"Do you know why we're here?" (question posed by LEO)

[Citizen]

I'll take advantage of this opportunity to promote my favorite response.

Cop: "Do you know why we're here?"

Me: "No offense, officer. I know you're probably just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."


This has the immediate effect of throwing the onus for continuing the encounter on him. There can be no doubt, and no wiggle room about whether or not I consented to the encounter by talking with the cop. He must have genuine RAS or probable cause to continue the encounter* even one second longer. If his next words are anything other than, "have a nice day, sir" or some other end-off to the encounter, I am seized--since it cannot possibly be a consensual encounter. At that point I just start repeating:

"Why am I being detained?"

"I do not consent to any searches or additional seizures."

"I would not answer any questions without an attorney."

"I do not consent to this encounter, and wish to be on my way immediately."

"Am I free to leave?"


Mission priority #1 is to preserve my health. Mission priority #2 is to preserve my legal position.

*See US Supreme Court case Terry vs Ohio.

 

[gogodawgs]

I'll take advantage of this opportunity to promote my favorite response.

Cop: "Do you know why we're here?"

Me: "No offense, officer. I know you're probably just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."


This has the immediate effect of throwing the onus for continuing the encounter on him. There can be no doubt, and no wiggle room about whether or not I consented to the encounter by talking with the cop. He must have genuine RAS or probable cause to continue the encounter* even one second longer. If his next words are anything other than, "have a nice day, sir" or some other end-off to the encounter, I am seized--since it cannot possibly be a consensual encounter. At that point I just start repeating:

"Why am I being detained?"

"I do not consent to any searches or additional seizures."

"I would not answer any questions without an attorney."

"I do not consent to this encounter, and wish to be on my way immediately."

"Am I free to leave?"


Mission priority #1 is to preserve my health. Mission priority #2 is to preserve my legal position.

*See US Supreme Court case Terry vs Ohio.

Precisely.

After watching a couple of recent video encounters of OC and LEO and reading a few threads of these encounters I noticed that this line was the intro for all of them. And there are definitely better ways to begin the encounter, I hope this threads helps newbies and veterans alike.

 

[Citizen]

I gotta believe that most MWAG calls will result in a officer contact or a least a drive by. Because lets say they do not come and a guy starts shooting. Looks bad for them. I think some of it is driven by liabilty, he came ,he saw, he made contact no problem. Not that I like it. Just saying, when KOMO asks the cheif "why didnt you respond when you got the first call?"

Just expanding a bit on Dave_pro2a's response above. I agree that police have no legal obligation to respond, thus there is no legal liability for not responding.

Which leaves us with Ghosthunter's comment about KOMO asking why no response.

This is a police image issue, meaning a political issue. And, your rights and mine are not subject to the political concerns of the police. Tough. Rights first.

There is nothing suspicious about possessing the means of self-defense. Nothing. If we agree it is OK for police to investigatorily contact someone over mere OC, we necessarily validate and agree that mere possession of the means of self-defense can be suspicious.

Personally, I think the proper assignment of suspicion is on the government agents who think exercising an enumerated right deserves investigation. "Oh, yeah? And just why exactly, Mr. Government Agent, do you think an enumerated right is suspicious?"

 

[Leatherneck]

Well, see officer, it starts with your mommy and daddy loving each other very much...

I also like:
"Yes sir, I do. The bakery is on aisle 1. Have a nice day."

 

[Metalhead47]

I also like:
"Yes sir, I do. The bakery is on aisle 1. Have a nice day."

Man, that kinda conversation could go all sorts of wrong if you happened to be at a Krispy Kreme at the time...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

Man, that kinda conversation could go all sorts of wrong if you happened to be at a Krispy Kreme at the time...

 

[jchen012]

Still... how does one "dismiss" a LEO who has a lawful right to be there as well (at least up until the manager asks him to leave, assuming said manager has balls to do so... then there's a can o worms about trespassing a cop... )

Last year in Portland, a coffee shop owner kicked out a police officer because he felt less safe with him around.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/red_black_cafe_shows_portland.html

 

[JoeSparky]

So the old "Am I being detained?/Am I free to go?/Good day, officer." bit has been pretty well established.... but what do y'all suggest of the OCer is some place static with no immediate plans to go anywhere before constabulary showed up? Having dinner at a restaurant, waiting in line at a store, etc?

Might look kinda goofy if one asks about being free to go then does not actually do so when released... and just sitting there attempting to ignore the coppiceman only invites more verbal judo from his end to try to continue the "voluntary" conversation...

In a situation where for what ever reason you are not ready to leave--- eating at a restaurant, etc after establishing that you are not being detained/arrested by the LEO.... Suggest to the officer that his continued pursuit of the now NON-CONSENSUAL encounter push by the LEO could be construed as harassment and will be reported and it could/will place said officer in legal jeopardy. Establish that you wish to be left alone. --- have it all recorded. One does not have to be impolite but can still establish that you wish to preserve your Constitutionally protected rights!

 

[Citizen]

So the old "Am I being detained?/Am I free to go?/Good day, officer." bit has been pretty well established.... but what do y'all suggest of the OCer is some place static with no immediate plans to go anywhere before constabulary showed up? Having dinner at a restaurant, waiting in line at a store, etc?

Might look kinda goofy if one asks about being free to go then does not actually do so when released... and just sitting there attempting to ignore the coppiceman only invites more verbal judo from his end to try to continue the "voluntary" conversation...

Say you're standing in line at a 7-Eleven or eating dinner at a steak-house or whatever. Just politely tell the officer at the outset that you do not consent to an encounter with him.

As I mention a couple posts up, it throws the ball into his court. Since any continuation of the encounter beyond that point cannot possibly be consensual, the cop must have RAS to continue to engage you.

The obvious advantages of this tactic are that it removes any doubt about whether you consented to the encounter, and it forces the cop to have genuine RAS to continue the encounter legally. (See Terry v Ohio and later cases about the legality of consensual encounters.) It also removes one of their favorite tools--now, they cannot safely badger you about why you don't want to talk to them if you've done nothing wrong, etc. You moved the conversation into a whole different zone. Its no longer a matter of trading comments, its a matter of you made it clear you don't want to engage with them at all, even down to being in their presence, or them being in yours. Basically, he either must have RAS to continue the encounter against your will, or he has to leave you alone.

Basically, I stole this idea from the courts. I came across a court opinion where the court wrote there are three types of police encounters. Consensual encounters. Brief, minimally intrusive, investigatory detentions. And, highly intrusive custodial arrests. Hey! That's right! Not only can a fella refuse consent to a search, not only can he refuse to answer questions without an attorney. He can refuse consent to the encounter itself!

Just politely tell the cop you do not consent to an encounter. If the cop continues to engage you past your refusal, that refusal necessarily removes all doubt about whether it was or wasn't a detention. It necessarily eliminates the later analysis about whether you implied consent, or whether by staying you consented, or whether the cop used an authoritative tone of voice. Those are just tools used by the court to determine whether a seizure occurred (see US v Mendenhall). No need for anybody to use those tools if you made it clear you did not consent to an encounter at the outset. Refusing consent to the encounter eliminates the possibility of anybody being able to legitimately conclude that what happened right after your refusal was consensual.

If the cop doesn't disengage at the refusal, repeating the refusal a few times in the next few moments only strengthens the fact that it is not a consensual encounter.

 

[amlevin]

Why ask that of the police officer? The officer has no authority to act on behalf of the property owner/agent. They only have authority to arrest you for trespassing after the owner/agent asks you to leave.

That "issue" is usually remedied by the Officer turning to the Owner, asking "do you want this person to leave". If the owner then says "yes" the Officer is free to act.

 

[jt59]

That "issue" is usually remedied by the Officer turning to the Owner, asking "do you want this person to leave". If the owner then says "yes" the Officer is free to act.

....only if you don't comply?

 

[Difdi]

....only if you don't comply?

Given how a lot of LEOs seem to interpret failure to teleport oneself into a holding cell as resisting arrest, it's a fair bet that failure to teleport off the property instantly upon the manager saying yes would result in a trespassing arrest. Of course, I can also envision situations where compliance would result in another crime you might end up in hot water over (jaywalking and dine & dash come most strongly to mind).

 

[SigPacker]

{officer} "Do you know why we're here?"

{SigPacker} "You heard I was giving away free doughnuts?"

 

[Citizen]

{officer} "Do you know why we're here?"

{SigPacker} "You heard I was giving away free doughnuts?"

I can see I'm going to have to start carrying a little pack of donuts when OCing.


Cop: "Do you know why we're here?"

Citizen: "Dammit! How is it you people always know when I've got donuts?"

 

[dadada]

I can see I'm going to have to start carrying a little pack of donuts when OCing.


Cop: "Do you know why we're here?"

Citizen: "Dammit! How is it you people always know when I've got donuts?"

Cop: "Do you know why we're here?"

dadada: "To sell me some tickets to the policemans ball?"

Cop: "Sir, we don't have balls anymore!"

dadada: rye smile!

 

[Metalhead47]

Cop: "Do you know why we're here?"

dadada: "To sell me some tickets to the policemans ball?"

Cop: "Sir, we don't have balls anymore!"

dadada: rye smile!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

That "issue" is usually remedied by the Officer turning to the Owner, asking "do you want this person to leave". If the owner then says "yes" the Officer is free to act.

That happens and is wrong, the police is interjecting himself and making suggestions he has no right to. File a complaint.

Cop: "Do you know why we're here?"

dadada: "To sell me some tickets to the policemans ball?"

Cop: "Sir, we don't have balls anymore!"

dadada: rye smile!

Something similar like this happened to my mother and her friends, they were laughing and pulled over by state trooper for exceeding the posted speed limit. So his answer was "I am a trooper ma'am we don't have balls". They started laughing even more he turned bright red went back to his car and drove off.

 

[amlevin]

Something similar like this happened to my mother and her friends, they were laughing and pulled over by state trooper for exceeding the posted speed limit. So his answer was "I am a trooper ma'am we don't have balls". They started laughing even more he turned bright red went back to his car and drove off.

That's interesting. The last time I read this "joke" it involved a Blonde and it took place in Texas. There is also a New York version too.

 

[Metalhead47]

That's interesting. The last time I read this "joke" it involved a Blonde and it took place in Texas. There is also a New York version too.

I hear they tried to make a Seattle pd venison as well but it always ended with gunshots...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

That's interesting. The last time I read this "joke" it involved a Blonde and it took place in Texas. There is also a New York version too.

I was there as a young lad and it happened around mile marker 244 by Lake Sammish. So although it may have been a joke I was unaware of, maybe it was a set up by them and a joke they were aware of and played on that trooper. Interesting.