Ethics - Lying to make an arrest

imported post

Here's a couple of questions that may help to clear things up:

These police officers were 'undercover.'

What kind of uniforms were they wearing? If any at all? Did they turn their flashing lights on when they stopped?Did they show their badges if not in uniform? When the guy didn't stop, did he run, or just keep walking normally?

Kinda sounds like to me that all they did was announce themselves as police. Anyone could do that. Not many people would, but a pair of guys with a cruiser-type vehicle could pull off anything like that. Not a good idea, I doubt hardly anyone would do this,but still.

Also, what is the penalty for failing to stop for a uniformed police officer? How about an un-uniformed police officer? What about for an 'officer' that doesn't prove that he is an officer? What about the average joe?

Im asking seriously because I don't know,and I didn't look hard enoughfind the law online for my state, yet.

Gwee

imported post

Thanks for the quick reply. Now consider this:
Given your response and the ease with which an officer can stop, detain and search a citizen, how would one go out in public and insulate himself from being detained and searched by an officer?
It seems to me, by your criterion, that nearly anyone could be detained and searched in their daily travels. Let's face it, I could give someone directions through his car window, turn around, see the cops and though I'm a law-abiding citizen, easily be detained an searched.
I don't personally believe that kind of police discretion is conducive to a free society. Do you?

Click to expand...

Through our daily travels? I wouldn't go that far -- I don't normally find myself in drug-infested neighborhoods unless the windows are up and I'm driving 40+ MPH.

That being said, if you injected yourself... anyone for that manner, into the scenario you presented, then yes, you would've been detained and Terry searched. Mind you, that's not a full-blown search of your person; the officers are limited to an over-the-clothes plain-feel pat down for weapons or contraband. There's also a time limit on how long they can detain you for while they conduct their investigation.

While I agree that abuse of that police discretion isn't good for a free society, our framers specifically guaranteed the freedom against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures... not ALL of them, and this is how the courts have parsed the Fourth Amendment.

Moral of the story, keep your nose clean, try to stay out of bad areas; otherwise the officers are just doing their job, trying to keep crime down in a bad part of town.

imported post

See Brown vs. Texas. Location does not amount to probable cause. Terry allows pat-downs for weapons particularly where there is a reasonable and specifically articulable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place. I don't know of any "high drug area" exceptions to these or the 4th amendment otherwise such as would justify these "I thought he might havea crack pipe" fishing trips.

A cop accused me of having a crack pipe during a bullshit Terry stop as part of a traffic stop. It was a ball-point pen, and he still insisted I was "up to no good" and "going to get into trouble" if I didn't turn my car around "right now" and go home. I did not comply. This is not Soviet Russia, and I will not justify my coming and going to the police.

-ljp

imported post

Legba wrote:

See Brown vs. Texas. Location does not amount to probable cause.

Click to expand...

Location alone is not, but the totality of the circumstances are taken into account.

imported post

Giustiniani wrote:

Also, what is the penalty for failing to stop for a uniformed police officer? How about an un-uniformed police officer? What about for an 'officer' that doesn't prove that he is an officer? What about the average joe?

Click to expand...

If an officer doesn't identify himself, as far as you know he's an average joe. In most cases, an officer, acting under color of law and who is not uniformed, will identify himself as an officer.

If an officer tells you to, "Stop," "Don't move," or, in an authoritative voice otherwise attempts to get you to stop moving and you don't feel that you're free to disobey his command, you are technically under arrest and, failure to stop will most likely get you arrested.

The upside of that is that police are very careful about how they ask you to stop. They'll use questions, "Would you mind stepping over here for a minute," or, "I'd like you to show me your ID now." If that's the case, they're probably engaging in a consentual encounter.

imported post

Giustiniani wrote:

Here's a couple of questions that may help to clear things up:

These police officers were 'undercover.'

What kind of uniforms were they wearing? If any at all? Did they turn their flashing lights on when they stopped?Did they show their badges if not in uniform? When the guy didn't stop, did he run, or just keep walking normally?

Kinda sounds like to me that all they did was announce themselves as police. Anyone could do that. Not many people would, but a pair of guys with a cruiser-type vehicle could pull off anything like that. Not a good idea, I doubt hardly anyone would do this,but still.

Also, what is the penalty for failing to stop for a uniformed police officer? How about an un-uniformed police officer? What about for an 'officer' that doesn't prove that he is an officer? What about the average joe?

Im asking seriously because I don't know,and I didn't look hard enoughfind the law online for my state, yet.

Gwee

Click to expand...

The cops were dressed like street thugs, one of them had a "corrections worker release" orange jacket with the sleeves ripped off and what looked like prison tattoos on his neck. The car had no lights or markings. It was a black unmarked Chevy Impala. If I saw these guys beating this guy, I probably would have drawn down on them, because they looked nothing like cops and were dressed to look like thugs. I would have thought they were mugging him. I wouldn't have stopped for them either, because they didn't look anything like cops and their attitudes reflected street thugs, not authority figures. I probably would have ended up escalating the situation to defend myself from what looks like a mugging.

imported post

Actually, Legba, reading over Texas v. Brown, the posters scenario' is amazingly similar.

Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed.

Click to expand...

So, I could be wrong. Unless the officers knew that the car belonged to someone know for dealing or saw an exchange or had more articulable reasons, the bust would probably be overturned.

Granted, I'd wager that the bust still would have taken place with the hopes that the guy couldn't afford a lawyer worth his salt to recognize the arrest for what it was.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Watch the LIE in this video. Near the end of the video one cop is telling another cop how he verbally warned thedriver before shooting a taser into his back. He claims he said, "Turn around right now, or I tase you!" It's a LIE. The cop made no such verbal warning. I would like to see what he testified to in court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVQxLv8GAM

Click to expand...

The officer may not recall what exactly he said at that moment and it really makes no difference when he gives the basic idea on what happened to the other officer.

He claims he said "Turn around right now or I'll taser you"

What he actually said was "Turn around and put your hands behind your back now!"

In court the cop is not going to "testify" to what he told the guy. He will testify that the driver as speeding and later refused to sign the ticket.

To me... this is not a "lie" as there is no need to be dishonest. He is not required to warn that the driver will be taseredeither. What the cop was actually doing was explaininghis thought process to the other officer. "If this guy does not turn around and put his hands behind his back I am going to have to taser him." He just never converted it all over verbally at that moment.

The driver mistakenly believed he was in charge and decided to dictate the terms for signing the summons.

Now the cop did a bunch of officer safety things wrong and should have explained what would happen if the driver refused to sign. I alsobelieve the cop was a little ticked off even as he walked up to the window. The driver barking his own commands only added fuel to the fire already brewing.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

He claims he said "Turn around right now or I'll taser you"

What he actually said was "Turn around and put your hands behind your back now!"

Click to expand...

During the actual incident he most certainly did say, "Turn around and put your hands behind your back!" We agree on this.

But when the other officer showed up, he said he told the driver, "Turn around right now or I will tase you!" He never made this statement to the driver.

The point is that, sadly enough, many police officers are not accurate in what they think they saw, heard or said. They list these inaccuracies in reports and then testify to these inaccuracies in court. This is why the public accuses them of lying so often.

While none of this may be that important in court, it is important when the use of a taser is beinginvestigated. Especially if protocol dictates you verbally warn before using a taser. And you and I both know this tasing was investigated. "Did you warn the driver you were going to use the taser?" "Yes sir, I told him to turn around right now or I was going to tase him!" Rut roh! Administration views the tape and feels the officer has lied. And if the officer has testified to it in court, he has also lied.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

He claims he said "Turn around right now or I'll taser you"

What he actually said was "Turn around and put your hands behind your back now!"

Click to expand...

During the actual incident he most certainly did say, "Turn around and put your hands behind your back!" We agree on this.

But when the other officer showed up, he said he told the driver, "Turn around right now or I will tase you!" He never made this statement to the driver.

The point is that, sadly enough, many police officers are not accurate in what they think they saw, heard or said. They list these inaccuracies in reports and then testify to these inaccuracies in court. This is why the public accuses them of lying so often.

While none of this may be that important in court, it is important when the use of a taser is beinginvestigated. Especially if protocol dictates you verbally warn before using a taser. And you and I both know this tasing was investigated. "Did you warn the driver you were going to use the taser?" "Yes sir, I told him to turn around right now or I was going to tase him!" Rut roh! Administration views the tape and feels the officer has lied. And if the officer has testified to it in court, he has also lied.

Click to expand...

During any confrontation like this people are not going to remember all the details.

I cannot tell you how many victims of crime I have interviewed that could not remember all the details exactly.

Any citizen will not remember the full and complete details under stress. They will tell you what they remember and the details may not be accurate. This is clearly what happened here.

This officer had no intention to cover up and lie that he never gave a warning. He remembers he gave one because he thought about it. He is on tape so what is the point of telling a lie? Pointless!!!

People do accuse cops of telling lies but there are simply inaccurate statements.

"And if the officer has testified to it in court, he has also lied."

I am not sure what you are talking about here. His testimony about the speeding charge would not be a lie if he did not recall what was said during the arrest.

The details about the arrest would NOT be heard in court as it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the traffic violation.

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Granted, I'd wager that the bust still would have taken place with the hopes that the guy couldn't afford a lawyer worth his salt to recognize the arrest for what it was.

Click to expand...

As long as it isn't happening to you, I guess it's OK, right? And hey, you can probably afford a decent attorney. Screw the little guy who can't. What about his rights, huh?

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Moral of the story, keep your nose clean, try to stay out of bad areas; otherwise the officers are just doing their job, trying to keep crime down in a bad part of town.

Click to expand...

I see that you're willing to place border lines on your freedom and my own. While I respect the existence of such border lines, I'd rather relegate them to the Rio Grande, the 49th paralell, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
To each, his own...

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I do not need to "say" every detail on how I believe it is drug activity when we are about to go out and approach the guy.

If you are working with a partner this is not always necessary. Example... "That guy just ran a red light" and we go stop him.

I do not need to identify how long it was red, what light was ran, or how many feet prior to the stop line he was before it turned red. All this is assumed to exist in the mix and it not important at that moment.

When you have to quickly jump out and make contact and worry about the guy running away... the details can be said later.

So just because it is not on camera does not mean it never happened.

Click to expand...

At this point, we're veering far off the fundamental subject. If you would, please answer the questions given an assumed scenario. I know that we don't have the video and the OP might have missed some or ALL of the details, but let's just assume for the moment that:
1) Perp was merely seen emerging from the parked cars's window.
2) No crack pipe was seen at the time. No other paraphenalia either.
3) None of the cops know anyone or any of the cars/houses on the scene.
4) Subject walks away from the car.
5) Subject continues to walk when the cops ask for him to stop.
6) The officers both suspect drug activity, but no physical evidence was actually seen.

The Question: Is it right and just for the officers at this point, knowing only the information above, to forcibly detain the subject?
I think a lot of people on this forum would like to have an officer's opinion about this. I think we all fully support cops acting on their gut instincts, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. We should just make that line more clear.

Click to expand...

If I could, I'd like to get a serious answer to this question from a knowledgeable LEO. Thank you in advance.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

During any confrontation like this people are not going to remember all the details.

Click to expand...

But I am talking about cops. They need to accurately recall any and all details in their reports and testimony. And to not make statements that simply arenot true and accurate. A person's freedom demands that a coprecall any and all details accurately

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LEO 229 wrote:

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are talking about here. His testimony about the speeding charge would not be a lie if he did not recall what was said during the arrest. The details about the arrest would NOT be heard in court as it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the traffic violation.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it works in your jurisdiction, but where I live a cop will testify to the stop, the driver refusing to sign the summons, and to the actual facts of the physical arrest. Up to and including the use of the taser. Because...... the driver was obviously charged with resisting arrest. Both charges would be heard at the same time in the jurisdiction I live in.

Click to expand...

imported post

I can't stand that show either. It's bad for my bloodpressure as well and my wife doesn't like me to yell at the tv. I can't stand people willingly waiving their rights, guilty or no. The police have a job to do, but the citizen doesn't have to make their case for them. Time and time again these people consent to searches and talk their way into being arrested. You have the right to remain silent, USE IT! :banghead:I have no problem with the police doing their job, but there has to be a balance between our rights and the police. Freely giving up your rights tips the balance in their favor and emboldens the police to intimidate citizens into waiving their rights and makes it worse for the rest of use.

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

At this point, we're veering far off the fundamental subject. If you would, please answer the questions given an assumed scenario. I know that we don't have the video and the OP might have missed some or ALL of the details, but let's just assume for the moment that:
1) Perp was merely seen emerging from the parked cars's window.
2) No crack pipe was seen at the time. No other paraphenalia either.
3) None of the cops know anyone or any of the cars/houses on the scene.
4) Subject walks away from the car.
5) Subject continues to walk when the cops ask for him to stop.
6) The officers both suspect drug activity, but no physical evidence was actually seen.

The Question: Is it right and just for the officers at this point, knowing only the information above, to forcibly detain the subject?
I think a lot of people on this forum would like to have an officer's opinion about this. I think we all fully support cops acting on their gut instincts, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. We should just make that line more clear.

Click to expand...

If I could, I'd like to get a serious answer to this question from a knowledgeable LEO. Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

Your situation lacks some details....

But in your own scene the officers suspect "drug activity." Based on the location and their training and experience they must know something is up. You cannot just "suspect it" if there is not something to back it up.

• Location known for drug usage
• Location known for drug sales
• Time of day
• Acting suspicious
• Refusing to stop for police
• Location of parked vehicle
• Interaction between the occupant and the pedestrian

So to answer your question... YES!

And as far as someone refusing to stop when told to do so... the courts have ruled you can be stopped with force.

The same as if a guy turns and walks from you when you come around the corner. If the police tell you to stop you shall stop! You do not have to talk but you will stop and see what the police want.

If the police observe behavior that is suspicious they have a duty to check it out.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

At this point, we're veering far off the fundamental subject. If you would, please answer the questions given an assumed scenario. I know that we don't have the video and the OP might have missed some or ALL of the details, but let's just assume for the moment that:
1) Perp was merely seen emerging from the parked cars's window.
2) No crack pipe was seen at the time. No other paraphenalia either.
3) None of the cops know anyone or any of the cars/houses on the scene.
4) Subject walks away from the car.
5) Subject continues to walk when the cops ask for him to stop.
6) The officers both suspect drug activity, but no physical evidence was actually seen.

The Question: Is it right and just for the officers at this point, knowing only the information above, to forcibly detain the subject?
I think a lot of people on this forum would like to have an officer's opinion about this. I think we all fully support cops acting on their gut instincts, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. We should just make that line more clear.

Click to expand...

If I could, I'd like to get a serious answer to this question from a knowledgeable LEO. Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

Your situation lacks some details....

But in your own scene the officers suspect "drug activity." Based on the location and their training and experience they must know something is up. You cannot just "suspect it" if there is not something to back it up.

• Location known for drug usage
• Location known for drug sales
• Time of day
• Acting suspicious
• Refusing to stop for police
• Location of parked vehicle
• Interaction between the occupant and the pedestrian

So to answer your question... YES!

And as far as someone refusing to stop when told to do so... the courts have ruled you can be stopped with force.

The same as if a guy turns and walks from you when you come around the corner. If the police tell you to stop you shall stop! You do not have to talk but you will stop and see what the police want.

If the police observe behavior that is suspicious they have a duty to check it out.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on requesting a person stop for an encounter. I can even get behind a REQUIREMENT to stop. I'm glad that you, and presumably other officers, recognize a right not to speak, BUT:
If you are able to stop and pat me down based merely on my location and "suspicious behavior," I regard this as a violation of my rights.

In this case, the suspicious behavior, talking to someone in a car while I am not, certainly doesn't pass the Terry test of "articulate suspicion" of criminal activity.

So I can support stopping him forcefully in this case, but only if it is made clear to the public that if I stop and don't talk, that I can go on my way within X amount of time.

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

Wynder wrote:

Moral of the story, keep your nose clean, try to stay out of bad areas; otherwise the officers are just doing their job, trying to keep crime down in a bad part of town.

Click to expand...

I see that you're willing to place border lines on your freedom and my own. While I respect the existence of such border lines, I'd rather relegate them to the Rio Grande, the 49th paralell, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
To each, his own...

Click to expand...

I'm not speaking from my personal point of view -- I'm trying to take my opinion out of the equation and look at it from a purely legal standpoint and what will most likely happen.

Someone asked a question, I gave an answer based on previous court decisions and precedence. If it were me speaking on my own opinion, it would be a completely different answer.

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

I'm with you on requesting a person stop for an encounter. I can even get behind a REQUIREMENT to stop. I'm glad that you, and presumably other officers, recognize a right not to speak, BUT:
If you are able to stop and pat me down based merely on my location and "suspicious behavior," I regard this as a violation of my rights.

In this case, the suspicious behavior, talking to someone in a car while I am not, certainly doesn't pass the Terry test of "articulate suspicion" of criminal activity.

So I can support stopping him forcefully in this case, but only if it is made clear to the public that if I stop and don't talk, that I can go on my way within X amount of time.

Click to expand...

A cop is not normally going to just stop people just to stop them. Cops are not that hard up to F with people. I am not saying it could not or does not happen. Anything is possible.

The police must determine if your are involved in criminal activity in a "reasonable" amount of time or let you go. That time is not set in stone.

Now if you are suspected of something that involved guns... like being in a gang.. the courts have already ruled that pat down of suspected gang members is absolutely permitted.

Yes..if I suspect you are a gang member I get to pat you down!! I will try and find the ruling.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The police must determine if your are involved in criminal activity in a "reasonable" amount of time or let you go. That time is not set in stone.

Click to expand...

Some states have this codified. In Delaware's codification of the Terry encounter, an officer has two hours to conduct his investigation. (Del. Code Title 11, Chapt. 9, Subchap. I, § 1902(c))