schools. Probably wouldn't do to have the Sgt that's under investigation for civil rights violations and corruption addressing a school civics class.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 01-17-2014 at 02:37 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    << snip >>

    Exercising a right is exercising a right. This case was just another in a long, long series of government driving a wedge into a right.

    << snip >>
    When rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have rights.
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    When rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have rights.
    I have had an ON DUTY LEO tell me that ONLY CRIMINALS INVOKE THEIR RIGHTS going on to say that the INNOCENT DON'T!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member FBrinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Henrico, VA
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    I had a conversation with a former ABC Agent that is now an FBI agent that said he lies all the time while conducting "investigations" and sees nothing wrong with it. He claimed the only time he was required to tell the truth is under oath per "the courts".

    Speaks volumes about the police and the courts!
    I believe that! About 10 years ago I was a store manager at a retail grocer on Broad Street in Richmond. I got a call from one of my managers saying that we had an ABC sting in the store and one of our cashiers sold alcohol to a minor. The ABC agent got on the phone and told me the manager at the store would not release the VCR tape to him (which was company policy to only release subpoenaed items). The agent told me I needed to give him permission to release the tape. When I told him 'no' he said he was going to come to my house and arrest me. When asked why, he said it was evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation and I was obstructing justice but he could just take it anyway. I asked him why he didn't just hang up the phone and take the tape if he could do that. I dont remember what his reply was. Long story, short. He did not take the tape and I did not get arrested
    I called and complained to his supervisor the next day. The agent was promoted a couple of months later. I'm trying to remember his name... It was in Richmond around 2004 or 2005.
    Last edited by FBrinson; 01-17-2014 at 11:23 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Yes, he did exercise his right--he went silent. And, his exercise of a right--his silence--was used to incriminate him. In this case, because of the timing of when he went silent.

    This is just a court-room version of what many of us already discussed years ago about street encounters with police. We already figured out years ago that it looks bad to the cop and would increase his suspicions if we silenced during a police encounter rather than right at the beginning. Same thing here, only in this case it became evidence in a courtroom.

    Its just a matter of the timing, TFred. Do I really have to do all the imagining here? Today the silence about whether matching shotgun shells or whatever will be found at your house is evidence. Tomorrow, for sure and without any doubt, it will be mid-silence about anything will justify suspicion. And, hey, if mid-silence can be used as evidence, it obviously follows that mid-silence must also give probable cause for a search. Or, Oh! He was friendly until we asked his name. Then he went silent. He must have a warrant or restraining order. "Gimme your ID!"

    Also, its curious how the cops set him up. They chatted innocently enough about this and that. But, he went silent the moment they made it clear they were investigating him rather than just investigating the crime. How about that as a technique? You think you're doing your civic duty helping a cop investigate something, maybe a missing child when its not even known whether the child wandered off or was kidnapped. And, then the cop starts getting a little personal, investigating you. You go silent, and later when the body is found in the woods, and you're the handiest suspect, and the kids fingerprints are found on your car from when his ball got stuck under your car, you find yourself in a huge heap of trouble even though you were fishing but can't prove it.

    The way the police handled the defendant's questioning in the instant case is far, far too easy to ensnare a innocent person. Set him up with tame questions, then go for the meat and see whether he goes silent. They got him if he goes silent. They got him if he tells the truth but the police have evidence that contradicts him.

    Exercising a right is exercising a right. This case was just another in a long, long series of government driving a wedge into a right.

    One criminal who gets away only affects the people he comes into contact with. Government affects every single person in its jurisdiction. And, in the instant case, we don't know that this criminal would have gotten away with it without this police tactic or ruling. Meaning, the police might still have come up with enough evidence to convict if they had just done proper police work without playing games with our rights.
    We can agree it was slimy police work - unethical even. Many of these kinds of folks will have to one day answer to their maker.

    I just can't reach the conclusion that the government compelled him to incriminate himself. He talked. He incriminated himself. How was he compelled?

    TFred

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    I have had an ON DUTY LEO tell me that ONLY CRIMINALS INVOKE THEIR RIGHTS going on to say that the INNOCENT DON'T!
    Sadly thats the mindset that 'many' (cough!) LEO's have. That if you don't 'cooperate' with them (by invoking your rights), you're guilty of *something* and they just need to find a reason to charge you.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    We can agree it was slimy police work - unethical even. Many of these kinds of folks will have to one day answer to their maker.

    I just can't reach the conclusion that the government compelled him to incriminate himself. He talked. He incriminated himself. How was he compelled?

    TFred
    Now you're both changing the subject and creating a strawman.

    Don't change the subject. We weren't talking about whether he was compelled to incriminate himself. We were talking about whether his silence was used against him.

    Don't create a strawman. I absolutely did not say the government compelled him to incriminate himself.

    Plain and simple, government lawyers (judges) played fast and loose with a right by allowing the exercise of that right to be used against a person. And, they used sophistries to justify it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    I've kept quiet until now. So let me write this.

    I've long relied on this case: Jean-Laurent v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 74, 538 S.E.2d 316 (2000) as helpful authority. So have our Appellate Courts.

    The most recent example is:

    Commonwealth of Virginia v. William Wade Henderson, III 02/05/2013

    Key excerpt here:
    “Police officers act in full accord with the law when they ask citizens for consent. It reinforces the rule of law for the citizen to advise the police of his or her wishes and for the police to act in reliance on that understanding.” United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 207 (2002). It is the prosecutor’s burden to prove that consent was freely and voluntarily given. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 222. Whether or not consent to a search was voluntarily given “is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.” Id. at 227.

    “Consent to a search must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given and it is not lightly to be inferred.” Although the consent need not be oral, mere acquiescence is not enough. Additionally, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that consent was in fact given, and “that burden is heavier where the alleged consent is based on an implication.”

    Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 95, 102, 578 S.E.2d 54, 58 (2003) (quoting Jean-Laurent v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 74, 78-79, 538 S.E.2d 316, 318 (2000)). The burden is “‘upon the officer to obtain consent, not on [Henderson] to affirmatively deny consent.’” Id. at 103, 578 S.E.2d at 58 (quoting Jean-Laurent, 34 Va. App. at 80, 538 S.E.2d at 319). The law requires an unequivocal and specific consent to search; an ambiguous response to a request to search is not sufficient. See Jean-Laurent, 34 Va. App. at 80, 538 S.E.2d at 319. Further, an officer’s warrantless search prior to requesting consent implies that the person asked has no choice in whether or not the officer searches. See Walls v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 639, 646, 347 S.E.2d 175, 179 (1986).
    Thus, the burden is "‘upon the officer to obtain consent, not on [the detainee] to affirmatively deny consent."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •