What is the charge for lying to a police officer in Virginia?

[Primus]

Yes because in your world the person who claims that the other did it is the victim. Even when the evidence shows otherwise. Glad you picked up on that. And transport does equal arrest, could you cite the bring back law. :lol::lol::lol:

So tell us again how you let a person go from a crime because they said they did not do it? Particularly domestic violence? I think the ladies here would really appreciate your attitude.

Here's a piece on the Show Up: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Northampton_MA_ID_Protocols.pdf

Showups: The investigator should:
• Determine and document the description of the
perpetrator prior to the showup.
• Consider transporting the witness to the location of
the detained suspect to limit the legal impact of the
suspect’s detention and scene contamination........

Here is example of "bring back" : http://dps.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION Model Policy Draft final.pdf

6. If a suspect is stopped within a short time after the commission of the crime, he/she may be
taken to a location where he/she can be viewed by a witness for possible identification; or,
he/she may be detained at the site of the stop and the witness taken there to view him/her.
Transporting the witness to the site of the stop is preferred if circumstances permit.

There is no "bring back " law. It'd be on YOU to CITE how it's illegal. Remember if theres no law then its legal right?

YOU asserted transporting someone amounts to an arrest. You didn't say it CAN your agains saying it DOES as in everytime. So you provide the site to your claim.

I made the claim about bring back show up IDs, and now I've cited it. Ball is in your court.

 

[Primus]

One could easily make themselves a suspect by being honest. Then with federal officers a simple mistake could lead to a conviction of lying to a federal officers.

I was at such a place a 800pm well they found out it was actually 830 prove it was a mistake not a lie. Many people have went to prison for lying then the actual crime.

I guess I would ask on being stopped Am I a suspect for a crime if the answer is yes then It is I want to speak to an attorney before I answer any questions.

If the answer is no then it is am I free to go and if yes LEAVE, if no I want to speak to my attorney before I answer any questions.

As far as traffic citations even through I had good solid evidence of the violation. It was always nice to get the violator to admit quilt. Makes the case a lot stronger if they decide to contest the citation at a latter date.

I have made many arrests, then convicted them on their statements

We both have.... but your talking about actual criminals.

How many INNOCENT LAC have you arrested then got convictions on their statements? That's what we are talking about....

 

[eye95]

Martha Stewart.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/45

General Rule: The use of firearms, handcuffs, putting a person into a locked patrol car, transporting him without his consent, or simply a "show of force," may, under the circumstances, cause the court to later find that an attempted detention was in fact an arrest, and, if made without "probable cause," illegal. (United States v. Ramos-Zaragosa (9th Cir. 1975) 516 F.2nd 141, 144; New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 [81 L.Ed.2nd 550], handcuffs; Orozco v. Texas, supra, force.)


The use of handcuffs. (New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.)

While putting a juvenile in a security office at the border, and frisking her, were not enough to constitute an arrest, handcuffing her shortly thereafter when contraband was found in her car was an arrest. (United States v. Juvenile (RRA-A) (9th Cir. 2000) 229 F.3rd 737, 743.)

As a general rule: Detention

+ nonconsensual transportation

= arrest.

See also People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 384, 390-392; transporting a subject from the site of a traffic stop back to the scene of the crime for a victim identification, absent one of the recognized exceptions, was an arrest.

As a general proposition, despite defendant's urging, we are disinclined to hold that under no circumstances short of probable cause to arrest may an officer transport a suspect to another location for further interrogation or possible identification.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Here's a piece on the Show Up: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Northampton_MA_ID_Protocols.pdf

Showups: The investigator should:
• Determine and document the description of the
perpetrator prior to the showup.
• Consider transporting the witness to the location of
the detained suspect to limit the legal impact of the
suspect’s detention and scene contamination........

Here is example of "bring back" : http://dps.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION Model Policy Draft final.pdf

6. If a suspect is stopped within a short time after the commission of the crime, he/she may be
taken to a location where he/she can be viewed by a witness for possible identification; or,
he/she may be detained at the site of the stop and the witness taken there to view him/her.
Transporting the witness to the site of the stop is preferred if circumstances permit.

There is no "bring back " law. It'd be on YOU to CITE how it's illegal. Remember if theres no law then its legal right?

YOU asserted transporting someone amounts to an arrest. You didn't say it CAN your agains saying it DOES as in everytime. So you provide the site to your claim.

I made the claim about bring back show up IDs, and now I've cited it. Ball is in your court.

Did you even bother to read your own cite. NO where does it say that taking a suspect back to a location is detention, in fact it is either or! Yes you can transport after making an arrest! No where does the cite dispute that, or indicate it is a detention.

Case law clearly indicates that non-consensual transportation is a arrest, even when used for making an ID.

 

[Primus]

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/45

General Rule: The use of firearms, handcuffs, putting a person into a locked patrol car, transporting him without his consent, or simply a "show of force," may, under the circumstances, cause the court to later find that an attempted detention was in fact an arrest, and, if made without "probable cause," illegal. (United States v. Ramos-Zaragosa (9th Cir. 1975) 516 F.2nd 141, 144; New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 [81 L.Ed.2nd 550], handcuffs; Orozco v. Texas, supra, force.)


The use of handcuffs. (New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.)

While putting a juvenile in a security office at the border, and frisking her, were not enough to constitute an arrest, handcuffing her shortly thereafter when contraband was found in her car was an arrest. (United States v. Juvenile (RRA-A) (9th Cir. 2000) 229 F.3rd 737, 743.)

Not what we are talking about


As a general rule: Detention

+ nonconsensual transportation

= arrest.

See also People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 384, 390-392; transporting a subject from the site of a traffic stop back to the scene of the crime for a victim identification, absent one of the recognized exceptions, was an arrest.

See last bolded? That's what I'm saying. There are exceptions. Sure tranpsort without consent CAN be arrest, said that in caps like 5 times, but your saying it's ALWAYS an arrest. It's not, you even listed one of the exceptoins, consent. Is it a general rule? Sure. But there are mulitple exceptions and circumstances:

http://libcat.post.ca.gov/dbtw-wpd/documents/post/173621265.pdf

A reasonable, brief, on-scene investigation is all that the law authorizes
during a detention. Therefore, a person being detained may not be
transported or moved from the location of a stop unless:


(1) The suspect gives his or her permission to be moved
(2) The witness/victim is incapacitated or too injured to move (e.g. in a
"field show-up") <--------- this what I mentoined, a show up or bring back ID
(3) There is probable cause for arrest, or
(4) The conditions under which the detention was made were
inherently dangerous to the suspect or officer. Examples are:
(a) A suspect stopped for DUI on the freeway may be moved to
a side street for the administering of the field coordination
test
(b) An officer who detains a person in a bar where the crowd is
becoming hostile may move the suspect

Again... transport does NOT ALWAYS EQUAL arrest. Can it? Yes. But there are exceptions. So is it always? No.

WW this is an easy argument because your using words like ALWAYS. All I have to do is show 1 example of it being ok and there goes your premise. If you said it CAN be an arrest we would have agreed like 10 posts back. Instead you are stuck on the ALWAYS thing and won't let it go.

So be it, I've made my cites that show there are EXCEPTIONS. Eye knows what I'm going to do...

 

[davidmcbeth]

My answer to cop's inquiries:

Your the detective, figure it out...

 

[WalkingWolf]

See last bolded? That's what I'm saying. There are exceptions. Sure tranpsort without consent CAN be arrest, said that in caps like 5 times, but your saying it's ALWAYS an arrest. It's not, you even listed one of the exceptoins, consent. Is it a general rule? Sure. But there are mulitple exceptions and circumstances:

http://libcat.post.ca.gov/dbtw-wpd/documents/post/173621265.pdf

A reasonable, brief, on-scene investigation is all that the law authorizes
during a detention. Therefore, a person being detained may not be
transported or moved from the location of a stop unless:


(1) The suspect gives his or her permission to be moved
(2) The witness/victim is incapacitated or too injured to move (e.g. in a
"field show-up") <--------- this what I mentoined, a show up or bring back ID
(3) There is probable cause for arrest, or
(4) The conditions under which the detention was made were
inherently dangerous to the suspect or officer. Examples are:
(a) A suspect stopped for DUI on the freeway may be moved to
a side street for the administering of the field coordination
test
(b) An officer who detains a person in a bar where the crowd is
becoming hostile may move the suspect

Again... transport does NOT ALWAYS EQUAL arrest. Can it? Yes. But there are exceptions. So is it always? No.

WW this is an easy argument because your using words like ALWAYS. All I have to do is show 1 example of it being ok and there goes your premise. If you said it CAN be an arrest we would have agreed like 10 posts back. Instead you are stuck on the ALWAYS thing and won't let it go.

So be it, I've made my cites that show there are EXCEPTIONS. Eye knows what I'm going to do...

And YOU provided NO exceptions! You made a statement that clearly is un constitutional, without those exceptions!

IOW a police officer cannot legally transport without consent without PROBABLE CAUSE!

Only a idiot would go about cuffing and stuffing people with no indication of PC.

I wonder how much money you have cost the state... Ohh never mind, I doubt you ever detained or arrested anyone. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

 

[SFCRetired]

If you, as a police officer, put handcuffs on me, search my person without permission, put me in the back of your patrol car, and then take me somewhere, for whatever purpose, against my will, then I consider myself arrested. I have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to say to you or anyone else without my lawyer present.

I will exchange limited pleasantries with a police officer as that is just common courtesy. Anything past that, no, it ain't going to happen.

As long as a police officer can lie to me with impunity, but I can't lie to them without the possibility of going to prison, I have very little to say to them.

One other point: We all know there are many good, honest police officers. We also know there are police officers who, IMNSHO, should have never been entrusted with the authority that goes with the office. Unless and until I learn to discern the difference by visual inspection from a distance, I am forced to treat both the same way; with a high degree of suspicion.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Arrested, not arrested, it doesn't matter; if your papers or effects are seized and not returned, if cuffs go on, a firearm makes its appearance, your way of leaving is blocked, pretty blue/red lights start flashing, multiple officers surround, you've been seized according the the most recent interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

If Officer Friendly wants to talk about cars, guns, wimmen or likker, I'll chat his ear all all day long. If he wants me to alleviate some suspicion he has, then he's either going to articulate that suspicion and I can 'clear my name' or we can chat with my lawyer present. His choice.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Arrested, not arrested, it doesn't matter; if your papers or effects are seized and not returned, if cuffs go on, a firearm makes its appearance, your way of leaving is blocked, pretty blue/red lights start flashing, multiple officers surround, you've been seized according the the most recent interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

And according to Primus that is acceptable JUST based on not talking to police.

Every time he posts he reinforces why LAC should NOT talk to police!

 

[conandan]

I know the SOP here is not to talk to law enforcement. And I do understand the reasoning. However, in my experience I have found being polite and speaking to an officer is not a bad thing. Maybe I have been lucky I have never run across a ( so called) bad officer yet.

I can gauge pretty quick what type of officer I'm dealing with. And base my reactions and responses accordingly. I give the officer the same respect and civility he gives me. If you are relaxed and comfortable the officer will notice and the officer will be more at ease towards you.

Officers are trained to read your body language. If you appear nervous or uncooperative they attribute this to guilt. As most of you here know that when you assert your rights you are always treated as your hiding something.

My approach is gauge the officers attitude and intent. Maintain eye contact. Pay attention to the questions and how the question is asked. And if you can get them to laugh your home free.

 

[BillB]

And if you can get them to laugh your home free.

How is this one? Officer, your eyes look a little glazed. Have you been eating donuts?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I know the SOP here is not to talk to law enforcement. And I do understand the reasoning. However, in my experience I have found being polite and speaking to an officer is not a bad thing. Maybe I have been lucky I have never run across a ( so called) bad officer yet.

I can gauge pretty quick what type of officer I'm dealing with. And base my reactions and responses accordingly. I give the officer the same respect and civility he gives me. If you are relaxed and comfortable the officer will notice and the officer will be more at ease towards you.

Officers are trained to read your body language. If you appear nervous or uncooperative they attribute this to guilt. As most of you here know that when you assert your rights you are always treated as your hiding something.

My approach is gauge the officers attitude and intent. Maintain eye contact. Pay attention to the questions and how the question is asked. And if you can get them to laugh your home free.

Well, no one advocated being rude or disrespectful.
What was advocated was caution and self preservation. No reason to construe that as being impolite.

There is being difficult, and there is being non cooperative. Despite the police insistence, these are not the same.

 

[Primus]

Well, no one advocated being rude or disrespectful.
What was advocated was caution and self preservation. No reason to construe that as being impolite.

There is being difficult, and there is being non cooperative. Despite the police insistence, these are not the same.

How is this one? Officer, your eyes look a little glazed. Have you been eating donuts?

You sure about that no one was advocating being difficult or rude/disrespectful?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

You sure about that no one was advocating being difficult or rude/disrespectful?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

NO ONE mentioned anything about being rude. Just not talking to police, somehow it would appear you think that is rude, and disrespectful, and enough reason to cuff and stuff without RAS, or PC.

NOW that IMO is extremely RUDE!

 

[BillB]

You sure about that no one was advocating being difficult or rude/disrespectful?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Maybe it was preceded by the officer saying; You appear to be a little nervous. Do you have something to hide?

 

[Citizen]

You sure about that no one was advocating being difficult or rude/disrespectful?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I don't know which is funnier--the glazed eyes/donut question, or the cop trying to point out a contradiction that obviously was after the post PPM was reading and stopped to quote.

 

[WalkingWolf]

How is this one? Officer, your eyes look a little glazed. Have you been eating donuts?

The above is sarcasm, I can't believe anyone would be so dense not to catch it. It is not advocating being rude/disrespectful.

And being rude/disrespectful is NOT against the law, violating constitutional rights is.

 

[Primus]

I don't know which is funnier--the glazed eyes/donut question, or the cop trying to point out a contradiction that obviously was after the post PPM was reading and stopped to quote.

Ummm it was before.... please reread the thread. It was the how I quoted it. The thread reads him making the donut comment then the next post is her comment.

So where's the funny part?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk