• 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.

Illegally detained and searched

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
You said that it was questionable behavor. I.E. you said that walking down the street at 1am is more than enough for an officer to detain someone.

No he didn't. Please re-read carefully what he wrote.


Guys,

Mach1Chris gave what I consider a legally acceptable clarification. He wouldn't have seized the OPer. And, if he had elected to contact the OPer, he would have kept it consensual.

I disagree that any suspicion attaches to walking at 1:30am, but as long as he keeps such a contact consensual, its legal as far as I know.
 

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
No he didn't. Please re-read carefully what he wrote.


Guys,

Mach1Chris gave what I consider a legally acceptable clarification. He wouldn't have seized the OPer. And, if he had elected to contact the OPer, he would have kept it consensual.

I disagree that any suspicion attaches to walking at 1:30am, but as long as he keeps such a contact consensual, its legal as far as I know.

Sorry, I was going off of

I believe that the way the fellow officer acted was wrong, but if you were in his shoes and saw a man walking down the street at 1am would you or would you not be a little suspicious about it?...
Guess I was going off him stating he would be "a little suspicious" of it.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
Thats fine man. Im not here to make enemies or to insult anyone. Im here to learn from everyone of you guys.

Keep cracking the jokes after all, it is you're right.

bro, I'm just keeping the "tone" light here. not insulting you. don't confuse comic relief for a personal attack.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I believe that the way the fellow officer acted was wrong, but if you were in his shoes and saw a man walking down the street at 1am would you or would you not be a little suspicious about it?...

Without RAS casual contact is allowed. If not detained, then you are free to go. He was unlawfully detained and searched. He was violated by one of your brother officers and you seem fine with it. Sad.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
No he didn't. Please re-read carefully what he wrote.


Guys,

Mach1Chris gave what I consider a legally acceptable clarification. He wouldn't have seized the OPer. And, if he had elected to contact the OPer, he would have kept it consensual.

I disagree that any suspicion attaches to walking at 1:30am, but as long as he keeps such a contact consensual, its legal as far as I know.

Therein is the crux: consensual encounter only. mach1chris clarified in an acceptable manner to me--and Citizen. Of course, we are the main police apologists on the forum so take it with a grain of salt...:)
 

mach1chris

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
130
Location
Miami, FL
Without RAS casual contact is allowed. If not detained, then you are free to go. He was unlawfully detained and searched. He was violated by one of your brother officers and you seem fine with it. Sad.

If you would take the time to read what I said in my previous post, you would see that I said that I believe the way the fellow officer went upon conducting his business was wrong. Turn off your tunnel vision and stop making assumptions about me for what I do, read what I said.
 

mach1chris

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
130
Location
Miami, FL
Therein is the crux: consensual encounter only. mach1chris clarified in an acceptable manner to me--and Citizen. Of course, we are the main police apologists on the forum so take it with a grain of salt...:)

No harm ever came from a consensual encounter. In fact I believe its healthy, and strenghthens the relationship between Citizen and Police.

Thanks...
 

Mo

Banned
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Location
usa
If you would take the time to read what I said in my previous post, you would see that I said that I believe the way the fellow officer went upon conducting his business was wrong. Turn off your tunnel vision and stop making assumptions about me for what I do, read what I said.

I think emotions tend to run high when it comes to these issues. At first, I had sort of a "huh?" moment when I read your post, but you've also been quite patient in explaining what you meant while taking fire from all directions and I appreciate that patience.
 

10x

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
134
Location
FL
"Sometimes you have to open you're mind a little becuase maybe the officer was having a bad day, we are all human."

With all due respect brother, I am tired of this excuse. When a cop has a bad day he can ruin someones life, these morons need to go period!
 
Last edited:

Rich7553

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
515
Location
SWFL
Whether or not the encounter is consensual depends very much upon one's perspective.

Very true...

I disagree. In a consentual encounter between a law enforcement officer and a citizen, the citizen is free to end the encounter at any time without repercussion. A simple, "officer, unless I'm being detained, I really don't feel like chatting" should suffice. If ordered to stop, it instantly becomes a detainment and reasonable suspicion needs to be articulable at that point. With regards to identification, any demand to produce same also turns the encounter from consentual to a detention, and the same RS requirements are in play.

Comments?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I disagree. In a consentual encounter between a law enforcement officer and a citizen, the citizen is free to end the encounter at any time without repercussion. A simple, "officer, unless I'm being detained, I really don't feel like chatting" should suffice. If ordered to stop, it instantly becomes a detainment and reasonable suspicion needs to be articulable at that point. With regards to identification, any demand to produce same also turns the encounter from consentual to a detention, and the same RS requirements are in play.

Comments?

Comments? Yes: Cites*, please.

Good luck. You've touched on stuff addressed by at least five SCOTUS decisions.


Forum Rule #5:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
 
Last edited:

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
Rick H:

Thanks for posting and starting this thread which has elicited much beneficial discussion.

One suggestion: if something like this ever happens again, begin by being respectful and cooperative. Who knows, it may make a difference in the ultimate outcome of an encounter such as this.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Rick H:

Thanks for posting and starting this thread which has elicited much beneficial discussion.

One suggestion: if something like this ever happens again, begin by being respectful and cooperative. Who knows, it may make a difference in the ultimate outcome of an encounter such as this.

Huh!?!?!

The OPer doesn't particularly relate being disrespectful or impolite to the cop. And, from what I can tell the OPer cooperated with the cop to the full extent required by law.

Are you saying he should waive his rights next time?

And, where in the constitution does it say rights must be exercised politely or respectfully?

Lets keep this in perspective. Lets take a look at some real non-cooperation and disrespect. The OPer didn't punch the cop, he didn't try to knife the cop, he didn't run and make the cop chase him through yards risking a twisted ankle or clotheslined throat.

Respect? Cooperation? Two way street, Mister. Will you be writing that police department "suggesting" the officer start his next encounter by being respectful, rather than deceitful, and cooperating with the citizen when the citizen exercises his rights?

Lets face it. That nasty little cop meant to detain the OPer from the outset. He meant to dig into the OPers business, whether the OPer exercised his rights or not. He had no intention of respecting the OPers rights from the moment he approached the OPer.

Rights are rights are rights are rights. They don't need justification. They don't need an explanation. The justifications and explanations were figured out long, long ago. They're not there to make interesting conversation when confronted by a cop or government. Literally over a million Americans have died defending them. Some of them go back almost literally 800 years to Magna Carta. Most were paid for in blood before the American Revolution. Blood! dammit. Countless millions have suffered for lack of them, or died. A cop's curiosity and your opinion pale into pathetic insignificance against the historical record and the cost of obtaining rights.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
As do yours, sir.

That's it? That's your reply? After everything I brought to bear?

No explanation of where I'm wrong? No exposure of false premise or faulty logic in my argument?

Just a simple one-liner that addresses---nothing?



Just tell us one thing. Did you immigrate here before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
 

Rich7553

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
515
Location
SWFL
Comments? Yes: Cites*, please.

Good luck. You've touched on stuff addressed by at least five SCOTUS decisions.


Forum Rule #5:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

What? Are you kidding me? If one is not free to leave, they are being detained.
 

mach1chris

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
130
Location
Miami, FL
I disagree. In a consentual encounter between a law enforcement officer and a citizen, the citizen is free to end the encounter at any time without repercussion. A simple, "officer, unless I'm being detained, I really don't feel like chatting" should suffice. If ordered to stop, it instantly becomes a detainment and reasonable suspicion needs to be articulable at that point. With regards to identification, any demand to produce same also turns the encounter from consentual to a detention, and the same RS requirements are in play.

Comments?

Rich, I completely understand what you have just said but lets face it. What is so bad about a consentual encounter?... I personaly would prefer to not waste anyones time if I dont have to, but if I can help someone or save someones life by doing so, I will.
 
Top