• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

office safety comes first??

DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Michigander wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
Click to expand...
I would actually tend to disagree with that for one very important reason. The SCOTUS has upheld the right to resist an unlawful arrest if you know the police are intentionally arresting you or someone else illegally.

While I think we can all agree that we should never resist unlawful arrest unless our lives are in serious danger, I think it makes it pretty clear. The difference between unlawful arrest and lawful arrest is having a warrant or RAS/PC or not. For anyone who knows these things and who believes themselves to be innocent, the only way to know if an arrest is legal or not is for the officer(s) to explain.

It seems to me that if a cop doesn't want to be killed legally according to the nations highest court, he or she should use common sense and understand the fact that reasons behind an arrest or temporary detention need to be explained.
Click to expand...

An arrest is different than a "Terry Stop". For an arrest a leo
needs probable cause; for a Terry Stop a leo needs RAS. These are
two different actions. I would be VERY sure I know the difference
before I have any dealings with a leo.
Click to expand...
Cites please.
Click to expand...

My bad:cry: (In my defense, I wrote this on my BB so can't really "cut and paste"... I should have just waited until I got home):)
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
"not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
Click to expand...
I was about to write that I think it is just a part of police tactics, not bad-faith from a legal standpoint.

But, then I got to thinkin'. Hmmmm. I think Ghostrider might be onto something. Why would a cop refuse to reply? What does he gain, or more precisely, what does he maintain as far as negotiating position?

As a related matter, I am convinced some police do not declare detentions because it lets them claim it was a consensual contact, if need be. Also,I strongly suspect they take advantage of the fact that many people will automatically cooperate with a cop, just because, well, "he's a cop." In short, they want compliance.Even when they do not have legal authorityto compel it.

So, extending this idea that some police want to gain compliance when they do not have legal authority to compel it. It suddenly makes sense that by not revealing his RAS,the cop maintainsuncertainty about whether compliance can be compelled. Thus, thesafe route,seemingly, for the detainee, is to comply rather than just walk away.

Another option might be that there is no point in revealing it and having it come back to bite him. If he keeps mum, he can always invent additional circumstances or even a whole new RAS when he gets to court.

Of course, he might just be the kind that feels, "Hey, punk. I ask the questions, and you answer. You unnerstand me?"

So, I suspect it might show bad faith on the cop's part to withhold RAS.

If I'm right, and even if I'm not, the counter-negotiation would be topolitely back him into a corner anddeclare a detention. "AmI being detained?" "Am I freeto go?"

Of course, since our police are paragons of virtue and never depart one jot from rigorous application of case law, their questionscould not possibly depart from the reason for the stop.Heh, heh, heh. So, when he asks about the gun, you know you have your RAS.

Heh, heh, heh.
 
G

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
"not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
Click to expand...
I'm not speaking on legality of the issue. It does exhibit bad faith (my experience is that they usually disclose it anyway).


It's just like when an officer says that a person is neither detained, under arrest, or free to leave. I don't know of any cases where "bad faith" has been rulled on even though I've actually heard of it in at least one case.

Are you suggesting that "bad faith" is a legal term requiring the officer to disclose?:?
 
G

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
...

Another option might be that there is no point in revealing it and having it come back to bite him. If he keeps mum, he can always invent additional circumstances or even a whole new RAS when he gets to court.

...
Click to expand...
Yahtzee!

I can understand waiting until the suspect is secure, and the officer's safety is insured before such talk, but if the officer has time to question me, then there's plenty of time and opportunity to provide me with the RAS that is required for the stop.

BTW, I should add that that comment about it being bad faith did come from Botson T. Party. It was in his book titled "You and the Police". He claims there are court cases backing it up, but he didn't cite them, and I've not seen them, so as far as I'm concerned, I don't know that they exist. However, that still does not change that it is bad faith.

ETA:
Most times I've been stopped, the officer has been up front and told me the reason he stopped me. Usually the officer tells me before anything else.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

ghostrider wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
"not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
Click to expand...
I'm not speaking on legality of the issue. It does exhibit bad faith (my experience is that they usually disclose it anyway).


It's just like when an officer says that a person is neither detained, under arrest, or free to leave. I don't know of any cases where "bad faith" has been rulled on even though I've actually heard of it in at least one case.

Are you suggesting that "bad faith" is a legal term requiring the officer to disclose?:?
Click to expand...

"Bad Faith" is a legal term, see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

I would like to get a copy of any court cases where this has been decided... that "bad faith" is exemplified by not stating to the person under investigation exactly what the suspicion was. Under the law, during a "Terry Stop" or "seizure" an officer may disarm an individual "if the officer feels that the suspect is in possession of a weapon that is of danger to him or others"
see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1 and
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Terry+stop
 
G

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
"not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
Click to expand...
I'm not speaking on legality of the issue. It does exhibit bad faith (my experience is that they usually disclose it anyway).


It's just like when an officer says that a person is neither detained, under arrest, or free to leave. I don't know of any cases where "bad faith" has been rulled on even though I've actually heard of it in at least one case.

Are you suggesting that "bad faith" is a legal term requiring the officer to disclose?:?
Click to expand...

"Bad Faith" is a legal term, see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

I would like to get a copy of any court cases where this has been decided... that "bad faith" is exemplified by not stating to the person under investigation exactly what the suspicion was. Under the law, during a "Terry Stop" or "seizure" an officer may disarm an individual "if the officer feels that the suspect is in possession of a weapon that is of danger to him or others"
see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1 and
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Terry+stop
Click to expand...
Interesting info (thanks:D). I was unaware that it was a legal term. To clarify, I wasn't using it as a legal term.

Boston said that there are cases to support it, but I don't know of them.

I would say that based upon the link you provided, it does represent bad faith to not provide it upon request, but that's just my opinion. It would be interesting to see how a court would rule on it if it were to come up. Whether the courts agree with me is another matter. This is an area that is over my head, so IDK.

ETA:
Is it strictly a legal term?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top