stopped by off duty deputy at Wal-Mart

wrightme · Feb 23, 2012

PALO said:
jesus christ. if you are so ******* childish that you need a cite for every single clear legal principle, i will give you one

that sets aside the fallacious notion that the OP brought up that if a police power is not statutorily authorized it does not exist.

http://www.dui-usa.drinkdriving.org/dui_dwi_information.php
"If a police officer suspects a driver is intoxicated after a traffic stop he can request that person to perform what is known as a field sobriety test. A lot of people are unaware that in the majority of states these tests are completely voluntary and a driver is well within their rights to politely refuse to take a field sobriety test if they are over the age of 21 and are not on parole. While partaking in field sobriety tests is voluntary, it is worth noting that refusing to do so can go towards making a case for probable cause for a drunk driving arrest. "

note also that in some states, (including mine) refusing to take a breath test after arrest CAN be used against you in court. (it couldn't in hawaii, it can in WA). iow, the jury is made aware of that and CAN consider it in helping to determine guilt

In WA, we adhere to aguilar spineli

in brief, probable cause is what an officer can consider as to whether the totality of the circs establish or not - PC

LOTS of stuff we can consider in the field is NOT admissible in trial. an obvious example is hearsay that does not fall under a hearsay exception. hearsay may be LESS reliable but it is still something we can and do consider in establishing PC.

let me give you one example. marital privilege. lots of stuff a spouse could claim about a husband can be excluded in trial due to marital privilege. that doesn't mean a cop can't consider them for PC if made known to him

the "street" is not a court of law. different rules apply. they apply to evidence, they apply to conduct, etc.

let ME just ask one question. do you SERIOUSLY not believe that probable cause has a different evidentiary standard than court admissibility?

OR

do you know what i am saying is true but you just want me to provide a cite for everything you don't like ?

OR

do you not know either way, thus you want a cite before you consider it as true?

You forgot to cite the actual statute that references 'implied consent.' So, the case you claim for dui is false.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308

(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a test or tests of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration or presence of any drug in his or her breath or blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or was in violation of RCW 46.61.503. Neither consent nor this section precludes a police officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person's breath or blood.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 23, 2012

1) I notice that PALO still hasn't cited to any authority.

and
2) I can't believe we're still engaging someone that can't seem to understand the difference between Probable Cause and Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 23, 2012

Here is an article in Police Chief Magazine re: Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves
By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department

It is interesting that the only time 'obstruction' is mentioned is when there already exists probable cause for an arrest.

Venator · Feb 23, 2012

Fallschirmjäger said:
Here is an article in Police Chief Magazine re: Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves
By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department

It is interesting that the only time 'obstruction' is mentioned is when there already exists probable cause for an arrest.

Good article. Found this statement troubling in the abstract. *“the government’s strong interest in officer safety outweighs the motorist’s interests."

This leads down a bad road. Could for example could an officer handcuff all people during a traffic stop as SOP during these stops, after all the government’s strong interest in officer safety outweighs the motorist’s interests."

*The Tenth Circuit addressed the issue later in United States v. Villagrana-Flores

ncwabbit · Feb 23, 2012

Fallschirmjäger, et al., i am amazed the membership is still engaged w/the rants of the citeless individual across the board as i have not gleaned a smiggen of information from his postulate(s) and tomes that have been posted...

wabbit

btw...thanks for the link to the article...quite informative...

Dreamer · Feb 23, 2012

ncwabbit said:
Fallschirmjäger, et al., i am amazed the membership is still engaged w/the rants of the citeless individual across the board as i have not gleaned a smiggen of information from his postulate(s) and tomes that have been posted...

We have obviously been infiltrated by sock puppets, agent provocateurs, and AI bots. They are here to create division, dissent, and to suck up bandwidth, as well as to glean information on the more vocal, (and authoritative) members of this forum. Any corner of the internet can be used by TPTB to track, trace, and database the actions of the liberty-minded, and of citizens who actually KNOW and can cite the Law. We need to get this information out NOW as best we can to as many people that we can. Educating the public should be our #1 priority. Also, archiving these documents (case law, Statutes, etc) in some form that is non internet-dependent is going to be CRUCIAL in the immediate future, when such resources are going to be locked down out for everyone but the "anointed class".

They hate people who know the law, and want to have a list of us, so when they implement broad-spectrum SOP lawlessness on the part of LEAs they'll know who to keep an eye on, and who to round up for "re-education". The gulags are ready, the trains and busses are ready, and the military is being trained to man, staff, and guard us all. The simple fact is that the MOS that is seeing the greatest increase in the Army and Marine Corps is "Military Police". Do the math, folks...

This November may very well be the last Presidential Election we see in the USA.

DocWalker · Feb 23, 2012

Dreamer said:
We have obviously been infiltrated by sock puppets, agent provocateurs, and AI bots. They are here to create division, dissent, and to suck up bandwidth, as well as to glean information on the more vocal, (and authoritative) members of this forum. Any corner of the internet can be used by TPTB to track, trace, and database the actions of the liberty-minded, and of citizens who actually KNOW and can cite the Law. We need to get this information out NOW as best we can to as many people that we can. Educating the public should be our #1 priority. Also, archiving these documents (case law, Statutes, etc) in some form that is non internet-dependent is going to be CRUCIAL in the immediate future, when such resources are going to be locked down out for everyone but the "anointed class".

They hate people who know the law, and want to have a list of us, so when they implement broad-spectrum SOP lawlessness on the part of LEAs they'll know who to keep an eye on, and who to round up for "re-education". The gulags are ready, the trains and busses are ready, and the military is being trained to man, staff, and guard us all. The simple fact is that the MOS that is seeing the greatest increase in the Army and Marine Corps is "Military Police". Do the math, folks...

This November may very well be the last Presidential Election we see in the USA.

Now I need a tinfoil hat...

KYKevin · Feb 23, 2012

Tinfoil hat kit and instructions.

http://shoutsfromtheabyss.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/abyss-christmas-buying-guide-2011-part-one/

Dreamer · Feb 23, 2012

DocWalker said:
Now I need a tinfoil hat...

You, sir, are politically ignorant, historically illiterate, and empirically retarded...

But maybe, in some unicorn and puppydog reality, you are right. Surely the government doesn't use sockpuppets at all...

Except for the $2.76 million contract awarded to CA company NTrepid in 2011 to do exactly that...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

http://govinthelab.com/battle-of-the-sockpuppets-part-of-the-discussion-at-media140-brisbane/

And except for the paper published in a the Harvard Law Review by Cass Sunstein, the current administration's "administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs", saying that they needed to do exactly that--infiltrate certain online forums and insert messages using "cognitive infiltration" to confuse and discredit activists...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-goldwag/cass-sunsteins-thought-po_b_453562.html

Of course, the entire COINTELPRO program must just be a "conspiracy theory" and never really happened either...

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cointelpro.html

http://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/cointelpro-ii-hunting-terrorists-by-making-them/

WTFU, people...

()pen(arry · Feb 23, 2012

WTFU, people...[/QUOTE]

WHOAH! WHOAH! http://xkcd.com/1013/ Be careful!!!

PALO · Feb 24, 2012

Fallschirmjäger said:
1) I notice that PALO still hasn't cited to any authority.

and
2) I can't believe we're still engaging someone that can't seem to understand the difference between Probable Cause and Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

I most definitely understand the difference. Considering that I have testified scores of times at hearings and had my terries AND arrests almost always hold up, the proof is in the pudding

Again, as one example, an officer can consider hearsay in helping to determine PC even if that hearsay would not be admissible n court

I am sorry if you are ignorant of the law

As for why didn't I have the sgt fired for being wrong on the DV law? It's not a fire able offense. To this day he's never admitted he was wrong, ... You have a lot in common with him

Since you have such a hard on for a cite... Here

http://web.archive.org/web/20080102040655/http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm

Note that among the many factors that can be considered in probable cause determination BUT not admissible in trial ? PAST CRIMINAL CONDUCT

iow, an officer sees a person he suspects is committing a crime, say car prowl. Does the fact that the officer knows this guy has been convicted on prior car prowls ADD to probable cause?

Yes

As listed in the citation

if the case goes to trial, can the fact that the guy previously was convicted of car prowl be mentioned to the jury?

No (unless certain exceptions apply, but those are exceptions)

Again, it doesnt surprise me you are this ignorant, that you think only COURT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE can count towards PC, BUT it makes me sad there is so much ignorance

And again, this is but one of MANY EXAMPLES

asked and answered

Hth

wrightme · Feb 24, 2012

The link doesn't work. What's your point?

WHere does any of what you say address your claim that refusal to identify can add to PC?

PALO said:
<snip of the insults and irrelevant non-data>
asked and answered

Hth

So, no, asked and dodged.

OC for ME · Feb 24, 2012

PALO said:
<snip> As for why didn't I have the sgt fired for being wrong on the DV law? It's not a fire able offense. To this day he's never admitted he was wrong, ... You have a lot in common with him <snip>

Does WA have any statutes that address 'abuse of power' by state agents?

If, as you state, that this Sgt. 'asked' you to falsely cite a citizen, he may have 'asked' other officers in the past and may 'ask' other officers in the future. Or, are you the one and only officer this Sgt. has ever 'asked' or will 'ask'? Are you even interested in learning if there is a pattern of behavior? If, of course, you do not already know how this Sgt. 'operates'. Has this Sgt. been successful in the past with having citizens cited falsely and unjustly?

If there is a pattern of behavior, why not document his behavior and then submit this information to your chain of command? Or, since he will/may no longer 'ask' you, that is the end of it as far as you are concerned?

If he is wrong on the law, his admission is irrelevant. I suspect his lack of acknowledgment means that he does not care whether his acts/actions harm others unjustly. He may not be able to be fired for being wrong, but he can be fired for acting on his 'wrongness' when it harms others unjustly. His ignorance, if it is ignorance, must not be confused with malicious intent, I agree, but his ignorance could have lead to malicious results if he had 'asked' a more pliable officer.

How does the citizenry have this Sgt. removed from the force? What recourse does the citizenry have to prevent his actions from unjustly harming innocent citizens? Or, must we citizens deal with this Sgt., for you, as usual, after he has made 'the mistake' publicly and harmed a citizen unjustly?

OC for ME · Feb 24, 2012

wrightme said:
The link doesn't work. What's your point?

Where does any of what you say address your claim that refusal to identify can add to PC?

So, no, asked and dodged.

Took a while but the link worked. Converted the subject matter to a pdf.

Probable Cause

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 24, 2012

wrightme said:
Where does any of what you say address your claim that refusal to identify can add to PC?

~ Dood, it's right there in black and white. See, if someone is doing something suspicious and the police have his name, then (as outlined in PALO's 5th-grade level writing) they find out that he's committed similar crimes before, then their mere suspicions are now that much stronger that he may actually be committing a crime.
I'll quote if for you..."Supreme Court case law has indicated that rumor, mere suspicion, and even "strong reason to suspect" are not equivalent to probable cause."

Oh... wait... never mind, it says that suspicion, even strong reason to suspect ISN'T probable cause. My bad.~

The plain facts are that "probable cause" must be based on those inconvenient things called "facts", and that Mr Smith has been convicted of 1,000 burglaries in the past three years is not a 'fact' that he's committing one at the present time. It may raise suspicions (from which we derive Reasonable Articulable Suspicion), but it is not PC of a crime.

PALO, I hate to have to break the sad news to you, ol' buddy, but .... a link to something published on the internet doesn't count as a 'citation'. I could link to a webpage that says the Holocaust never occurred, or that Jesus was a Hindu, but that doesn't make either necessarily true.
When someone challenges you for a citation it means:

(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.

If I were to say that parking your car in front of a stop sign for twenty minutes to wait for your rugrat to be delivered by the school bus was illegal in Georgia and someone challenged me to come up with the citation, then I'm obligated to provide a citation, i.e.: 40-6-203 which states that

(a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device, no person shall:
(2) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers:
(D) Within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign, yield sign, or traffic-control signal located at the side of a roadway;

PALO said:
I am sorry if you are ignorant of the law.

No problem, I'm sorry that your department hired someone with only a 5th grade writing level*

slapmonkay · Feb 24, 2012

Ill help PALO out with a couple cites regarding Identify in WA. I already gave him in another thread, should have been fairly easy for him to find...

slapmonkay said:
In Washington state (where you and I are from), you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being given a citation or driving a vehicle.

Citizen · Feb 24, 2012

PALO said:
SNIP jesus christ. if you are so ******* childish that you need a cite for every single clear legal principle, i will give you one

that sets aside the fallacious notion that the OP brought up that if a police power is not statutorily authorized it does not exist.

http://www.dui-usa.drinkdriving.org/dui_dwi_information.php
"If a police officer suspects a driver is intoxicated after a traffic stop he can request that person to perform what is known as a field sobriety test. A lot of people are unaware that in the majority of states these tests are completely voluntary and a driver is well within their rights to politely refuse to take a field sobriety test if they are over the age of 21 and are not on parole. While partaking in field sobriety tests is voluntary, it is worth noting that refusing to do so can go towards making a case for probable cause for a drunk driving arrest. "

note also that in some states, (including mine) refusing to take a breath test after arrest CAN be used against you in court. (it couldn't in hawaii, it can in WA). iow, the jury is made aware of that and CAN consider it in helping to determine guilt

In WA, we adhere to aguilar spineli

in brief, probable cause is what an officer can consider as to whether the totality of the circs establish or not - PC

LOTS of stuff we can consider in the field is NOT admissible in trial. an obvious example is hearsay that does not fall under a hearsay exception. hearsay may be LESS reliable but it is still something we can and do consider in establishing PC.

let me give you one example. marital privilege. lots of stuff a spouse could claim about a husband can be excluded in trial due to marital privilege. that doesn't mean a cop can't consider them for PC if made known to him

the "street" is not a court of law. different rules apply. they apply to evidence, they apply to conduct, etc.

let ME just ask one question. do you SERIOUSLY not believe that probable cause has a different evidentiary standard than court admissibility?

OR

do you know what i am saying is true but you just want me to provide a cite for everything you don't like ?

OR

do you not know either way, thus you want a cite before you consider it as true?

Hey, fellas.

Lets take a quick review.

InsulterCop aka palo, makes a broad-brush statement that silence can augment or be used for probable cause, seemingly contrary to what we're all taught in school--that exercising rights cannot increase suspicion or imply guilt.

Then when asked for a cite, InsulterCop can only come up with a single narrow example about DUI, while omitting the implied consent angle. NOT with case law or explanations how the principle has any general applicability. Get it? Broad-brush statement, narrow, narrow example.

Oh, and it would seem he never paid attention to any of our previous posts a few of us, myself included, have expressly pointed out being careful about exercising all rights during a police encounter while driving because you might trigger the DUI implied consent provision and suffer penalties.

Seems he's real good at slinging generalizations and general warnings, but doesn't give concrete examples until called for a cite or argued with. And, then slings insults. And, comes up with exceptionally narrow examples.

Now, contrast this with pro-rights posters who adocate exercising rights, but alert the readers to specific pitfalls where applicable and known to the writer.

Boy, it sure looks to me like InsulterCop is trying to scare people off of exercising rights. Makes broad-brush generalized warnings, but then only has one or a very few concrete examples that he could have given in the first place. Yep, he's a cop alright. Same behavior out of a few other cops who've come---and gone.

And, we're supposed to listen to this guy?

Herr Heckler Koch · Feb 24, 2012

Dreamer said:
They are here to create division, dissent, and to suck up bandwidth, as well as to glean information on the more vocal, (and authoritative) members of this forum.

You have cited a fine rule for inclusion (and exclusion) in what should be our growing list of UN-friends (and 'friends'). They make the gleaning and planting of knowledge much more direct.

Herr Heckler Koch · Feb 24, 2012

Stop and identify; Authority to arrest without warrant; Actions after arrest without

Here is Wisconsin (the state cites voluminous case law in its 'Annotations' appended to the statute, a dozen and a half in the 'Stop and identify' case).

Temporary questioning without arrest. §968.24 After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for
a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped. (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968.pdf)

Authority to arrest without a warrant. §345.22 A person may be arrested without a warrant for the violation of a traffic regulation if the traffic officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is violating or has violated a traffic regulation. (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/345.pdf)

Officer’s action after arrest without a warrant. §345.23 If a person is arrested without a warrant for the violation of a traffic regulation, the arresting officer shall issue a citation under s.345.11, and in addition:
(1) May release the person; or
(2) Shall release the person when he or she:
(a) Makes a deposit under s. 345.26; or
(c) Deposits the person’s valid Wisconsin operator’s license with the officer. If the license is deposited with the officer, the officer shall issue to the licensee a receipt which shall be valid as a driver’s license through the date specified on the receipt, which shall be the same as the court appearance date, and the officer shall, at the earliest possible time prior to the court appearance date, deposit the license with the court.
(d) Presents a guaranteed arrest bond certificate under s.345.61.
(3) Shall, if the alleged violator is not released under sub. (1) or (2), bring him or her without unreasonable delay before a judge or, for ordinance violations, before a municipal judge in the county in which the violation was alleged to have been committed.
(4) Shall, if the alleged violator is released under sub. (1) or (2), specify on the citation a return date which may not be more than 90 days after the issue date. (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/345.pdf)

wrightme · Feb 24, 2012

Doug,

Those appear to discuss stop and/or arrest for traffic violations. What relevance do you feel they have for being stopped by an unidentified person in Walmart?

stopped by off duty deputy at Wal-Mart

Regular Member

Active member

Active member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Attachments

Active member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member