How to repond to LEO request for ID

A person who is committing no crime, does not have to identify themselves. If you look, the officer told him repeatedly that he (person being questioned) was not committing a crime. Therefore he was not required to identify himself AT ALL.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RP4409#p/a/u/0/qfV04ZDjWhE

Correct

I wouldn't change one word you said, except maybe the "foul" language. Your answers were brief and to the point. Good, good, good job.

Just to make things clear, This was not me in the video. It appears a typo in my OP may have led some to believe it was, , for that I apologize.

My experience though in the last several encounters is not identifying yourself pisses them off, and they will look for any excuse to get you after that. :banghead:

Many in "authority" rely on ignorance of the masses to impose their will on free people. When they encounter someone who knows that their (LEO's) "authority" is limited, they will talk in circles to get you to screw up and play into their hands. The law enforcement INDUSTRY, sees you and I as a source of potential revenue and job security. Nothing more. The citizen on the tape played this very well.

sudden valley gunner said:

My experience though in the last several encounters is not identifying yourself pisses them off, and they will look for any excuse to get you after that. :banghead:

Click to expand...

That's why wherever lawful to do so, you ALWAYS carry and use a voice recorder, preferably one not casually identifiable as a voice recorder.

Deanimator said:

That's why wherever lawful to do so, you ALWAYS carry and use a voice recorder, preferably one not casually identifiable as a voice recorder.

Click to expand...

I have the last one recorded, I was carrying he wasn't making an issue of that it was another matter, he was still pissed I wasn't "co-operating", told me unless I do he is going too...so asked him "isn't that coercsion?"

I got court Friday what do you wanna bet the police report is going to have, all the normal cop boilerplate language in it.

This is at the heart of lack of proper training when it comes to detentions and seizures. VA does not have a stop and identify law just for the officer's pleasure. Demanding to see an ID takes a consensual encounter to a detention.

Departments are responsible for training their officers. While an officer will never know every law on the books, search and seizure and other aspects of Constitutional law should be drilled into their heads until it is rote knowledge. The Constitution creates a perfect environment to operate within at all times.

Training. There is a substantial lack of it on both sides.

One thing we all need to train ourselves on is that LEOs are citizens. They have the same rights that you and I have. We may walk up to a citizen and ask him for his name. He, of course, can call us &*^%$s and walk away. So can a LEO just walk up to a citizen and ask him for his name.

The problem comes in when a LEO (or anyone, for that matter) takes an action that would normally be allowable for anyone but does it under the color of law. Some here would assume that the mere presence of a uniform or a badge would make any action under the color of law. The courts don't agree.

I read a recent case about a man accused of selling arms to illegals. As part of the investigation, he was stopped by (IIRC) four or five officers outside a gun show. His lawyer contended that, although the police insisted otherwise, that his client had been detained. The court said that a policeman talking to a citizen does not necessarily constitute a detention. However, they ruled that, in this case, the number of officers, combined with the fact that they essentially had him surrounded, created the impression in his mind that he was not free to go. That made it a detention. That made everything they did "under the color of law."

In the OP, the officer does not initially lead the cameraman to believe that he is not free to go, therefore the officer is free to ask the man's name without it being understood to be a demand under color of law. At some point in the encounter, the man asks if he is free to go. The officer says no. That made it a detention and made the continued requests for the man's name demands under color of law. Ironically, the officer said it was not a detention, even though he explicitly made it one.

Assuming the officer had no RAS, he crossed the line when he told the citizen that he was not free to go.

I guess the point I am making is that when a person dons the uniform of a LEO, he doesn't give up all the rights he could exercise as a citizen. His actions are lawfully limited when he takes those actions under color of law. The mere presence of a badge and a uniform does not automatically make his actions under color of law.

I would agree with you Eye95. A LEO is just a profession, not a class of citizen. All citizens have certain inalienable rights, even LEO's. Power and authority is granted to them by the state which derives its power by consent from the governed.

Sometimes by getting out of the car to talk to someone yields the suspect involved in robberies, burglaries, vandalism, and other crimes. I find that explaining to citizens that I am talking to them because a specific problem is occurring in that neighborhood results cooperation. No one wants to have a burglar running around their neighborhood. But treating everybody politely and explaining a problem goes a long way. Secondly, it causes that person to be on the lookout for the suspect(s).

LE is a team effort between the officers and the community. Sir Robert Peel's maxim "the police are the public, and the public are the police" captures this simple truth. His 9 principles should be the bedrock upon which any police department is founded.

So, palerider, you are a LEO? I did not know that.

Yes

Cool.

palerider116 said:

Yes

Click to expand...

thanks

palerider116 said:

Yes

Click to expand...

My hat's off to you, sir. Not many are willing to out themselves here - more is the shame.

Come to one of our dinners sometime - would like to meet you.

I enjoy OCDO. I try to offer my perspective and in turn gain perspective through the eyes and experiences of others.

Dinner sounds great

Grapeshot said:

Come to one of our dinners sometime - would like to meet you.

Click to expand...

palerider116 said:

Dinner sounds great

Click to expand...

Is this a dating site now?:lol:

:lol: @rodbender

The soft glow of a muzzle flash adds ambiance to any dinner. :monkey

eye95 said:

Assuming the officer had no RAS, he crossed the line when he told the citizen that he was not free to go.
.

Click to expand...

I keyed on the same thing. It would have been interesting for the videographer to have turned and walked away the moment the LEO made that statement.

RockyMtnScotsman said:

I keyed on the same thing. It would have been interesting for the videographer to have turned and walked away the moment the LEO made that statement.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend that. Whether or not the officer had RAS would be determined later in court, and it could be based on facts of which the citizen might not be aware.

Since the citizen videoed the incident, by not walking away until he established that he was free to go, he is in an excellent position to seek redress for the officer's overstep. He should.