• 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.

My latest detainment

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

PM sent to you pullnshoot25.

This case is basically identical to Florida v. JL, except you didn't have a concealed weapon, and JL did. I'm sure when you were quoting relevant case law to him he started to get a little worried, since he either knew the cases and recognized he was in the wrong or he was totally clueless and was worried about what he didn't know.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
imported post

Ha!

"I had not seen such a recorder before and could not tell if it was actually a recorder or contained a hidden compartment or potentially a weapon."

He then goes on to mention the illuminated red light on the device!

"The device may potentially contain recorded statements during the contact."

Ya Think?

And people think we're paranoid. You could have hidden a weapon inside the recorder. Did he check under your fingernails? What about that padlock? That could have been a cover for a hidden compartment containing a weapon.

You weren't wearing odor eaters, were you? There could have been a weapon inside of them.

Wrist watch?
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

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.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:
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.


Hmm, I highly regard every post, story and bit of knowledgeI see from you sir although 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.

Though in your case you were not lieing so this no longer applies to your scenerio, just an additional question now. Don't want to lead this topic elsewhere sorry just maybe if you have some clarification on that part.

Though other than that keep us posted on how this turns out please.



Edit: and by the way, yes silence is what they need. Since when did it become acceptable in America for Police to abuse the ignorance of the public and ask things they need not know???
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...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...
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.

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).
 

merle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Tahoe, Nevada, USA
imported post

I vaguely remember reading this a while back. But there is nothing wrong with lying to police or the investigators. Too lazy today todig deeper.

"The Ninth Circuit struck down a state law that criminalized knowingly false statements in cicitzen complaints against police officers. While the law can punish knowingly false statements generally, the court held that a law can't punish knowingly false statements on one side of an issue (here, knowingly false statements accusing police officers) but leave unpunished knowingly false statements on the other side (here, knowingly false statements by witnesses who are seeking to exonerate the police officer). The court cited R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban on racist fighting words; a total ban on fighting words (i.e., epithets directed to a particular person that seem likely to trigger a fight), the R.A.V. Court held, would be constitutional, but certain kinds of discrimination within the category of fighting words -- for instance, banning racist fighting words but not other fighting words -- are unconstitutional."
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...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...
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.

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).
Ok, well if my meaning of the word the cops "job" was to find the bad guy, I think I'm correct.

Supreme Court of the United States, “In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant 'in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 618 (1949) quoting Judge Learned Hand in U.S. v. Peoni 100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d. Cir. 1938).

Like you said PullNshoots scenerio is off the hook since no crime is being committed but in my scenerio given, if I pointed the officer the other direction then I have "seeked in my actions to see this crime succeed". So you can not always lie to a police officer. Though you can "white lie" I guess for lack of a better term.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

148 PC deals with delaying, resisting, obstructing police in the performance of thier duties. It says nothing specifically about lying to the cops. In theory a very smart cop and a very breve DA might make a 148 case against a lie but I doubt it would actually happen.

As far as I know there is no crime called "obstruction of justice" in California.



Yo Nate,

Interesting fun you had there with SDPD. Good job on your complaint letter too. Your logic, legal and otherwise seems solid to me but I've got a couple little issues with your letter.

1. Its a "detention" not a detainment. The cops, DAs and judges call it a detention so we should too. It helps keep us from sounding like boobs if we use the same vocabulary as they do. Cops love to laugh at curbside lawyers that can't get thier vocabulary right.

2. Don't call it a "Terry search" its either a "frisk" or a "search". Calling it a Terry search lends it legitimacy it doesn't deserve and again risks making you sound like a not very good curbside lawyer. 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.

4. "Without" is a perfectly good American word. "Sans" makes you sound like a faggy efette Frenchman. Speak American Damnit!:p Freedom Fries anyone?

5. Next time you get jacked up (adverse contact, not friendly), and you will get jacked up again, you might want to try saying in a loud and clear voice for all to hear. No I won't tell you my name. no you can't search me. No you can't take my wallet out of my pocket. no you can't take my ID out of my wallet. No you can't reach into my pocket. Take your hand out of my pocket

6. Next time you are in cuffs and someone asks you if they are OK ,say that they hurt. You might get the sympathetic cop who realizes that the cuffs are overkill.

7. There might be other stuff that's worth writing but I just don't feel like it right now. Keep up the good work. Educate 'em when you can, praise 'em when the deserve it and beef 'em when they earn it.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
imported post

ConsideringOC wrote:
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 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.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
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.
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."

It's important to note three things here.

One, that the police officer conducting the Terry stop has to believe that his or other's safety is at risk along with having reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place. Having RAS isn't enough to also conduct a search.

Two, that a Terry stop only permits a search for weapons. Terry doesn't allow for a frisk for anything else.

Three, that the individual must be perceived as being armed AND dangerous. Being perceived as being armed isn't enough, being perceived as being dangerous isn't enough, they must both be present to allow for a frisk under Terry.
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
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.




 

Old Timer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
49
Location
, ,
imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:
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.
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."

The problem is that the above is in the Vehicle Code and not the Penal Code. So the assumption is that you give a false name or use a false ID or other false information when stopped for a driving infraction. I don't know of any instances where it has been applied to a situation not involving a vehicle stop.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

Toe,

Here's how you get a pot pipe out of a frisk in a Terry stop. You have reasonable suspicion enough to make the stop and conduct a frisk. The standard of proof to permit this is real low by the way. You do the frisk and feel a pot pipe in a pocket. The fact that you felt it was a pot pipe is the key here. Your training and experience tells you what pot pipes look and feel like. It also tells you that tobacco is almost never smoked in a pot pipe and that almost all pot pipes have a "usable amount" ofmarijuana in them. Usable amount is defined as any amount sufficient to be manipulated and ingested in the regular way. Plain sight also includes plain smell and plain feel. You plainly felt the pot pipe. Marijuana is contraband and you now have probable cause (a set of facts and circumstances that lead a reasonable officer to believe that a crime was comitted and that the person comitted it)to believe thatthe friskee is in possession of contraband. Probable cause is good. You reach into the pocket, extract theevil contraband and receive a cookie from your sergeant.

Viola, reasonable suspicion evolves into probable cause enabling a search and arrest. By the way, not having reasonable suspicion is no bar to a similar evolution starting with a consensual contact.

This is not theoretical knowledge by the way. I've done it once or twice.
 
Top