Severe DISLIKE for Norfolk Police now.

imported post

TheEggman wrote:

Agreed all. They have the authority to make a cursory check on a Domestic Disturbance call. They can't open drawers, look in closets, etc, just make a check that everyone is OK.

Suggestions for future encounters with the police, or authority in general, whether or not they act like jerks or JBTs...

If an officer wants to arrest you for standing in your own front yard, be firm, polite and please, cooperate.

Be polite and cooperative, even when they blatantly violate your rights.

Depending on the quantity and quality of witnesses, there is a serious imbalance of power, with you, the citizen, generally being on the short end. The officer, right or wrong, has the power to make your life absolutely miserable, and in an 'at the scene' confrontation, you will lose.

Your best action is to remain quiet, speak only when spoken to, only give direct answers with no elaboration, take notes and be a good witness.

Even if an officer has absolutely no probable cause he can and often will ask if he may search your vehicle or come inside your home. He has the right to ask, it's his job.

You also have a right to politely refuse. Should he insist and search in spite of your polite and clear objections, don't get in his way.

AFTER the incident is over and adreneline and alcohol have dissipated is the time to start asserting your rights, writing letters, filing complaints, calling lawyers and pursuing other 'procedural' channels.

NEVER be a disrespectful jerk when sitting in the police officers office. (his car) Just as your being a jerk doesn't justify his being one, neither do his attitude and/or actions justify you being one either. When the smoke clears you want it to be obvious that YOU were the one who remained on the high ground.

ALWAYS follow through with appropriate action if your rights have truly been violated.

Click to expand...

+1

This is the practice I followed with my incident withan Henrico PD officer who was later disciplined, and I still believe it is exactly why things worked out so well for me (and not as much for the officer).

It seems like common sense to me; why some people don't see it this way is beyond me....

imported post

Don't forget to send a FOIA requesting the 911 call and dispatch radio traffic. This to verify that there actually was a "domestic" call. There is no reason to accept the police officer's statement of their purpose.

It is easily within reach for the police to twist a call into an excuse to come in and look around.Logic would dictate that since that is all the LT did,then likely that is all they wanted to do; but again, there is no reason to accept the officer's word.

If the officer knew for sure that she had authority to arrest the room mate, she wouldn't have been asking about it later.

Also, whoever falsely reported the domestic dispute needs to be acted against. Its not hard to tell when only one person is yelling. And its not hard to tell when someone is just yelling to make noise, and when there is a real fight going on, unless one of thefighters is mute.

Separately, this obstruction nonsense needs to be handled. Citizens can't be expected to know all the intricacies of the case law on the 4th Amendment. It sets them up for a guaranteed arrest if they stand on their perceived rights against warrantless searches in circumstances like these. Police are known to lie.How can a conscientious citizen accept the police officer's word on the spot that the officer has authority to enter when his whole life the citizen has been taught, "not without a warrant."

My outrage would be boundless had this happened to me.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Don't forget to send a FOIA requesting the 911 call and dispatch radio traffic. This to verify that there actually was a "domestic" call. There is no reason to accept the police officer's statement of their purpose.

It is easily within reach for the police to twist a call into an excuse to come in and look around.Logic would dictate that since that is all the LT did,then likely that is all they wanted to do; but again, there is no reason to accept the officer's word.

If the officer knew for sure that she had authority to arrest the room mate, she wouldn't have been asking about it later.

Also, whoever falsely reported the domestic dispute needs to be acted against. Its not hard to tell when only one person is yelling. And its not hard to tell when someone is just yelling to make noise, and when there is a real fight going on, unless one of thefighters is mute.

Separately, this obstruction nonsense needs to be handled. Citizens can't be expected to know all the intricacies of the case law on the 4th Amendment. It sets them up for a guaranteed arrest if they stand on their perceived rights against warrantless searches in circumstances like these. Police are known to lie.How can a conscientious citizen accept the police officer's word on the spot that the officer has authority to enter when his whole life the citizen has been taught, "not without a warrant."

My outrage would be boundless had this happened to me.

Click to expand...

Not attacking you personally, but how many times has it been said on this board that the police should be better informed when they make a mistake? They should know the laws and damn them all the hell when they mess up...Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the citizens to know their rights?

And why attack the police because they were called? You almost make it sound like they targeted this specific residence. They have to act on what they are told by the person that made the call.

imported post

"And for why we blocked the cop. Because its my legal right in my residence, you want inyou can ask."

What I am seeing is that you say you only wanted to be asked and you would have allowed them to enter.

So it seems that you have become offended that the officer did not bow down to you as the king of the castle. Even though you understand she had the authority to make entry you still want to complain.

She did not need to ask and when a LEO demands entry it is probably best to allow since they are going to come in anyway. Asking and demanding create two different situations. Did you really think standing in the doorway would keep them out?



I am quickly reminds of the movie "A few good men"

JESSEP
But you have to ask me nicely.

KAFFEE stops. Turns around. Sam and JO stop and turn.

KAFFEE
I beg your pardon?

JESSEP
You have to ask me nicely. You see,
Danny, I can deal with the bullets and the
bombs and the blood. I can deal with the
heat and the stress and the fear. I don't
want money and I don't want medals. What
I want is for you to stand there in that
faggoty white uniform, and with your
Harvard mouth, extend me some fuckin'
courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.



You wanted to be asked and it was not required in this situation. You willingly and knowingly blocked the cop without fully understanding the totality of the situation.

I say caulk it up to a learning experience and let it go.

They did not target you're housefor entry to go find illegal activity. They were called there and determined it was necessary to check on everyones safety.

IMO.. you look like a jack ass right now. :?

imported post

Highlander wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Don't forget to send a FOIA requesting the 911 call and dispatch radio traffic. This to verify that there actually was a "domestic" call. There is no reason to accept the police officer's statement of their purpose.

It is easily within reach for the police to twist a call into an excuse to come in and look around.Logic would dictate that since that is all the LT did,then likely that is all they wanted to do; but again, there is no reason to accept the officer's word.

If the officer knew for sure that she had authority to arrest the room mate, she wouldn't have been asking about it later.

Also, whoever falsely reported the domestic dispute needs to be acted against. Its not hard to tell when only one person is yelling. And its not hard to tell when someone is just yelling to make noise, and when there is a real fight going on, unless one of thefighters is mute.

Separately, this obstruction nonsense needs to be handled. Citizens can't be expected to know all the intricacies of the case law on the 4th Amendment. It sets them up for a guaranteed arrest if they stand on their perceived rights against warrantless searches in circumstances like these. Police are known to lie.How can a conscientious citizen accept the police officer's word on the spot that the officer has authority to enter when his whole life the citizen has been taught, "not without a warrant."

My outrage would be boundless had this happened to me.

Click to expand...

Not attacking you personally, but how many times has it been said on this board that the police should be better informed when they make a mistake? They should know the laws and damn them all the hell when they mess up...Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the citizens to know their rights?

And why attack the police because they were called? You almost make it sound like they targeted this specific residence. They have to act on what they are told by the person that made the call.

Click to expand...

What would it take, seriously, to train all citizens, or even a significant number of them to know the intricacies of the 4th Amendment? I've been studying evenings, a few hours here, a few hours there for over a year to aquire my level of knowledge. I won't hold myself up as some wizard, but compared to the general population, lets face it, some of us are about as expert as you can be without being a lawyer. How many citizens are like that outside of the ACLU and some non-profit groups?

Now, if everyone were that knowledgeable, great!!! And great in more ways than one. I'm all for it. The first immediate thing we would see is that police would be forced to become extremely professional.

But not even close to everybody is.That is the situation.The 4th Amendment is a controlling factor everysingle time a police officer says even hello to a citizen. Its not asking too muchfor police to be completely familiar with the current policies (case law) affecting how they do their job.Let me be clear. I am nottalking about the summaries prepared by the DA,thepolice accreditation agency, orwhoever. I am talking aboutthe actual court opinions themselves. I can readthem. So can police.

Yes, citizens shouldknow their rights. But goddam it, it shouldn't be actionable to knowand act on the level of right's knowledge taught in high school. Especially on points that might come up once or twice in a life time. Its one thing to not exerciseyour rights andget pushed around by the cops. Its something else to think you are totally in theclear in exercisingwhat you were taught in high school,and then find out the government itself set you up so youwould get arrested for doing so.

As I said, my outragewould be boundless.



BTW, all it would take for the current circumstance is a statute immunizing a citizen from prosecution for standing on what he thinks are his rights. Or preventing prosecution. The cop can drag him out of the way and temporarily cuff him; but then turns him loose once the checking is done. Also, just asa somewhat related example of the state recognizing people may stand on their rights erroneously, do not police in VA have to inform a citizen of the consequences of refusing a blood alcohol test?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

... Police are known to lie.How can a conscientious citizen accept the police officer's word on the spot that the officer has authority to enter when his whole life the citizen has been taught, "not without a warrant."...

Click to expand...

Courts have upheld that it's OK for the police to lie to you under many/most circumstances.

I don't believe that anyone should accept the officers word.

You should let them know that they do not have your permission to enter, but you should not actively resist other than go 'on-record' with ... "If you choose to come inside I will not physically interfere, but please be advised that you will be coming inside without my permission and over my objection."

If later, it's determined that they had PC or were otherwise justified in their entry, then you lost nothing. If they blew it, however, get yourself a greedy contingency lawyer in a $1,200 silk suit and start looking at cruise vacations.

The key is to remain cool, civil and non-confrontational during any LEO encounter. You can do that while also being firm and clear about your rights and objections.

Waking up handcuffed to a gurney in the E.R. while they pick pieces of Officer Friendly's night stick out of your scalp is not a desirable outcome.

Getting a piece of 'their' hide ($$) even if you go have to give half of it up to accountants, lawyers and the IRS -- priceless.

BTW-IANAL

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in the above is intended to; a) encourage anyone to do anything that might break any rule, law, regulation, ordinance, covenant, suggestion, official sign, reasonable direction of a police officer or any act ruled inappropriate by any authority, whether or not sanctioned by the current authority or b) offend, threaten to offend or think about offending anyone else, including; every possible combination of cultural, intellectual, physical, philisophical, genetic and other irrelevant differences between various; peoples, individuals, species and all other entities and creatures, living or dead who. either/or were, are, have yet to be, ought to be or never will be in this or any other universe, dimension, reality or quantum entity yet to be discovered.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Snipped....
Yes, citizens shouldknow their rights. But goddam it, it shouldn't be actionable to knowand act on the level of right's knowledge taught in high school. Especially on points that might come up once or twice in a life time. Its one thing to not exerciseyour rights andget pushed around by the cops. Its something else to think you are totally in theclear in exercisingwhat you were taught in high school,and then find out the government itself set you up so youwould get arrested for doing so.

As I said, my outragewould be boundless.

BTW, all it would take for the current circumstance is a statute immunizing a citizen from prosecution for standing on what he thinks are his rights. Or preventing prosecution. The cop can drag him out of the way and temporarily cuff him; but then turns him loose once the checking is done. Also, just asa somewhat related example of the state recognizing people may stand on their rights erroneously, do not police in VA have to inform a citizen of the consequences of refusing a blood alcohol test?

Click to expand...

I can agree with much of what you said.

But people must understand and acknowledge that they do not always need to becombative and resistivewith the police if they think they are right. Sometimes your NOT right.

Some here see the police as the enemy pure and simple when this is so far from the truth. Most people knowthe policeare out protecting people and property as this IS their job.

In this case the police had a job to doand a few people decided to block entry even after the police ordered them to step aside or be arrested. This is a clue.... it is not a request for you to move it was an order. An order that did not go over well by someone who thought he was right. I can respect that.

So what happens if you break the law and maybe you did not know and now the police want to arrest you? They order you to put your hands behind your back and you refuse knowing "you" did nothing wrong. Do you fight the cop or run? Do you stand there and challenge the cop?

You get charged with resisting arrest!The same rule applies in thisevent. If the two of you think you are right then why fight about it and possibly cause injury to each other? You would allow the officer to arrest you peaceably and work it out later.

imported post

TheEggman wrote:

Citizen wrote:

... Police are known to lie.How can a conscientious citizen accept the police officer's word on the spot that the officer has authority to enter when his whole life the citizen has been taught, "not without a warrant."...

Click to expand...

Courts have upheld that it's OK for the police to lie to you under many/most circumstances.

I don't believe that anyone should accept the officers word.

You should let them know that they do not have your permission to enter, but you should not actively resist other than go 'on-record' with ... "If you choose to come inside I will not physically interfere, but please be advised that you will be coming inside without my permission and over my objection."

If later, it's determined that they had PC or were otherwise justified in their entry, then you lost nothing. If they blew it, however, get yourself a greedy contingency lawyer in a $1,200 silk suit and start looking at cruise vacations.

The key is to remain cool, civil and non-confrontational during any LEO encounter. You can do that while also being firm and clear about your rights and objections.

Waking up handcuffed to a gurney in the E.R. while they pick pieces of Officer Friendly's night stick out of your scalp is not a desirable outcome.

Getting a piece of 'their' hide ($$) even if you go have to give half of it up to accountants, lawyers and the IRS -- priceless.

BTW-IANAL

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in the above is intended to; a) encourage anyone to do anything that might break any rule, law, regulation, ordinance, covenant, suggestion, official sign, reasonable direction of a police officer or any act ruled inappropriate by any authority, whether or not sanctioned by the current authority or b) offend, threaten to offend or think about offending anyone else, including; every possible combination of cultural, intellectual, physical, philisophical, genetic and other irrelevant differences between various; peoples, individuals, species and all other entities and creatures, living or dead who. either/or were, are, have yet to be, ought to be or never will be in this or any other universe, dimension, reality or quantum entity yet to be discovered.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!!!

But some people are too stubborn and refuse to "bow down" to the Government agents. They stick to the fact that they are protected against unreasonable searches and think that this allows them to actively block the police from making any type of entry. As believed was the case here blocking the door.

What it really does is protect them from being charged by anything obtained illegally and that is a matter for the courts to decide.

Blocking the police while not knowing what they do will cause you to be arrested for obstruction unnecessarily. Gee... as was the case here.

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Lysander - it isnt in a statute, its case law

Click to expand...

Had a feeling, but taking the time to research it would take away from prep time I needed for tomorrow AM. That wouldn't have made the client happy, and (almost as importantly) wouldn't have been billable. :celebrate


[sub]Nothing in the above message constitutes Legal Advice. Material is provided for informational/entertainment or other purposes and is not intended to constitute or be relied upon as Legal Advice. This is not an offer to form an attorney-client relationship. This is not advertising, nor intended to be such. While I am an attorney, I am NOT YOUR attorney.[/sub]

imported post

Ok, I guess I was not very clear about how she tried to gain entry.

She walked through my roommate and his brother on the porch and proceeded to try and open the door without saying a word to him. He stepped in to the doorway and told her calmly "You are not coming in without a warrant." Nobody was being an asshole to them. She demanded he move, so he repeated himself. Thats when she grabbed his arm and told him he was being arrested for Obstruction of Justice. The whole situation lasted less than 10 seconds.

I never said I wanted to have a discussion with the officer. But she sure as hell could have stated "We have to check on everybody on premise." None of us would have stopped them if they asked to check everyones welfare. But no, she chose to become forceful. I don't care who the person is, forced entry into my home does not make me a giddy person.

IMO I don't look like a jackass right now. Come talk to me when an officer forces their way through into your home. Even with you being a LEO you are going to question it.

She did not need to ask and when a LEO demands entry it is probably best to allow since they are going to come in anyway. Asking and demanding create two different situations. Did you really think standing in the doorway would keep them out?

Click to expand...

No, standing in the doorway wont keep them out. But it sure would build a nice case against them for unlawful entry because as you say it "they are coming in anyway." So ultimately, we should just toss out the 4th then. Probable cause is a bullshit claim. You know it, so does everyone else. But that has nothing to do with what occurred last night.

There is always a right way and a wrong way. She chose the wrong way to go about it. The LT even agreed with the fact that he said they would let him go. But the arresting officer did not appreciate my roommate telling her that it was a bullshit move on her part.

imported post

This is an interesting discussion but a bit off topic and as there may be info here that could be used in court I shutting it down.

imported post

Well, it would be a wonderful world if we were all very polite and gave greetings and salutations to everyone we met.

Yousee the cop headed for the door and walking past you.

Youask "Can I help you? I live here."

You show a willingness to help and advise that sinceyou actually live thereyou have some standing. Instead of being an unknown person getting in the way and becoming challenging and confrontational with the officer.

[line]

This thread is still in line with forum Rule #1

1) Since we are a site dedicated to open carry, freedom, liberty, firearms and gun rights, all posts should relate in some way to one of these topics.

Discussing matters here would be no different than talking about the following case under investigation

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/9785.html

Of this one that was pending a court date while we all chatted about the details

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=4751

The subject that was arrested is not even posting anything here.

This is actually an excellent discussion that deals special situations.

imported post

Yet another thread immediately closed after 229 recommended it. This has got me puzzled now.

I always make a final post when I close a thread with an explanation, re: "EDIT - Closed - WAY off topic - BobCav"