• 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.

Bad Arlington LEO Encounter

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Thing is during this time of year, I frequently wear a journalists vest over a T-shirt or golf shirt. I fail to see how such a garment could be construed as suspect by an LEO.

As for Arlington police, about 12 years ago I heard some rather interesting things going on with them that were certainly less than legal. There was a pretty high level of confidence in my source so I suspect what I was hearing was true. And not only the police. Their vote counting was tainted as was at least one long standing county board member in her personal dealings with her real estate holdings.

Arlington is not squeaky clean by any measure.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...

Why do people insist that LEOs should/ought to/need to explain anything other than you are free to go/you are not free to go?

stay safe.
Please cite what a cop must do under VA law when he arrests you.

I'll go first just to be fair.
Arrest.

RSMo 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
It may be useful, at a later date, to have that cop's justification, at the time of your arrest, on tape, so that your conversation with that cop's supervisor, at a later date, is just a wee bit more productive.

Now, VA, may permit their cops to arrest anyone without ever saying a word other than to order you to stop resisting.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Skid

You are correct, however, can a citizen be arrested after being detained for pleading the 5th?

Officer--- We have a call about a suspicious person walking down the street open carrying and you fit the description. Do you have any ID? What is your name?

Citizen--- Aim I being detained?
Officer--- Yes, until I see some ID
Citizen--- I reserve all my rights under the constitution especially my 5th Amendment right to remain silent until I can consul with my attorney...

So Skid, please play officer for us and proceed... Thank you Skid.

Regards

CCJ


Please cite what a cop must do under VA law when he arrests you.

I'll go first just to be fair.It may be useful, at a later date, to have that cop's justification, at the time of your arrest, on tape, so that your conversation with that cop's supervisor, at a later date, is just a wee bit more productive.

Arrest.

RSMo 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

Now, VA, may permit their cops to arrest anyone without ever saying a word other than to order you to stop resisting.

Joe - you first:

First, "fitting the description" is RAS for detaining you, and being detained is in fact being arrested.

Second - Va law requires you to identify yourself when demanded to do so. If necessary the cops will hold you (incarcerate you) until they do establish your identity. The easiest way is to take your fingerprints and send them off to the FBI. There is nothing that forces them to send your prints electronically, and nothing that allows the LEA or the FBI to assign any priority higher than "regular" to the request for comparison. Could take a week or so.

More importantly, how do you see identifying yourself as incriminating yourself?

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2250992.pdf

"The "principle embodied by the phrase 'free to leave' means the ability to ignore the police and to walk away from them," to "'feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.'" United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116, 122 (4th Cir. 1991) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 436 (1991)). "Fourth Amendment scrutiny is triggered, however, the moment an encounter 'loses its consensual nature.'" Id. (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434).

Detective Langford's request for Piggott's identification initiated a consensual encounter and implicated no Fourth Amendment interest. However, the consensual aspect of the encounter ceased when Detective Langford retained Piggott's identification while he ran a warrant check. A reasonable person in Piggott's circumstances would not have believed that he could terminate the encounter and walk away. By retaining Piggott's identification, Detective Langford implicitly commanded Piggott to stay. See Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 691-92, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000). Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, Piggott was then "seized" by Detective Langford. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968). "In order to justify such a seizure, an officer must have a 'reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity on the part of the defendant.'" Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 487, 490, 419 S.E.2d 256, 258 (1992) (quoting Commonwealth v. Holloway, 9 Va. App. 11, 15, 384 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1989)).

The circumstances in this case gave Detective Langford no objectively reasonable basis for suspecting that Piggott was engaged in criminal activity. Detective Langford had no information to such effect, nor had he observed any criminal behavior. Piggott cooperated and willingly gave his correct identification.

Because Detective Langford's encounter with Piggott ceased to be consensual, and because the circumstances provided no lawful basis for further detention, Piggott was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights."

See Also: Oregon v. Thompkin (2006)

OC for ME - you are next:

Who gives a flying [expletive delated] what the law is in Missouri when the question was for a citation to Virginia law? We already have one Connecticutt yanke telling us how to do things properly; we do not need a Border Ruffian joining forces with he whose name shall not be uttered.

I have not looked but I'll bet "this badge on my shirt" is sufficient authority until the actual charge is written. I would be very happy for you to provide MO case law proving me wrong.

sty safe.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP
More importantly, how do you see identifying yourself as incriminating yourself?

Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court in fact claims that being compelled to identify yourself is not incriminating. But, SCOTUS then admits, near the end of the majority opinion, that it could be in a future case. The idea being that supplying one's identity could tie a fella into a chain of evidence leading back to him.

And, just for irony, several years ago, that exact thing happened to a (CA?) OCer. Detained in a laundromat, police seized his wallet over his express refused consent. Because it was legal to OC exactly where he was, and unable to find anything else, the cops let him go. A few days later however the prosecutor went after him. He was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. The prosecutor even had to ask the judge to use a distorted definition of "in public" to make the conviction stick. The only reason they knew who to go after and where to find him was because his identity was obtained improperly in that first detention.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

Yes,,, Heible did need to ID himself because he Was "THE SUSPECT" in the attack against his wife!
He was being lawfully detained!

I will use my 5th amendment right against self incrimination in that some years ago
I got lit up by a speeding camera,,, years later I still wonder if their is an outstanding warrant for my arrest!

I remember the Ca. incident,, followed it in this forum,, it was gross and disgusting!
It took years in the Unjustus system, but he stayed out of jail.
Shortly there after he moved to Hong Kong!
Cant remember his screen name.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
skidmark said:
"... Second - Va law requires you to identify yourself when demanded to do so..."
Something must have changed since I last looked. Do you have the cite for that?

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing a citation to that myself. I think it more likely that skid merely misspoke himself when speaking casually rather than misinterpreting the law.

The U. S. Supreme Court upheld a Nevada Officer’s right to demand that a suspect give the officer his name. (Hiibel v. Humboldt County, Case No. 03-5554) and one could face a charge of obstruction in certain defined circumstances, namely when a Witness, a Suspect, or during Booking. Beyond that, there is (as far as I know) no Virginia Code which requires a citizen to give his name to any officer without cause.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing a citation to that myself. I think it more likely that skid merely misspoke himself when speaking casually rather than misinterpreting the law.

The U. S. Supreme Court upheld a Nevada Officer’s right to demand that a suspect give the officer his name. (Hiibel v. Humboldt County, Case No. 03-5554) and one could face a charge of obstruction in certain defined circumstances, namely when a Witness, a Suspect, or during Booking. Beyond that, there is (as far as I know) no Virginia Code which requires a citizen to give his name to any officer without cause.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-82.1

§ 19.2-82.1. Giving false identity to law-enforcement officer; penalty.

Any person who falsely identifies himself to a law-enforcement officer with the intent to deceive the law-enforcement officer as to his real identity after having been lawfully detained and after being requested to identify himself by a law-enforcement officer, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(2006, c. 387.)

Somewhere I have a case law citation that refusing to provide any identificcation is falsely identifying oneself. Darned if I know where I put it.

In the case under discussion the guy in the "tactical vest" was lawfully* detained, which SCOTUS says is the same as being arrested.

stay safe.

* - as much as you may dislike/disagree
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The key point you missed in your original post is "... after having been lawfully detained". There's a world of difference between "when demanded" and when demanded after having been lawfully detained."
It's the same difference as between -
"You must display your driving license to an officer when requested" and,

The operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer being operated on the highways in the Commonwealth, shall have in his possession: (i) the registration card issued by the Department or the registration card issued by the state or country in which the motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is registered, and (ii) his driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit.

The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity.- 46.2-104

Outside of operating a motorized vehicle, there is no authority for an officer to demand the display of a driving license.


And, now that you mention it "... lawfully detained" for WHAT?
What articulable reasonable suspicion was created by his clothing? That he was about to commit arson? Burglary? child molestation? Disorderly conduct? Embezzlement? Failure to register as a sex offender?

For suspicion of WHAT Crime was he "lawfully detained"?
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Wisc. Stats. § 175.60(2g) Carrying a concealed weapon; possession and display of license document or authorization. [ ... ] (c) ... a licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her license document and photographic identification card ... to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority.

I'm not sure I see your point, could you elaborate tiny bit?

Are you saying that a Virginia resident in Virginia, being stopped by a Virginian police officer is somehow subject to the laws of Wisconsin?
Or were you just giving an example of how different states have different laws?

Or, are you saying that a Wisconsin police officer who comes up to someone and asks "Hey, it sure is hot today; can I have a sip of your Coke and a look at your carry permit?" is acting in his official capacity and with lawful authority to demand compliance?
Is the mere sight of, or knowledge of a firearms existence a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the firearm is being carried illegally?

Why wouldn't an officer seeing a driver operating a car be a reasonable suspicion that the driver was operating the car illegally?
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Dang... you take away All my fun. :p

Speaking of licenses and 'upon demand'... I had an officer demand that I produce my driver's license as identification one day. I declined and he threatened to cite me for same.
"If it'll save you any time, it's sub-paragraph (b) of OCGA 40-5-29." He asked if I was either a cop or a lawyer and I replied "Nope, just someone who thinks you have to know the law to obey the law. By the way, you might want to take a look at sub-paragraph (a) before you write too much."

He went away to write the citation (I guess) and returned in a foul mood and no citation.
I don't pretend to know all the laws, but I dang well make sure I know the ones that might apply to me.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-82.1



Somewhere I have a case law citation that refusing to provide any identificcation is falsely identifying oneself. Darned if I know where I put it.

In the case under discussion the guy in the "tactical vest" was lawfully* detained, which SCOTUS says is the same as being arrested.

stay safe.

* - as much as you may dislike/disagree
If I recall, your only required to identify yourself (local ordinances aside) under common law which provides that one has to identify one's self after dark. ..not provide ID, just state your name and town of residence.
This has been hashed out here before and user clarified it.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If I recall, your only required to identify yourself (local ordinances aside) under common law which provides that one has to identify one's self after dark. ..not provide ID, just state your name and town of residence.
This has been hashed out here before and user clarified it.

Yes. I recall those discussions. It was User's rationale based on the state statute enabling localities to create police departments. The statute gave such police the same powers as old-time constables, one power of which was to question someone outside at night, the recipient of the questions being required to give their name and a good account of themselves.

Like you, that was all I knew about.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Absolutely.
I can't think of a single state that requires one to carry identification.

I can't even think of a state that mandates one even have id, all I've ever seen mandated is licenses and optional identification cards. (With an exception for some states where citizens are performing a licensed activity and must possess that license and additional identification.)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Looks like a "shoot me first" vest. ;)

Seems to me common sense would require police to tell you why you are being detained. We've had these discussion before. How are you to know whether the arrest/detainment is legal or not? Since we still have the right to resist unlawful detainment/arrest.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Looks like a "shoot me first" vest. ;)

Seems to me common sense would require police to tell you why you are being detained. We've had these discussion before. How are you to know whether the arrest/detainment is legal or not? Since we still have the right to resist unlawful detainment/arrest.

It's a tactic. They're only required to inform you of your rights (remain silent, ...will be used..., etc.). If they told you why you were being detained, you might argue about it. This way, you can only protest, and in the process, incriminate yourself. So, as User has said many times, KYBMS.:banghead:

If you believe that the detainment is unlawful, you can certainly attempt to resist, but your efforts will be met with force and may prove more than futile.:eek:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Looks like a "shoot me first" vest. ;)

Seems to me common sense would require police to tell you why you are being detained. We've had these discussion before. How are you to know whether the arrest/detainment is legal or not? Since we still have the right to resist unlawful detainment/arrest.

Oh, you guys are lucky. In Virginia, we no longer have the right to resist an unlawful detention. Commonwealth v Christian. The Va Court of Appeals rationalized that the legal basis and legitimacy of a detention shouldn't be sorted out on the street, but left to the courts. Of course, how you were supposed to exercise your right to resist an unlawful custodial arrest if you were in handcuffs from the detention was left undiscussed.

Yeah, you read that right. Government invents out of thin air a police power to detain people (Terry v Ohio), then other governments agree with that. And, since Terry v Ohio is highly fact-dependent, it is up to the courts to rule on those facts. And, then a group of state government costumed agents (black robes) decide you have no right to resist an illegal detention. Government all the way. Government set it up, government took it further, government erased our right.* Of course, somehow left out of the discussion is the fact that if SCOTUS hadn't invented detentions out of thin air, there wouldn't be any arguments about the legality of resisting a detention.


*By claiming there was no right to resist an illegal detention, since a detention wasn't as serious as an arrest, according to the VA Court of Appeals. Except, the court kinda omitted to mention there was no right to resist a detention because detentions didn't exist before Terry. So, of course, there was no explicit right to resist an illegal detention. What a load of cow manure.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It's a tactic. They're only required to inform you of your rights (remain silent, ...will be used..., etc.). If they told you why you were being detained, you might argue about it. This way, you can only protest, and in the process, incriminate yourself. So, as User has said many times, KYBMS.:banghead:

If you believe that the detainment is unlawful, you can certainly attempt to resist, but your efforts will be met with force and may prove more than futile.:eek:


No its an injustice. Used to be they must have a warrant which fully informs you of the charges.

Yep keep your trap shut.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Oh, you guys are lucky. In Virginia, we no longer have the right to resist an unlawful detention. Commonwealth v Christian. The Va Court of Appeals rationalized that the legal basis and legitimacy of a detention shouldn't be sorted out on the street, but left to the courts. Of course, how you were supposed to exercise your right to resist an unlawful custodial arrest if you were in handcuffs from the detention was left undiscussed.

Yeah, you read that right. Government invents out of thin air a police power to detain people (Terry v Ohio), then other governments agree with that. And, since Terry v Ohio is highly fact-dependent, it is up to the courts to rule on those facts. And, then a group of state government costumed agents (black robes) decide you have no right to resist an illegal detention. Government all the way. Government set it up, government took it further, government erased our right.* Of course, somehow left out of the discussion is the fact that if SCOTUS hadn't invented detentions out of thin air, there wouldn't be any arguments about the legality of resisting a detention.


*By claiming there was no right to resist an illegal detention, since a detention wasn't as serious as an arrest, according to the VA Court of Appeals. Except, the court kinda omitted to mention there was no right to resist a detention because detentions didn't exist before Terry. So, of course, there was no explicit right to resist an illegal detention. What a load of cow manure.

Our courts here screwed us over too for more police/state power.

Justice Sanders wrote a brilliant dissent against it in Spokane vs Valentine with great precedents going back to pre revolutionary common law.

I still believe a right exists no matter what oligarchs in black robes say.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...

OC for ME - you are next:

Who gives a flying [expletive delated] what the law is in Missouri when the question was for a citation to Virginia law? We already have one Connecticutt yanke telling us how to do things properly; we do not need a Border Ruffian joining forces with he whose name shall not be uttered.

I have not looked but I'll bet "this badge on my shirt" is sufficient authority until the actual charge is written. I would be very happy for you to provide MO case law proving me wrong.

sty safe.

OC for ME: Please cite what a cop must do under VA law when he arrests you.
Requesting what a VA cop must do, under VA law, when he arrests a citizen, before I cited what a MO cop must do when he arrests a citizen, under MO law.

I'll go first just to be fair.
The notification to maintain context of my initial request for VA law.

Arrest.
RSMo 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
MO law.

It may be useful, at a later date, to have that cop's justification, at the time of your arrest, on tape, so that your conversation with that cop's supervisor, at a later date, is just a wee bit more productive.
White noise, it seems, in your view.

Now, VA, may permit their cops to arrest anyone without ever saying a word other than to order you to stop resisting.
It seems that a cite is not required.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by skidmark

...

Why do people insist that LEOs should/ought to/need to explain anything other than you are free to go/you are not free to go?

stay safe.
Opinion, obviously.
 
Top