Open Letter From a Cop

imported post

For anyone reading this who would like to know how LEOs are REALLY trained in questioning, there is a book called "Criminal Interrogation and Confession" by a couple guys name of Inbau and Ried. it's been a few years since I was a USAF cop but it is fascinating and I can tell you from experience the techniques work. And they do not involve violence. Inbau moreover advocated a polygraph with one additional sensor, a plate to detect pressure on the seat and the floor.

As to consent searches, it isnt the cop's fault that bd guys are such dopes as to allow an LEO to search a "dirty" car, house, etc; in fact one cop here in Alexandria said if someone refused a search he took that as a sign they WEREN'T "dirty".

In fact, before the cops here question or take a statement in the station, they give the interviewee a form to fill out: Name, address, age, etc; PLUS the question "What other crimes or offenses haave you committed that we are not aware of? (use a separate sheet of paper if necessary)". This is given to witnesses and suspects alike and I hear that there are actually bad guys who have given it up on the form before they have had one oral question put to them. To paraphrase Yosemite Sam: Criminals is soooooo stoopid"

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It would not be justified to ask if it is just some motorist that I know nothing about unless...

I see something like scales, rolling papers, blunts, bongs, roach clips, jeweler's baggies, or other items that, by themselves, are not illegal!! But known to be used in narcotics use.

Click to expand...

Ok. I'll jump in with a question. I think I know where all this is going, but I'm curious anyway.

Let's say this is the scenario.Joe Average motorist is driving along, minding his own business, perhaps with the 1000 yardstare, and youpull him over for a random traffic violation (speeding, no turn signal, etc.). When you arrive at hiswindow, you notice some jeweler's baggies on the passenger seat. I'll assume you give Mr. Average his traffic ticket, but before you let him go, you ask for permission to search his car. Politely, he says no. Based on your previous postings, you go ahead and continue with your conversation and ask a second time. Perhaps you ask later a third time. I don't know how many times you ask, but at some point, you stop asking the same question.

So, the question is this, what happens when he has said no to each and every request to search his vehicle?

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

user wrote:

 That's why the cop only has to have "reasonable suspicion" to effect a stop....

Click to expand...

Do you think the "1,000 yard stare" that Reno229 speaks of above is reasonable suspicion?

Click to expand...

Not by itself. But it may be a basis for further observation. I normally ignore cops, myself, so it's possible that I might be subject to such observation. But then the reason I ignore cops is that I've got a better idea than most people about what the rules are, and I have enough self-discipline to go by the rules. So anyone who watches me for infractions will probably be wasting his time. But if someone under such observation suddenly speeds up when he thinks the cop is out of range, or swerves across another lane in order to take a quick exit, that person might be worth stopping, if nothing else, because of the excessive speed or failure to properly signal a lane change. And, upon making the stop, as Leo229 pointed out earlier, "there's no harm in asking" for permission to search. If the person detained is dumb enough to agree, (or to get defensive and chatty) then the cop is almost certainly going to come up with something that will justify probable cause to arrest.

One thing that interests me is the way some cops will get up on the detainee's face and adopt their angry attitude and bark, "I need to search your car now." I see that as a request to make a voluntary search, and I'm sure that's how the cop means it. But to the detainee, the cop is giving them an unconditional order, backed up with authority and power. I usually tell people to ignore such remarks and proximity even if it's purpose of intimidation is working, and just say, "no, thanks." or "I prefer not to." Or alternatively, to talk about their feelings such as, "I find your behavior intimidating and you're scaring me, and I don't like it." I tell people they're not responsible for the cops' perceptions about their "needs".

Of course, the next thing that comes up is, "I can, and I will, detain you here in order to have another officer bring a search warrant out here if I have to.", and "Why would you refuse? What are you hiding in there?"; remarks intended to put the detainee on the defensive and make him "explain".

I tell people that, if the cops have probable cause to arrest, they are going to arrest you, no matter what you say, and they are not required to give you "Miranda" warnings unless and until you're actually under full custodial arrest. Same thing with searching the car. If they had probable cause, they wouldn't need your permission. So blabbing and giving permission to search will almost certainly give a good cop something he can use to justify his "probable cause" decision. Don't forget that it is his decision to make, and all he needs is "a reasonably held belief based on an articulable body of objective fact."

Be polite, be respectful, and expect the professional to do his job, which is to arrest you and put you in jail if he can find a reason to do so.

imported post



This is a never ending debate. As far as I am concerned, when this happens is the US - it's over. My dad was a LEO for 27 years. He was saddened by the way they acted today. He's gone now and doesn't have to see the detioration any more. It doesn't matter if only 40% of LEO's are dicks, the system is against you now and the "good" ones will follow the system because it's their "job" and the "law". That's exactly what the nazi's claimed by the way. The potential for abuse in a "power" situation - like being a LEO - is overwhelming. It takes character to resist the temptation to abuse it and in case you haven't noticed - national character is on the decline folks. It won't be the military kicking in your doors to take your guns or "relocate" you, it will be the "dicks" - they have no qualms about following the "law". :uhoh:

imported post

buster81 wrote:

...

So, the question is this, what happens when he has said no to each and every request to search his vehicle? 

Click to expand...

Sooner or later, the "Am I free to leave, or am I under arrest?" question ought to come up. The cops are not allowed to detain indefinitely, and if a person is not "free to leave", then he is under arrest, and may have an action against the cop and the jurisdiction for false arrest and false imprisonment.

There are three levels of arrest, which is a Norman French word we get from English law, and only means, "stop". Just because a person is not under a full custodial arrest does not mean he has not been arrested. The question is whether the level of arrest has exceeded the facts giving rise to the cop's authority to make the stop and continue to detain.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

It would not be justified to ask if it is just some motorist that I know nothing about unless...

I see something like scales, rolling papers, blunts, bongs, roach clips, jeweler's baggies, or other items that, by themselves, are not illegal!! But known to be used in narcotics use.

Click to expand...

Ok. I'll jump in with a question. I think I know where all this is going, but I'm curious anyway.

Let's say this is the scenario.Joe Average motorist is driving along, minding his own business, perhaps with the 1000 yardstare, and youpull him over for a random traffic violation (speeding, no turn signal, etc.). When you arrive at hiswindow, you notice some jeweler's baggies on the passenger seat. I'll assume you give Mr. Average his traffic ticket, but before you let him go, you ask for permission to search his car. Politely, he says no. Based on your previous postings, you go ahead and continue with your conversation and ask a second time. Perhaps you ask later a third time. I don't know how many times you ask, but at some point, you stop asking the same question.

So, the question is this, what happens when he has said no to each and every request to search his vehicle?

Click to expand...

Your scenario lacks all the more important details and observations that are all taken into consideration. I will answer the single question you have submitted based on what I have presented in front of me and not drawing any further conclusions.

ANSWER: You let him drive away.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

buster81 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

It would not be justified to ask if it is just some motorist that I know nothing about unless...

I see something like scales, rolling papers, blunts, bongs, roach clips, jeweler's baggies, or other items that, by themselves, are not illegal!! But known to be used in narcotics use.

Click to expand...

Ok. I'll jump in with a question. I think I know where all this is going, but I'm curious anyway.

Let's say this is the scenario.Joe Average motorist is driving along, minding his own business, perhaps with the 1000 yardstare, and youpull him over for a random traffic violation (speeding, no turn signal, etc.). When you arrive at hiswindow, you notice some jeweler's baggies on the passenger seat. I'll assume you give Mr. Average his traffic ticket, but before you let him go, you ask for permission to search his car. Politely, he says no. Based on your previous postings, you go ahead and continue with your conversation and ask a second time. Perhaps you ask later a third time. I don't know how many times you ask, but at some point, you stop asking the same question.

So, the question is this, what happens when he has said no to each and every request to search his vehicle?

Click to expand...

Your scenario lacks all the more important details and observations that are all taken into consideration. I will answer the single question you have submitted based on what I have presented in front of me and not drawing any further conclusions.

ANSWER: You let him drive away.

Click to expand...

There wereno other observations, or details,but your answer satisfies me.

For the sake of argument, would you have asked what the baggies were for? If so, before or after your first request to search the car?

imported post

user wrote:

buster81 wrote:

...

So, the question is this, what happens when he has said no to each and every request to search his vehicle?

Click to expand...

Sooner or later, the "Am I free to leave, or am I under arrest?" question ought to come up. The cops are not allowed to detain indefinitely, and if a person is not "free to leave", then he is under arrest, and may have an action against the cop and the jurisdiction for false arrest and false imprisonment.

Click to expand...

Unfortunetly, not everyone knows this (or agrees with it...right DA?). I havehadthis conversation more than once with aLEO and am alwaysamazedthat SOME of them seem to take offence to this position.

I get the feeling they are thinking "how dare you decline my demands". I've heardthatI shouldn be offended by theirrequest to search my car. I'm not. You shouldn't be offended by me refusal. Simple. And no I don't have anything to hide, I just don't have anything I care to show to strangers.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

There wereno other observations, or details,but your answer satisfies me.

For the sake of argument, would you have asked what the baggies were for? If so, before or after your first request to search the car?

Click to expand...

No. I would ask what they do for work.

Many occupations use those baggies and if he worked with gem stones and looked the part I would not even think about a search.

If not, I would inquire what they were for. There may be a valid reason for having them.

Now if it is Joe the rag-a-muffin who is the local dirt bag I may try to get in the car and see what else there is to find.

But I want to add a note that it is rare for cops to actually search a car. Those I have searched personally and backed on searches done by other officers were legit and had a good reason.

There was only one stop a long time ago that I backed on that the officer could not really explain why he needed to search. I stood with the driver and told him that since it was voluntary he could stop the search at any time. So he said "I guess I want him to stop searching my car." I told the officer the driver had revoke his consent and the officer stopped. He was pissed.... but he stopped.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

user wrote:

buster81 wrote:

...

So, the question is this, what happens when he has said no to each and every request to search his vehicle?

Click to expand...

Sooner or later, the "Am I free to leave, or am I under arrest?" question ought to come up. The cops are not allowed to detain indefinitely, and if a person is not "free to leave", then he is under arrest, and may have an action against the cop and the jurisdiction for false arrest and false imprisonment.

Click to expand...

Unfortunetly, not everyone knows this (or agrees with it...right DA?). I havehadthis conversation more than once with aLEO and am alwaysamazedthat SOME of them seem to take offence to this position.

I get the feeling they are thinking "how dare you decline my demands". I've heardthatI shouldn be offended by theirrequest to search my car. I'm not. You shouldn't be offended by me refusal. Simple. And no I don't have anything to hide, I just don't have anything I care to show to strangers.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I guess it is the tone that can be used when you ask "Am I free to go now?!" that can create problems. It can be said with a sign of resentment or disrespect. And as User posted... if the officer had and PC to arrest you for anything then he will.

I have taken back warning tickets when the driver got an attitude with me. I was letting them go on a warning and they felt the need to get nasty. Not sure what that is all about. :?

Courtesy goes both ways.

I am not sure the officer is "offended" by your declining his request to search. Some have a hard time accepting rejection.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

...
Unfortunetly, not everyone knows this (or agrees with it...right DA?).  I have had this conversation more than once with a LEO and am always amazed that SOME of them seem to take offence to this position.

Click to expand...

I'll be the first to admit that good lawyering is, to some degree, the art of creative hogwash. However, with respect to this issue, and given proper payment up front, I'm prepared to write a memorandum of law that I could supply to a court showing the legal authority for my position. We don't make law up out of thin air, you know, we use fat air. In other words, I don't care who agrees with it - as long as I know I'm in agreement with solid authority. And keep in mind what FDR said, "everyone's got his own agenda." Most folks with axes to grind will tell you whatever supports their agenda, regardless of whether it's true, in hopes that you'll believe it. The legal term of art for that technique is, "dust in the eyes."

I get the feeling they are thinking "how dare you decline my demands".  I've heard that I shouldn be offended by their request to search my car.  I'm not.  You shouldn't be offended by me refusal.  Simple.  And no I don't have anything to hide, I just don't have anything I care to show to strangers.

Click to expand...

So, in other words, you got totally sucked into the mind games strategy. You took that "I'm personally offended" thing seriously. Fooled you!

imported post

user wrote:

So, in other words, you got totally sucked into the mind games strategy. You took that "I'm personally offended" thing seriously. Fooled you!

Click to expand...

Many people will do things as to not offend or stop others from being offended. Most people do not want to be considered as offensive.

This is where asking a second time gives one last chance to open the door that was originally closed. Turn on the water works, play a little song and dance... see what happens.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The 1,000 yard stare caused the officer to run the vehicle license plate and discover the owner is not licensed to drive.

Running a state license plate is not a search in the context that we are discussing here. Vehicle license plates belong to the DMV and you do not need the vehicle owner's permission to run them.

You know that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But it is something I have never agreed with. Cops should not be able to randomly run license plates any time they feel like it, without good cause of course. Too much abuse takes place. Cops scoping out pretty young girls for example, who they are, where they live. etc....

You and I both know this takes place. I can direct you to the personal blog of an Alexandria cop who admits he has done this. You and I both know what would happen if the Virginia State Police ever stumbled across his blog entry.

But back to the question at hand, and even though not needed, is a "gut feeling" or "hunch" a reasonable suspicion to randomly run a person's license plate when they are not breaking any traffic laws whatsoever? Not looking over at a nice shiny cop with pretty colored lights on the top is at best "contempt of cop". Did it hurt the cop's feelings that somebody had not looked over at them?

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

My dad was a LEO for 27 years. He was saddened by the way they acted today. He's gone now and doesn't have to see the detioration any more.

Click to expand...

Your father wounds like he was a very intelligent and honest cop.

I share his same thoughts.

It's really sad what he and I both havepersonally seen take place over recent years. :banghead:

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The 1,000 yard stare caused the officer to run the vehicle license plate and discover the owner is not licensed to drive.

Running a state license plate is not a search in the context that we are discussing here. Vehicle license plates belong to the DMV and you do not need the vehicle owner's permission to run them.

You know that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But it is something I have never agreed with. Cops should not be able to randomly run license plates any time they feel like it, without good cause of course. Too much abuse takes place. Cops scoping out pretty young girls for example, who they are, where they live. etc....

You and I both know this takes place. I can direct you to the personal blog of an Alexandria cop who admits he has done this. You and I both know what would happen if the Virginia State Police ever stumbled across his blog entry.

But back to the question at hand, and even though not needed, is a "gut feeling" or "hunch" a reasonable suspicion to randomly run a person's license plate when they are not breaking any traffic laws whatsoever? Not looking over at a nice shiny cop with pretty colored lights on the top is at best "contempt of cop". Did it hurt the cop's feelings that somebody had not looked over at them?

Click to expand...

Ha! Cool. As long it was understood and what I said was not taken out of context.

I hear your argument on tags. Yes, cops have ran tags to get dates and check to see if a husband's name was attached. Clearly, this is wrong.

So the only thing I can do is offer a very good reason to do this and how it is clearly justified as a greater good since it is NOT a search. As I said, the tags belong to the state.

Running tags at random is a common practice. It finds the following you would not know about and have no reason to suspect it:

• Stolen vehicles
• Vehicles that have unpaid parking tickets (Vehicles to be seized)
• Vehicles that are untagged and sharing a common tag
• Vehicles that are inactive. Revoked by DMV
• Vehicles wanted in connection to crimes
• Owners that have arrest warrants
• Owners that are unlicensed, suspended, or revoked
• Owners that are reported missing and need to call family
• Vehicles used in connection to Amber Alerts
• Terrorists on the watch list

There are more but this is off the top my my head.

So it would seem that the reason to run a tag far exceeds why not. Occupants are not inconvenienced in any way during the process.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

buster81 wrote:

user wrote:

buster81 wrote:

...

So, the question is this, what happens when he has said no to each and every request to search his vehicle?

Click to expand...

Sooner or later, the "Am I free to leave, or am I under arrest?" question ought to come up. The cops are not allowed to detain indefinitely, and if a person is not "free to leave", then he is under arrest, and may have an action against the cop and the jurisdiction for false arrest and false imprisonment.

Click to expand...

Unfortunetly, not everyone knows this (or agrees with it...right DA?). I havehadthis conversation more than once with aLEO and am alwaysamazedthat SOME of them seem to take offence to this position.

I get the feeling they are thinking "how dare you decline my demands". I've heardthatI shouldn be offended by theirrequest to search my car. I'm not. You shouldn't be offended by me refusal. Simple. And no I don't have anything to hide, I just don't have anything I care to show to strangers.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.
And I agree with you.

I guess it is the tone that can be used when you ask "Am I free to go now?!" that can create problems. It can be said with a sign of resentment or disrespect. And as User posted... if the officer had and PC to arrest you for anything then he will.

I guess the tone of voice would be dependent on how the officer treated you. If they were hell bent on violating your rights or trying to find some trumped up charge to get you on-of course the "am I being detained" is going to be said with a level of disdain and contempt for the way the officer is treating you. As you wrote--courteous behavior is a two way street--just like respect is.

And if he has no legitimate reason to hold you--he should simply let you go once you ask him if you are being detained--to continue to hold you without reason or for prolonged periods is a lawsuit.

Absolutely true, plus possible criminal action against the officer depending on the circumstances.

I have taken back warning tickets when the driver got an attitude with me. I was letting them go on a warning and they felt the need to get nasty. Not sure what that is all about. :?

there is no reason to get nasty on either side-both sides should be courteous. I would simply ask them if I was being detained only AFTER the questions strayed into an area not germane to the original reason for the stop--if for speeding there should be no "sir do you have any weapons or drugs in the car, or do you mind if we search it"...

Courtesy goes both ways.
Indeed it does. I'll be courteous to officers, but if they are ugly, or mistreat me it will be on audio and it will be evidence against the officer when I file a complaint for official misconduct--plus it would end up on youtube, as well as being transmitted to the local news.

I am not sure the officer is "offended" by your declining his request to search. Some have a hard time accepting rejection.

I would say that a great many have problems with having their "requests" rejected. They are trained to believe that their commands should always be followed without question by the public, and thus those who reject their "requests" must have something to hide. If you ask me to search my car--then for one, you have no legitimate reason to search it, because if you did, you wouldn't be asking, you would bring me out at gunpoint and then search while I was being covered by another officer or handcuffed in your car. Asking me if you can search will get you a polite but definitive no--and any follow up about what I have to hide or why I don't want you in there will be met with another no, you may not search my car--am I being detained? because if I am being detained I'm going to call my lawyer that I pay to protect my rights, and then afterward, hopefully the police department can pay me for violating my rights and false arrest.

Click to expand...

imported post

suntzu wrote:

LEO 229 wrote

I agree with you.
And I agree with you.

I guess it is the tone that can be used when you ask "Am I free to go now?!" that can create problems. It can be said with a sign of resentment or disrespect. And as User posted... if the officer had and PC to arrest you for anything then he will.

I guess the tone of voice would be dependent on how the officer treated you. If they were hell bent on violating your rights or trying to find some trumped up charge to get you on-of course the "am I being detained" is going to be said with a level of disdain and contempt for the way the officer is treating you. As you wrote--courteous behavior is a two way street--just like respect is.

And if he has no legitimate reason to hold you--he should simply let you go once you ask him if you are being detained--to continue to hold you without reason or for prolonged periods is a lawsuit.

Absolutely true, plus possible criminal action against the officer depending on the circumstances.

I have taken back warning tickets when the driver got an attitude with me. I was letting them go on a warning and they felt the need to get nasty. Not sure what that is all about. :?

there is no reason to get nasty on either side-both sides should be courteous. I would simply ask them if I was being detained only AFTER the questions strayed into an area not germane to the original reason for the stop--if for speeding there should be no "sir do you have any weapons or drugs in the car, or do you mind if we search it"...

Courtesy goes both ways.
Indeed it does. I'll be courteous to officers, but if they are ugly, or mistreat me it will be on audio and it will be evidence against the officer when I file a complaint for official misconduct--plus it would end up on youtube, as well as being transmitted to the local news.

I am not sure the officer is "offended" by your declining his request to search. Some have a hard time accepting rejection.

I would say that a great many have problems with having their "requests" rejected. They are trained to believe that their commands should always be followed without question by the public, and thus those who reject their "requests" must have something to hide. If you ask me to search my car--then for one, you have no legitimate reason to search it, because if you did, you wouldn't be asking, you would bring me out at gunpoint and then search while I was being covered by another officer or handcuffed in your car. Asking me if you can search will get you a polite but definitive no--and any follow up about what I have to hide or why I don't want you in there will be met with another no, you may not search my car--am I being detained? because if I am being detained I'm going to call my lawyer that I pay to protect my rights, and then afterward, hopefully the police department can pay me for violating my rights and false arrest.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I would state the if one party gets an attitude you would be justified in returning that same attitude without question.

However, an officer must refrain from doing this to stay professional. Department regulations tell him to suck it up and take it. It does not say he cannot take back a warning or place additional charges that were overlooked.

I would recommend anyone that is subjected to an employee with a poor attitude to report it. I have a little difficulty agreeing with going beyond the formal complaint by posting it all over the place. To me it is over-kill and does more to paint an entire department as bad while you have only a single example. But do as you wish. There are plenty such videos out there already. Many links to them posted here and the proof is in the pudding. :lol:

True, an officer does not like to be questioned and may be upset when you do not submit to his request. In my opinion... that is a personal issue and not a reflection on the department as a whole. You have to judge the man and not lump him in with the rest of the employees. I know a few people that fit this situation. I try to take certain calls from them because I know they lack the right personality. :uhoh:

Requesting a search just to search at random is in my opinion not necessary. I know state troopers up and down I95 from Maine to Florida do this often looking for people running drugs and money on the East coast. They do get some big hauls.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I would recommend anyone that is subjected to an employee with a poor attitude to report it. I have a little difficulty agreeing with going beyond the formal complaint by posting it all over the place. To me it is over-kill and does more to paint an entire department as bad while you have only a single example. But do as you wish. There are plenty such videos out there already. Many links to them posted here and the proof is in the pudding. :lol:

Click to expand...

If that department doesn't properly train, supervise and discipline its employees, why should they have an artificially good reputation? If the officer publicly humiliates you, why should you not return the favor?

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I would recommend anyone that is subjected to an employee with a poor attitude to report it. I have a little difficulty agreeing with going beyond the formal complaint by posting it all over the place. To me it is over-kill and does more to paint an entire department as bad while you have only a single example. But do as you wish. There are plenty such videos out there already. Many links to them posted here and the proof is in the pudding. :lol:

Click to expand...

If that department doesn't properly train, supervise and discipline its employees, why should they have an artificially good reputation? If the officer publicly humiliates you, why should you not return the favor?

Click to expand...

Understand your point.

But how do you know? You are wanting assume facts not in evidence, right? It is nothing more than speculation at this point on what "could" be the cause.

You are not giving them anything "artificially" by not posting a video all over the net. It would be another matter to know something but post a positive video stating thre has been no negative activity.

What happens when the department has a good reputation and an officer makes his first mistake on the job?

What if reporting him to his department takes care of any training issues and he finishes his career never making that mistake again?

I would submit that the filing of the complaint was successful and sufficient.

Posting a negative video does nothing more then enrage people not knowing the department or their reputation. It paints the officer and the entire department in a bad light needlessly. We have all seen such activity on this very board.

But, dare I say... there are people who want to do this on purpose. There are people who hate the police such as the member above that wrote some nice stuff about me. His hatred stems from a speeding ticket.

I am not saying posting video should never be done. If a department is known to be bad and an officer on video has a history or improper conduct then obviously the department has had prior opportunities to rectify the problem.

In this case... feel free! :lol:

But I submit that far too many people post the video just to get it out there.

They tell us on the street. Either give them a ticket or an ass chewing. NOT BOTH!!

That seems to be the case here. Either post a bad video or file a formal complaint. Doing both seems wrong to me in my personal opinion.

imported post

i had to go to traffic court today. when i asked the judge about standing and subjet matter jurisdiction he got really pissed off.

hilarious