A crack in the "police can ask anything they want" paradigm?

Yes, from Oregon, but many folks here will be interested in this.

OCDO:Oregon - Cops must have good reason to ask if people have guns on them

OR Supreme Court: Police Can’t Ask If a Person is Armed Without Cause

TFred

Well, here, they can ask whatever they want, just like anyone else. And, just as if I were talking to anyone else, my standard answer is, "I prefer not to chat about such things, thank you.", and walk away.

user said:

Well, here, they can ask whatever they want, just like anyone else. And, just as if I were talking to anyone else, my standard answer is, "I prefer not to chat about such things, thank you.", and walk away.

Click to expand...

How about: "I do not consent to this conversation. You are free to go."

user said:

Well, here, they can ask whatever they want, just like anyone else...

Click to expand...

This law is recognizing that most people are intimidated into answering unnecessary questions when they come from badges.

From the OCDO link provided in the op.

user said:

Officer safety is a valid concern. The problem is that officer paranoia is not. The best thing we can do to promote officer safety is to give them training in situational awareness. I think every cop ought to be required to take the NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home course. When cops take away a gun without a valid reason to believe that the person is a present threat, well, in Virginia, that's grand larceny (but only if the gun and whatever magazine and ammo is in it is worth more than five bucks) and robbery. They can and should be sued for that kind of tortious activity.

Click to expand...

Sued for grand larceny and robbery? Are cops exempt from criminal violations while on the clock?

A cop can ask you anything he wants, uninvited, and your refusal to participate will land you in hot water.

user said:

Well, here, they can ask whatever they want, just like anyone else. And, just as if I were talking to anyone else, my standard answer is, "I prefer not to chat about such things, thank you.", and walk away.

Click to expand...

good answer USER, I am sure you assumed asking, " Am I being detained", and "am I free to go". If not I will not talk till I call USER, Or his ilk

papa bear said:

good answer USER, I am sure you assumed asking, " Am I being detained", and "am I free to go". If not I will not talk till I call USER, Or his ilk

Click to expand...

I figure they'll tell me if I'm not free to leave, at which point I submit to arrest and say, "I want my lawyer.", and practice KYBMS.

user said:

I figure they'll tell me if I'm not free to leave, at which point I submit to arrest and say, "I want my lawyer.", and practice KYBMS.

Click to expand...

In your earlier post you said you would say you prefer not to chat and walk away.

I'm not so sure that's such a good idea anymore. While a distinguished looking fella your age might be able to do that confident he'll only be told to stay, we've already got reports on this forum of police being deliberately deceptive, telling an OCer he wasn't being detained, but then telling the OCer he wasn't free to leave.

The last thing I'm going to do is give a cop an excuse to lay hands on me, and maybe prone me out. It is plain some cops have moved in the direction of seeming to make an encounter consensual in order to lull the detainee into talking, strengthening the cop's 4A position that even though he had reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) for a detention, the target divulged the information consensually. Lets face it, when was the last time anybody heard a cop announce at the outset that he was detaining somebody? It has been in the cop's interest to keep the issue foggy at the outset. Deliberately pretending a consensual encounter when he considers he has RAS is only a tiny refinement. No way I'm going to risk being proned-out by walking away.

I favor much more the tactic of telling the police at the outset, "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you." A federal judge in (MD?) recently advocated that very tactic in his/her dissent after I'd been recommending it for a few years now. By refusing consent to the encounter itself at the outset, I put the 4A legal ball back in the cop's court. Now, he must play that ball. He either has to let me go, or commit to a detention. The next words out of his mouth tell me all I need to know. If he says anything other than "have a nice day, sir", then I just assume I am detained.

Least we forget, CITIZEN. It will also be your word against the automatic believed LEO. He/she can and will say anything to make their case.
You either need lots of good witnesses, and/or a good recorder