How to monitor police activity while OC?

[Schlepnier]

If I'm stopped again, then I plan to either remain silent, or follow a script like:

• I need to be on my way. Am I being detained?
• Am I free to go?
• Are you refusing to allow me to go on my way?
• What crime do you suspect me of committing?
• Is that a crime?
• If you wish to continue questioning me, I would like to have a lawyer present.
• I am going to exercise my fifth amendment right to remain silent.
• May I have your name and badge number?

What other tips would you include in the script? Are these all good to include?

All very good responses, a LEO who knows and respects the law, as such was my case with the Thurston country sheriff's deputy(all 20 seconds of it), will let you be on your way without further interaction(if they stop you at all). however if you run into one determined to abuse their authority all of the above work well...as always record video and/or audio just in case you need to hire rapgood to file a complaint on your behalf

 

[solus]

olde favorite stand bys are the attorney youtube videos three of them i believe or the tome called 'you and the police' by boston t party...

all viable resources on the subject of interaction with police.

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

You misunderstand the context of "encounters" I was not referring to interactions with law enforcement but rather fellow citizens positively responding to observing OC.

A encounter with a anti-liberty citizen has little to no impact on a OCer's liberty until a cop shows up. The OP is in need of a means to know beforehand if a cop will "consensually" encounter him or, in the worst case, as the OP indicated, know beforehand if a potentially life threatening encounter with nitwit cops is imminent.

Remember, cops will not "encounter" you if they are not interested in your pistola. This is the goal, to be seen and treated as any unarmed citizen.

The advice concerning taking legal actions against the anti-liberty citizen is good advice and must be pursued if possible. That type of idiot could get a OCer killed.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

In seattle you can't here the cops coming because they use computer assisted dispatching, CAD, encrypted digital signal, only one guy broke it and is in federal prison for it.

What about the cops giving you a ticket like the guy in Vancouver got, is that going to be upheld by the courts in WA, interesting tool, if they can use it that way. I've been conceal carrying for the last week over that one. I don't want to loose my right to carry until that's straightened out.

http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/220/web

 

[solus]

across the nation you might wish to check out the premier site for up to date radio frequency usage, both public service, aircraft, and amateur for scanning purposes.

for WA state: https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?stid=53

for specifically King county: https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?ctid=2974

most county entities are using trunked communications

there is a sub-forum for WA's trunked com and some of the scanners which will work.

ipse

 

[SovereignAxe]

There are apps that stream remotely and once recorded the data can never be erased, even by you if you log into it.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/cops-vs-clouds-new-app-will-keep-authori

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/capitol-hill-residents-turn-phone-app-safety-tool/nhNg9/

And unfortunately none of them (that I know of) are made for Blackberry.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Still researching this but, according to Wikipedia:

On June 17, 2013, SCOTUS ruled in "Salina vs Texas" (PDF) that: "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question,". In other words, you must now specifically invoke your 5th amendment right to "remain silent" or your silence can and will be used against you in court.​

Regarding Salina v Texas, the answer is found in the first paragraph:

Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection, the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting his claim that the prosecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment.

Salina was answering questions freely, but suddenly and without explanation, when questions directly related to guilt were asked he shut up. It was his conduct, the unexplained contrast between first speaking freely and then refusing to answer specific questions that was brought up at trial.

The court has reasoned that anyone can remain silent and not answer questions, but that by itself does not mean that you refuse to answer questions and the police are free to continue asking questions because they don't know that you refuse to answer questions. Silly logic, perhaps, but not informing the police that you refuse to answer questions has been ruled to be the same as you having not informed the police that you refuse to answer questions.

 

[Difdi]

On June 17, 2013, SCOTUS ruled in "Salina vs Texas" (PDF) that: "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question,". In other words, you must now specifically invoke your 5th amendment right to "remain silent" or your silence can and will be used against you in court.​

It does seem rather counter-intuitive that a right of silence requires speaking to invoke. Sigh.

Given that precedent, it would naturally follow that unless you invoke your right to trial by jury, you would not receive one. If you fail to invoke your fourth amendment rights, they could search you all they like. If you don't say the words "first amendment" at some point while engaging in freedom of expression you could be jailed for illegally speaking...

It's utterly insane.

Unless they decide to erase everything on it when they arrest you.

That's something I've been trying to figure out. Unfortunately no voice recorder that I know of encrypts its data, and I can't afford to be running down the battery on my smart phone running it as a voice recorder all the time.

There is a thing called an SD-WORM card. It works like a standard SD card, but once written it cannot EVER be overwritten or erased.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--

There is a thing called an SD-WORM card. It works like a standard SD card, but once written it cannot EVER be overwritten or erased.

What SD card? There was no SD card in that device.

 

[The Truth]

oh and you did in your last post mention 'terry stop' but can you tell me what specific federal statute this is so i can quote the statute # the next time i'm stopped by nice peace officers? there is a statute number, isn't there?

I still don't understand your total lack of regard for case law.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I still don't understand your total lack of regard for case law.

What I learned from case law is statist judges have little regard for the constitution.

 

[Difdi]

Lastly, "How do we know you're not a felon? or how do we know (whatever) is not a reasonable articulation of suspicion. "I suspect you're a criminal because you xxx'd" might be.

Especially around Halloween, you could retort "And how do I know you're really a cop? That could be a Halloween costume!"

What would you do with the information that police have been called about you? What should you do?

It would be an excellent cue to turn your recorder on. People constantly make excuses for police, claiming that the video started part-way through an incident, and doesn't show what the photographer did to provoke the officer. If the video starts several minutes before the cops even show up, they can't claim that.

A encounter with a anti-liberty citizen has little to no impact on a OCer's liberty until a cop shows up.

That's not completely true. An anti-liberty citizen who genuinely believes your exercise of freedoms is a criminal act might take violent action against you in a misguided attempt at self-defense.

 

[()pen(arry]

Lastly, "How do we know you're not a felon? or how do we know (whatever) is not a reasonable articulation of suspicion. "I suspect you're a criminal because you xxx'd" might be.

I didn't notice this earlier, but better late than never. This is very important:

RAS stands for "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion", and grammatically there should be a comma after "reasonable". You see, "reasonable" does not apply to "articulable". That would be "Reasonably Articulable". No, "reasonable" applies to "suspicion". That is, the suspicion must be both reasonable and articulable.

Be careful to observe and maintain that distinction.

 

[Grapeshot]

I didn't notice this earlier, but better late than never. This is very important:

RAS stands for "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion", and grammatically there should be a comma after "reasonable". You see, "reasonable" does not apply to "articulable". That would be "Reasonably Articulable". No, "reasonable" applies to "suspicion". That is, the suspicion must be both reasonable and articulable.

Be careful to observe and maintain that distinction.

Both "Reasonable" and "Articulable" are adjectives modifying the word "Suspicion." Remember an adjective can only modify a noun or pronoun, not another adjective, so no comma is necessary. Both conditions must exist; one alone is not sufficient.

 

[()pen(arry]

Both "Reasonable" and "Articulable" are adjectives modifying the word "Suspicion." Remember an adjective can only modify a noun or pronoun, not another adjective, so no comma is necessary.

This is incorrect. Were "reasonable" and "articulable" cumulative adjectives, whereby "reasonable" modified "articulable suspicion", no comma would be needed. Because, however, "reasonable" and "articulable" are coordinate adjectives, modifying "suspicion" independently, a comma is required by standard English style guidelines (see what I did there?). That "reasonable" modifies "suspicion" directly is apparent from "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" being an extension of the broader concept of "Reasonable Suspicion". Were cumulative adjectives intended, the term would be "Articulable Reasonable Suspicion", meaning "reasonable suspicion that is articulable". Because we mean "suspicion that is both reasonable and articulable", we must delimit the coordinate adjectives with a comma because they are a list of modifiers. Simple rule: if you mean "reasonable and articulable suspicion", the "and" tells you that you need a comma. Thus, "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion" is the proper rendering of the of the legal construct, even if that is not common practice.

 

[Ajetpilot]

Now my head hurts:exclaim: Bring me some aspirin.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Now my head hurts:exclaim: Bring me some aspirin.

back and forth with various laws in various states and contradictory circuit rulings will do that

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Besides Terry being a horrible erosion of liberty. The text of the decision also states RAS must be based on facts not "hunches".

 

[Batousaii]

-- So.. How to Monitor.

Ummm... Soo... How to monitor police while OC (or anytime for that matter)

I use a baofeng UHF/VHF radio.
- Well, i dont momotor police when I OC... but if I wanted to, this would be a good way to do so.
- To use it to full potentil, you'll want to pass the HAM exam. A 35 question multiple answer test.
Check https://hamstudy.org/ for a good study guide.