Is your view and nonconsent clear???

I was reading another article linked from a thread regarding the Baltimore PD and their new Camera's are ok against officers policy. I noticed a reoccurring issue. Here is the quote that caught my attention.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-md-ci-police-video-orders-20120210,0,5470593.story


"The inescapable reality for [Sharp] is that he consented to the viewing of the alleged footage on his phone, whether reluctantly or not, [and] he cannot sustain a constitutional violation claim against the [police]," according to those documents. Sharp was not arrested during the encounter.

So just a reminder or maybe new info to some, that your intent needs to be very clear. Verbally stating you don't consent, or you are operating under duress and fear of harm at a minimum or something to that effect. Or simply flat out do not speak, actively comply or give anything. Force the opposers to actively remove property or perform unlawful actions. But be careful to keep the balance of not actively complying and resisting. Attempts to physically resist are not generally recommended, and will likely result in injury.




The statements contained are opinions and not to be construed as any type of legal advice.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there, Moto.

But, I agree. Refuse consent--politely, verbally, refuse consent. If you think you might be cited, arrested, assaulted, or forced to comply, then you can always say you are complying against your consent because you think compliance may be compelled by force.

For example, "Officer, I will comply with your demand for my ID (while reaching for wallet), but I do not consent. I am only providing it because you have demanded it in a way that makes me think compliance may be compelled."

Oh, well I thought it was rather clear, and by your agreement it sounds like you understood it. I was just giving an example, and reaffirming the fact that if you make a statement stick to it. Don't cave to the fear. Be careful what you say, and be clear in your words and actions. Ambiguity ruins a lot of cases. In the example he lost because it was perceived that he consented therefore has no case.

Motofixxer said:

SNIP Oh, well I thought it was rather clear

Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess I could have been clearer myself.

It was the last three sentences. I don't quite get what you mean. Or, perhaps, I don't quite get how it integrates into the earlier part about making non-consent clear.

Ok I will break it down for anyone who doesn't understand. The link is a situation where a guy filed a suit. The judge says that he consented, although reluctantly, it was not clear that he did not consent. Which is an issue that comes up rather frequently. LEO's are trained to interrogate and gain consent, get you to talk and waive your rights. So if your in the situation, my opinion is be sure your being very clear and verbalize your intent. Don't reluctantly comply, don't be ambiguous in your statements or actions. Keep quiet if possible at all times. Our normal reaction is to speak and defend ourselves. But that also opens you up and can create ambiguous intentions. Remember that ANYTHING you say WILL be used against you. If you say your gonna remain silent, then do it. My opinion is don't offer help or assistance. If they start forcefully moving, digging in your pockets or searching you, state you don't consent, but don't resist their actions, you will only get assaulted and harmed. Any clearer?