I read the story, great post I hope you get the information you are looking for although I am unclear on the part whether you were OC'ing or not? Because they clearly said they were charging you for carrying a concealed firearm. So if you were OC'ing, is it ok for you to tell them..
"I was asked if I had a firearm on my person, to which I responded that I did not"
Isnt that obstruction of justice to lie to them? I guess you could tell them nothing instead, but lieing is a different story is it not?
Now if you had no firearm on you at all then obviously this question has no place though I am still unclear about that part as well.
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
I read the story, great post I hope you get the information you are looking for although I am unclear on the part whether you were OC'ing or not? Because they clearly said they were charging you for carrying a concealed firearm. So if you were OC'ing, is it ok for you to tell them..
"I was asked if I had a firearm on my person, to which I responded that I did not"
Isnt that obstruction of justice to lie to them? I guess you could tell them nothing instead, but lieing is a different story is it not?
Now if you had no firearm on you at all then obviously this question has no place though I am still unclear about that part as well.
You can lie to a cop all you want, just not to a federal officer.
In this instance, I did not lie. I had no gun on me. Where it was I will not say (that is irrelevant anyways) but I will say that it was not on me. Thus, I answered truthfully.
In the future, I will not answer any more of these questions from cops. I will see how they like silence.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Citations are great for convincing people you're right. They're also required by the owners of this forum. Please respect the rules by providing reliable sources for your legal citations... or refrain from posting baseless legal opinions....I must say I am a bit weary to the statement that I can lie to a cop. If it hinders their ability to do their job I'm fairly certain I can get in trouble. Instance - lady is getting chased by a man with a knife and run right by me. Cop comes 10 seconds later asking where they went and I point him in the oppositie direction. Now if they can prove I was lieing, like security video or something, I am pretty sure that is obstruction of justice...
Ok, well if my meaning of the word the cops "job" was to find the bad guy, I think I'm correct.Streetbikerr6 wrote:I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Citations are great for convincing people you're right. They're also required by the owners of this forum. Please respect the rules by providing reliable sources for your legal citations... or refrain from posting baseless legal opinions....I must say I am a bit weary to the statement that I can lie to a cop. If it hinders their ability to do their job I'm fairly certain I can get in trouble. Instance - lady is getting chased by a man with a knife and run right by me. Cop comes 10 seconds later asking where they went and I point him in the oppositie direction. Now if they can prove I was lieing, like security video or something, I am pretty sure that is obstruction of justice...
And remember, EVERYTHING is legal, unless there is a law against it. So until you provide a statute that prohibits lying to an officer, Pullnshoot25 has no obligation to provide a citation.
You may be onto something with your obstructing justice scenario. I generally would advise that saying nothing is better than lying, legal or not. However, that obviously doesn't apply in Pullnshoot25's scenario, since there was neither a crime being investigated (justice), nor a lie (obstruction).
I'm having difficulty finding the specific situation in PC 602 that you are implying would be a tresspass instance in this situation. Please quote the specific paragraph that you are referring to.My question after reading the transcripts is.... Did security ask you to leave the premises.. and did you return, armed or not, in violation of 602 pc?
I'm not sure about the pot pipe part. The Terry court held that, "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed."2. You might call something a "Terry stop" - a detetion based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been/is being/ might in the immediate future becommitted and that the person detainedmight beinvolved. The attendant "frisk" would then be a brief search of the exterior of the clothingintended to reveal the presence of weapons or other contraband readily identifiable to the officer. If it feels like a gun or knife or pot pipe the cop can go after it provided that he can articulate that it plainly felt like what it was. Mystery objects require a different approach.
3. Digging into your pockets or socks or underwear or other stuff is rightly called a "search" and requiresyour consent or probable cause to be legal. Legal in this case means that evidence recovered is admisible in court. I'd love to see someone bring a successful civil rights case based on an illegal search that didn't result in an arrest but I've yet to hear of one.
MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 08-994 BB/LAM
DAVID McCOLLEY and
THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE
ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
each in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
1. St. John's Fourth Amendment Claims
Mr. St. John asserts claims arising from the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.3 The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, see, e.g., Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2005), and provides, in part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . . " U.S. Const. amend. IV. Mr. St. John claims that he was subjected to an unreasonable seizure when Defendants removed him from the Theater and that he was subjected to an nreasonable search when Defendants patted him down. In response, Defendants claim that no Fourth Amendment violation took place and, alternatively, that Mr. St. John's recovery is barred by qualified immunity.
[align=center]Conclusion[/align]Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to liability on Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution. Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to his battery and false arrest claims.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to Mr. St. John's false arrest claim, but is denied with regard to Mr. St. John's Fourth Amendment, New Mexico constitutional, and battery claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is also denied with regard to qualified immunity.
Nate, there are certain instances where lying to a California Peace officer is a crime.California VehicleCode Section 31 states,"No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false."Show me where it is illegal to lie to a normal police officer and I will rescind my statement. It is only illegal to lie to a Federal officer.
[align=center]Conclusion[/align]Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to liability on Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment...