Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Police Encounters

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    I started writing a response to a post in one of the state forums, and got carried away. Since these situations seem to happen over and over, I’m going to cross-post it here as well.

    He approached me and asked if I was carrying a firearm and I replied "yes." He then asked for my CCW, which I produced and then asked for my driver's license. I replied that I wasn't required to produce my driver's license (as I was producing it anyways)but would ID myself for them. At that point Officer Clemmons grew belligerent (and the wife started to get panicky) and started talking about handcuffs and arrest (while he had possession of my driver's license.) I dropped the matter of the driver's license as he proceeded to call me in..."Can I get a 'wanted check' on a white male..."
    I think most of us that have been ‘detained’ have felt this apprehension. We sometimes forget that the police are not talking to us because they enjoy a friendly conversation; neither do they want to do us any favors. When they start talking about handcuffs or arrest, they either genuinely do not know the law (unlikely) or they are disappointed at your lack of anxiety of them and their authority.

    This is based on my (too many) experiences with law enforcement officers:

    When you don’t respond properly to their low level intimidation, they may take it up a notch at a time until one of two things happen; you become compliant, or they reach a line in the sand they don’t want to cross. Of course, they also have the option of just letting it go, and hopefully that’s what will happen, but there are times when they may want to force compliance. To do that they use intimidation.

    The first level of intimidation is presence. They approach you and stand nearer to you than you may be comfortable with, one will likely flank you and stand in your blind spot, both will have their hands in front of them at the ready position. They know they’re embarrassing you in front of your significant other and the general public, that’s part of the plan. 95% of the population will immediately respond to these actions with apprehension and compliance. When you don’t, the officer may suspect you are mentally unbalanced or a lawyer (or both).

    The next level is the demand for identification. 95% of the population believes that you must obey any order given by a police officer. If you refuse or otherwise display a lack of appropriate trepidation for their authority, they have two paths to take; take the whole thing further, or appeal to your desire to be helpful and your desire end the encounter quickly. The second path usually involves dialog like, “Look, I don’t want to arrest you, you seem like a good guy, just give me your ID and we can get out of here.” This is a bluff. If they could arrest you – they would. They aren’t paid, and they don’t get bullet statements for their performance reports, by doing favors, but by making arrests. You can certainly be polite when you refuse their requests/demands, thus playing along with their whole “friendly” nonsense, which lets them know that tactic isn’t working on you. In my case, the officer used “friendly repetition” and asked repeatedly, even throwing in a personal favor to further entice me to comply. (He tried to get me to surrender my CPL so he could check the expiration date for me. What a guy.) In the case cited above, the poster was complying but also verbally objecting at the same time, so the officer had to regain the high ground by taking it up a notch.

    This is where the officer gets into dangerous territory because he’s hoping that he will find something to justify his actions, up to and including this point in time, or hoping he can BS his way out if he’s ever called to the mat over the incident. Up to this point, his supervisors will probably back his actions, even if his actions weren’t completely legal. The rules of Terry are easily overlooked when a handgun is involved. You don’t have to agree with that, just understand the reality. This is why it’s so important to have a witness, preferably an audio or video recording. The officer is standing on the line in the sand now; he can walk away or cross over. It’s very hard to walk away, it’s a pride or ego thing. If he decides to cross the line, he will probably handcuff you and take your identification. Under the law, he can only pat you down for the presence of weapons during a Terry seizure. How does a wallet feel like a weapon? Well, they can always claim that a razor blade is easily concealed in a wallet, and your wallet is easy to reach even while cuffed. Expect to be verbally berated and lectured. He wants you to be amenable, he wants to hear that you agree with his position that you conceal or not carry in that place. Meanwhile, his partner is running your name and possibly the serial number on your gun. They’re fishing at this point, hoping that something will give them justification for this whole event. That’s illegal, but it’s all they have. They don’t care that the prosecutor won’t press charges, or if he does that it will get thrown out in court, they need a reason. When you come back clean, he can either let you go with a stern warning while implying the whole thing was for your benefit, or move up to the next rung.

    Arrest is pretty rare actually. If you’ve held out this long and they decide to arrest you, they either believe they’re right (again, very unlikely) or they’re trying to teach you a lesson. The lesson has nothing to do with your handgun, and everything to do with teaching you to respect their authority.

    So, how does one prevail when the scenario begins to become apparent? Where does one decide to get off the ladder - to tuck tail and comply?

    First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established. Second, KNOW the laws in your state and KNOW your rights. Study Terry stops as well as what the limitations are on the police if you are stopped, detained, or arrested. Confidence is your best tool. Remember, if they could arrest you – they would. They wouldn’t waste time giving you a stern lecture, they would talk to you enough to get you to incriminate yourself and then just slap the cuffs on.

    We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

    The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question. The rules and limits are different for a simple conversation, a detainment, and an arrest. You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

    Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and WALK AWAY. If the officer says yes, that he or she is detaining you, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” There is, after all, the possibility that their actions are justified and there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If you are being justifiably detained and you can help the officer, do so. If a guy wearing the same color shirt as you just robbed the 7-11, your cooperation can help the officer get back to looking for the real culprit.

    If they cannot articulate a real crime for which they suspect your involvement, you need to begin objecting to their seizure. I say “real crime” because I once was told that I was being detained “because you’re carrying a gun”. Well, that’s not, all by itself, a crime. Feel free to point that out while you ask for a supervisor. If the law in your state does not require you to produce a concealed weapon permit or license when you are not carrying concealed; don’t. Are you worried he may arrest you or cite you for not doing so? Eh, so what. This is why it’s important to KNOW the law. It would be best if the supervisor arrives and defuses the situation before it comes to arrest, but don’t be so intimidated by the possibility that you waive your other rights. If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING. From the point they tell you you’re under arrest, say absolutely nothing other than the information they need for your booking sheet (name, address, etc.) until you receive competent legal advice. It’s unlikely it will come to that though. Think about it, the officer is so antagonized that he’s being verbally abusive to you, but he’s willing to “do you a favor” by not arresting you if you would just comply. Recognize it for what it is; a bluff.

  2. #2
    Regular Member CrossFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Irving, Texas, USA
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    Excellent post Mainsail.

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Good job! Timeless and valuable information.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    Great post! Just two things to add:

    First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established.
    You forgot to list Wyoming. <G>

    And, for a great step by step manual on all this, read "You & The Police" by Boston T. Party. http://javelinpress.com/you_and_the_police.html
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Good job! Timeless and valuable information.
    +1 ... Well done Mainsail

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    A very well thought out post. I really enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post


    We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

    Yes!!! Finally, someone else gets it! When you are approached by the police, it is probably NOT a social call!

    Give them any paperwork required and SHUT YOUR MOUTH. Resist any urge to tell them that their behavior is illegal or argue with them or anything. It CAN NOT HELP. If they are going to arrest you, they will. If they won't, then they won't.

    People learn wonderful lessons in court as a defendant and when they are writing you a big, fat check. Save the lessons for then.

    If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING.

    I disagree. The first and only thing you should say is "I want a lawyer and I do not wish to be questioned." THEN stop talking.

    1. Am I being detained?

    2. Am I free to go?

    3. I want a lawyer.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hanover County, Virginia, ,
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first.
    Excellent post! I just want to clarify one thing that could be misunderstood in this quoted section of your post.

    You are correct that the officer cannot rely on information obtained AFTER he has detained you to provide the required RAS for the detention. However, unless a detention has clearly occurred (the officer tells you that you are being detained in response to your question, or you are in handcuffs), the encounter will probably begin as a consensual encounter. Anything you say during the consensual encounter can give the officer RAS to detain you or PC to arrest you.

    The material presented herein is for informational purposes only, is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date, does not constitute legal advice, and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. You should NOT act or rely on any information in this post or e-mail without seeking the advice of an attorney YOU have retained.

    In plain English, while I am an attorney, I am NOT your attorney, and I am NOT giving you legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    Carpetbagger wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first.
    Excellent post! I just want to clarify one thing that could be misunderstood in this quoted section of your post.

    You are correct that the officer cannot rely on information obtained AFTER he has detained you to provide the required RAS for the detention. However, unless a detention has clearly occurred (the officer tells you that you are being detained in response to your question, or you are in handcuffs), the encounter will probably begin as a consensual encounter. Anything you say during the consensual encounter can give the officer RAS to detain you or PC to arrest you.
    Exactly, that's why I wrote:

    The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question.You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Good post.

    I am an advocate of compliance without consent and then following up as appropriate.

    Carry those voice recorders!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    I know we have and seem to cover this quite often in the WA forum. Good idea compiling some nice information and suggestions and putting it out in a potentially more seen location.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Great post, Mainsail.

    For myself, if I can afford the possible delay that might arise from being uncooperative, I plan to also refuse consent to the encounter itself--the first thing I say. I'm basing this on the assumption that I will be able to tell pretty quick if the officer is interested in me or just asking whether I saw a man run by with purse.

    "Officer, I know you're just doing your job; but I do not consent to this encounter." This way there can beless quibble later whether I consented by staying. Nobody canmistakenly think I consented when the first thing I said was that I didn't consent.

    "...do not consent to this encounter. Am I free to go?" Or, if I do not want to leave, "Please leave me alone."

    Anything other than "you're free to go" from the officer--hesitation,evasion, a question--and I plan topick upimmediatelywith Mainsail's advice,slightly modified, "Why am I being detained?"As opposed to, "Am I being detained." If I've already refused consent, and the cop stays, its almost inescapeable that I'm being detained.

    Don't get me wrong. Mainsail's suggestions sound very good to me. Nothing wrong with it if you know and accept the calculated risks of non-cooperation in the first place.I'm just expanding on it slightly for a slight additional advantage. Namely seizing the conversational initiative, and forcing the cop into the position of needing legitimate reasonable suspicion to continue the encounter at all.

    Which brings up an important point. Do not let the cop have total control conversationally. Do not fall into answering the questions.By doing so you yield the initiative to the cop. He asks, you answer,and he just asks his next question. Maintain control of at least your half of the conversation by ignoring his questions and asking your own.

    This is at least as important as thequestions themselves. Personally I think it more important. By asking and answeringquestions, you are negotiating your immediate freedom and legal jeopardy. By ignoring questions andasking yourown, that is tosay by maintaining control of the conversation, you arecontrolling how the negotiation will be conducted.


    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
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    Excellent article!!!!

    When it comes to showing an ID while OC'ing, I would never do it. Just to be sure, I practice "sterile carry," i.e. I carry no ID whatsoever when I OC while afoot.

    As for detainment,a police officer can only detain (but not arrest) you if at least one of the following is true:

    1.He has RAS you committed a crime.
    2.He has RAS you are currently committing a crime.
    3.He has RAS you are about to commit a crime.
    4.He has RAS you have knowledge of someone else committing a felony.

    RAS, by the way, is an acronym for Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. You can think of RAS as "weak evidence."

    During detainment, which usually lasts under 1 hour, the officer is trying to find good, solid evidence that you have committed a crime. In other words, he is trying to turn RAS into "solid evidence." If he finds solid evidence, he has probable cause to arrest you. If he cannot turn RAS into solid evidence within an hour or so, the detainment must stop and you are free to go.

    In Ohio's Willowick case, for example, the officer detained Mr. Ledford (who happened to be OC'ing at the time). As we learned above, RAS is requried for detainment. As far as I can tell, the officer did not have RAS that Mr. Ledford was committing a crime, hence the officer did not have justification for detaining him. I could be wrong, here of course. Maybe the officer did have RAS that Mr. Ledford was committing a crime. ButI kepta very close eye on that case, and as far as I can tell the officer did not have RAS.

    It would have been O.K. for the officer to simply engage in a verbal encounter with Mr. Ledford. No RAS is needed for that. But detainment is more serious. RAS is needed for detainment. And therein lied the problem with that case.

    If you're still confused, here's a short blurb I wrote on the Ohio CCW forum a few months ago:

    When a police officer is asking you questions on official business, the situation is one of the following:

    1.An encounter.
    2.You are being detained.
    3.You are being arrested.

    You are always in situation #1 or #2 or #3. You should always know which situation you are in at every moment. You can also move from one situation to another (e.g. encounter → detainment → arrest).

    Situation #3 is pretty obvious... if you are being arrested, you will be read your rights, placed in cuffs, etc. The police officer arrested you because he believes he has probable cause you have committed a crime. If you are arrested, it would be best for you not to say anything and get a lawyer ASAP.

    While it's obvious whether or not you're being arrested, it is a bit more difficult to determine if you're in situation #1 or #2. To determine if you're in situation #1 or #2, repeatedly ask the officer the following question: "Am I free to go?" If he says you are free to go, then you know you are in situation #1, and you would be wise to leave. If he says you are not free to go, then you know you are in situation #2. You should ask this question every couple of minutes to determine if you're in situation #1 or #2.

    If you are being detained (situation #2), it means the officer has RAS that you have committed a crime. During the next few minutes, the officer will try to gather more information in an effort to bump you into situation #3.

    Situation #2 is a precarious situation for you. What you do and what you say might (but not always) play a part in determining if you move back to situation #1 (which is a good thing) or advance to situation #3 (which is a bad thing). If you don't know what to do or say, the most prudent thing to do is sit tight and simply shut up.

    Suffice to say, if you are open carrying in Ohio, and not doing anything illegal, a police officer is not allowed to detain you, much less arrest you. This is because he does not have RAS that you had, are currently, or are about to commit a crime. If you are being detained, my advice is to ask the officer, "I would like you to articulate your reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime." He doesn't have to answer this question. But most people don't use language like that, so it will certainly give him pause.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    SNIP Excellent article!!!!
    Comments appreciated.

    You understand you justwalked all over forum rule #7:

    7) if you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    SNIP Excellent article!!!!
    Comments appreciated.

    You understand you justwalked all over forum rule #7:

    7) if you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
    O.K., how's this? Everything I wrote was paraphrased from the book You & The Police! by Boston T. Party (with a forward by Nancy Lord, J.D.)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    The "Terry" standard is "a reasonable and specifically articulable suspicion" [emphasis added], to be more precise (q.v. Terry vs. Ohio http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...92&invol=1.)

    -ljp

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Damn, this needs to be stickied or main pages, or something....
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  18. #18
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    I would add that the police, once they realize you are legal will try and get you to act up in an aggressive manor by insulting you. If you act up or worse push them away BAM, they got ya. As stated be polite and don't say or do anything that could be mistaken for an aggressive act. No matter what they say to you or how badly you want to speak back to them. ****, and don't do anything. Let them rant on, it fun to watch how pissed they get when you don't respond to them. Just pretend your back in boot camp or football practice and the DI or coach is yelling at you, it's only words. Don't give them an excuse to arrest you.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    "Officer, I know you're just doing your job; but I do not consent to this encounter." This way there can beless quibble later whether I consented by staying. Nobody canmistakenly think I consented when the first thing I said was that I didn't consent.

    "...do not consent to this encounter. Am I free to go?" Or, if I do not want to leave, "Please leave me alone."
    The issues I have with this line of response are twofold. First, I do not consider every police encounter to be hostile until they make it so. I am a law-abiding citizen and I have a great deal of respect for the men and women who chose this line of work. (Unfortunately, this also gives me very little patience for the use of illegal methods by the police.) Like I said, they might have a reasonable specifically articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If someone fitting your general description was involved in a crime, especially an armed crime, the officer’s actions in detaining you may well be legal and proper. By jumping right to defensive protest you make yourself immediately suspicious. If you refuse to cooperate with a legitimate or even quasi-legitimate Terry stop, you leave them no choice but to arrest you. When it does get sorted out you don’t have an actionable case against them.

    The second problem I have with that is it allows them to continue to interrogate or simply badger you. If you complain, they can (and will) simply say that you were never detained and that the whole encounter was consensual.

    An old Flight Engineer axiom: When troubleshooting anything, you always go from the known to the unknown; you don’t begin with the unknown and work back to the known.

    Unless (and even if) I’m monitoring their radio dispatches; I have no idea why the officer is stopping me. Was it a simple MWAG complaint, or did the complainant tell the Comm Officer that you were pointing it around? A stop in the first case is most likely not enough justification to seize you (depending on where you live), but in the second case it is. The police officer was just told you were pointing your gun at people; your response to his lawful Terry seizure is, “Officer I do not consent to this encounter.” Guess where you’ll be spending the night? He’ll let you explain it to the judge in the morning; and you have nothing actionable against the officer for arresting you. After all, he tried to figure it out on the street but you tied his hands and refused to cooperate.

    “Officer, am I being detained?” If he says yes, and that Suzy Soccermom accused you of pointing it at her, you have some explaining to do and you better start doing it. I prefer to get all the cards on the table right from the start. If they are detaining me legitimately, I want to cooperate and get them back out on the job.

    Why you are being detained is secondary to if you are being detained. By asking the question, “Am I being detained” first, you start with solid information that has legal consequences (a known). The police are not necessarily obligated to tell you why they are detaining you if they are, in fact, not detaining you. If you ask, “Why are you detaining me?” he’s probably going to be unresponsive, and answer, “I want to talk to you about your gun.” He can later claim he was just having a consensual conversation with you. If the stop is not lawful, then protest your detainment. If it continues or he arrests you, now you have something actionable against him.

    Do not fall into [the trap of] answering [his] questions.By doing so you yield the initiative to the cop. He asks, you answer,and he just asks his next question. Maintain control of at least your half of the conversation by ignoring his questions and asking your own.
    [/quote]

    This is excellent advice! If you start answering questions you are consenting to the encounter. You are engaging the officer in a conversation. You cannot complain about an illegal seizure if you’re having a topical discussion with the officer. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and walk away.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    You know, it's sad that there are officers out there that necessitate this advice.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    During detainment, which usually lasts under 1 hour, the officer is trying to find good, solid evidence that you have committed a crime. In other words, he is trying to turn RAS into "solid evidence." If he finds solid evidence, he has probable cause to arrest you. If he cannot turn RAS into solid evidence within an hour or so, the detainment must stop and you are free to go.
    I am not so sure this is true. I am trying to find the source right now but as far as I can remember from my FAD course in High school an officer can detain your for 24 hrs without a charge after that if they want to keep you they must charge you with something. Give me a little bit to find the source.

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Bebop wrote:
    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    During detainment, which usually lasts under 1 hour, the officer is trying to find good, solid evidence that you have committed a crime. In other words, he is trying to turn RAS into "solid evidence." If he finds solid evidence, he has probable cause to arrest you. If he cannot turn RAS into solid evidence within an hour or so, the detainment must stop and you are free to go.
    I am not so sure this is true. I am trying to find the source right now but as far as I can remember from my FAD course in High school an officer can detain your for 24 hrs without a charge after that if they want to keep you they must charge you with something. Give me a little bit to find the source.
    If this is true why are so many law suits won by being "detained and cuffed" for just a few minutes.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    "Officer, I know you're just doing your job; but I do not consent to this encounter." This way there can beless quibble later whether I consented by staying. Nobody canmistakenly think I consented when the first thing I said was that I didn't consent.

    "...do not consent to this encounter. Am I free to go?" Or, if I do not want to leave, "Please leave me alone."
    SNIP First, I do not consider every police encounter to be hostile until they make it so.
    I understand. Check the third sentence of my post.

    Otherwise, I see what you are saying. I don't know that I can argue with you.

    I prefer to follow Professor Duane's advice from the video. That is to say, in this case, if I'm being legitimately detained--because of circumstances, not misdeed on my part--it is especially the time I want to all privileges and immunities. I consider it my first duty in a police encounter to protect my legal position to the fullest. I consider even a 24 hour detentionthat goes nowhere better thaninadvertantly giving them some piece of information that can be used for a malicious prosecution, or even an honest one that misinterpreted a piece of information.

    Just as a side note. Perhaps a year ago I had this discussion with three LEO's on this forum. All arguing politely in favor of being cooperative. When I laid out my case for keeping quiet, including a rudimentary version of what Prof. Duane talks about in his video, the LEO dissentersgot quiet. I don't think they said another word.
    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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    If this is true why are so many law suits won by being "detained and cuffed" for just a few minutes.
    These cases pretty much always ends up that the officer didn't even have RAS to detain you in the first place.

    What is being discussed above is if they had RAS, but were still trying to find proof of the crime they suspect you of having committed or intend to commit.

Posting Permissions

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