"...you're under arrest for resisting arrest..."

[Brass Magnet]

The reason it is legal is the same reason that many of the actions we take are legal: There is no law against it. There need not be a law that allows it.

However, as long as one remembers that he has the right to a lawyer and to have that lawyer present during questioning, police lying can be completely emasculated by the exercise of that right.

I don't want the law in this nation changed to where things we are allowed to do are enumerated. I prefer a system whereby we (including LEOs) are free to do anything not explicitly prohibited by law.

I agree but after reading it again I believe SVG's point is that the 4th amendment effectively outlaws the police conduct in the situation outlined in his post (refusal to explain the RAS). Correct me if I'm wrong SVG. That idea, and the caselaw surrounding it, are another discussion in and of themselves. Thinking about it, my previous example of police lying may not be pertinent. Then again; like it or not, caselaw is pretty much law, right or wrong, and working within the system is better to keep one out of harms way, legally speaking.

 

[Gunslinger]

The reason it is legal is the same reason that many of the actions we take are legal: There is no law against it. There need not be a law that allows it.

However, as long as one remembers that he has the right to a lawyer and to have that lawyer present during questioning, police lying can be completely emasculated by the exercise of that right.

I don't want the law in this nation changed to where things we are allowed to do are enumerated. I prefer a system whereby we (including LEOs) are free to do anything not explicitly prohibited by law.

http://blog.austindefense.com/2006/...o-lie-to-you-during-a-criminal-investigation/

Good discussion on cops lying with cites and limitations.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The reason it is legal is the same reason that many of the actions we take are legal: There is no law against it. There need not be a law that allows it.

However, as long as one remembers that he has the right to a lawyer and to have that lawyer present during questioning, police lying can be completely emasculated by the exercise of that right.

I don't want the law in this nation changed to where things we are allowed to do are enumerated. I prefer a system whereby we (including LEOs) are free to do anything not explicitly prohibited by law.

Except that government and it's agents don't have rights, people do. That's a dangerous door that has already been open and abused by "authorities". People are free government are governed by law. Government powers need to be and are supposed to be enumerated otherwise they trample on the peoples freedom. Now "off the clock" cops and other government employees are afforded the same freedom, but not while on our dime.

I agree but after reading it again I believe SVG's point is that the 4th amendment effectively outlaws the police conduct in the situation outlined in his post (refusal to explain the RAS). Correct me if I'm wrong SVG. That idea, and the caselaw surrounding it, are another discussion in and of themselves. Thinking about it, my previous example of police lying may not be pertinent. Then again; like it or not, caselaw is pretty much law, right or wrong, and working within the system is better to keep one out of harms way, legally speaking.

Yes what you are saying about my point is correct. And to clarify I don't push the violent resisting of false arrest just use it to show the courts said we have the right to do that. I too will peacefully refuse to comply, go to jail, and fight it in court. And encourage everybody to do the same.


A side point is that I have read several cases where judges have hinted that not giving a reason is dangerous territory, but there simply has been no explicit ruling on it yet. A few cases in Washington and now recently a federal case, where U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush expresses concern over the FBI not informing a person for the reason of his arrest.