Police officer tactics/OC'er counter tactics during "interactions".

[Tackleberry1]

I saw a great video where the OCer actually addressed the officers reason for stopping him.

OCer, "why am I being detained"

Officer, "we got a call about a man with a gun"

OCer, "Yep, that's a report of a LEGAL activity, why am I being detained"

He had to say it several times... and threw in some case law for good measure... but the encounter ended with the OCer NOT identifying himself and peacefully walking away from a baffled Cop.

A 911 call reporting a "legal" activity is NOT "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause".

Officer, "well, you can't be a felon and carry that"

OCer, "do you suspect me of being a felon"

Officer, "I don't know you"

OCer, "that's OK... I don't know you either"... "why am I being detained".

Tack

 

[countryclubjoe]

The I don't answer questions fella is great.

Thanks for posting the video.

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[eye95]

I saw a great video where the OCer actually addressed the officers reason for stopping him.

OCer, "why am I being detained"

Officer, "we got a call about a man with a gun"

OCer, "Yep, that's a report of a LEGAL activity, why am I being detained"

He had to say it several times... and threw in some case law for good measure... but the encounter ended with the OCer NOT identifying himself and peacefully walking away from a baffled Cop.

A 911 call reporting a "legal" activity is NOT "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause".

Officer, "well, you can't be a felon and carry that"

OCer, "do you suspect me of being a felon"

Officer, "I don't know you"

OCer, "that's OK... I don't know you either"... "why am I being detained".

Tack

Once again, you have no way of knowing whether the caller reported a legal activity or an illegal activity (even though it might have been a lie). If the caller said you were doing something illegal, the officer has RAS, and you do not know it. Moreover, the officer is under no legal obligation to lay out his RAS for you.

Again, establish clearly whether you are being seized. If you are, assume it is lawful (i.e. the officer has RAS). You can fix an unlawful detention later. Not following the law during a detention that is determined by a judge to be lawful later could result in charges against you. You can risk it. I won't.

 

[BB62]

...You can risk it. I won't.

I will and have - repeatedly. And, yes, you can visit me in the holding cell.

 

[Tackleberry1]

Once again, you have no way of knowing whether the caller reported a legal activity or an illegal activity (even though it might have been a lie). If the caller said you were doing something illegal, the officer has RAS, and you do not know it. Moreover, the officer is under no legal obligation to lay out his RAS for you.

Again, establish clearly whether you are being seized. If you are, assume it is lawful (i.e. the officer has RAS). You can fix an unlawful detention later. Not following the law during a detention that is determined by a judge to be lawful later could result in charges against you. You can risk it. I won't.

I agree... which is why I liked the statement of the OCer of "Yep, that's a report of a LEGAL activity"... It's then up to the Officer to "clarify."

Personally, I don't see OC stops any differently than a "knock & talk" situation.

Cops do not approach doors or citizens without a reason... and if they have a warrant... or RAS for an arrest, they would not be talking at all, other than to read you rights as your being cuffed.

The whole "consensual conversation" they "attempt" to engage in is nothing more than a "fishing expedition" hoping you'll say enough to incriminate yourself and give them a reason to arrest you.

Knowing all of this, there is nothing wrong with stating your rights, asking why your being detained, correcting the Officers assumed RAS by letting him know that he's actually responding to a "report of a LEGAL activity", and continuing to push for your right to travel unmolested.

If the Officer can't produce RAS... He has no business talking to you.

IMHO... the whole point of OC is not to engage in weenie measuring contests with LEO's, but to normalize OC and educate the public AND responding officers.

The "appropriate" response to a "man with gun" call is to first observe the suspect and when it becomes obvious that's it's nothing more than an OC citizen, to simply roll on by, perhaps wave if the officer feels up to it... and the sooner Cops learn this, the better off we will all be.

Tack

 

[eye95]

The officer doesn't have to clarify anything. He does not even have to tell you the truth.

There is no way to determine that the officer does not have RAS.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The officer doesn't have to clarify anything. He does not even have to tell you the truth.

There is no way to determine that the officer does not have RAS.

Bovine Scatology! If the officer has RAS he can detain you, all you have to do is ask. If he does not detain you, you are free to go, so it would really be stupid to think he had RAS and let you go. Sheeeesh!

If he does not have RAS and detains you it will cost the community some cashola. It surprises me that some people actually think this is a communist country.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The officer doesn't have to clarify anything. He does not even have to tell you the truth.
There is no way to determine that the officer does not have RAS.

True, but if he tells me that he isn't detaining me; that it's just a 'friendly conversation'; that no RAS is involved then it's "Adiós, muchacho."
If he lies and says he does have RAS, then he's welcome to my name, rank and serial number and not a bit more until I've spoken with my attorney.

 

[Tackleberry1]

The officer doesn't have to clarify anything. He does not even have to tell you the truth.

There is no way to determine that the officer does not have RAS.

Ok... Here is how to handle the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE&sns=em

Once again... If he has RAS he is not going to engage you in conversation. At a minimum he is going to disarm you and cuff you... even if it's just for "officer safety"

If a caller lied and claimed you were acting dangerously you can bet your backside the encounter will begin with all the hallmarks of a FELONY stop.

The "game" as played by responding LEO's is to coerce you into Identifying yourself without getting his jurisdiction sued. These guys know the difference between an OC activist and a dangerous person on sight yet choose to test us and intimidate us into bending to their will.

No thanks... I'll gladly take a wrongful arrest for my principles and settle the situation in court.

If your willing to lay down by showng your papers without RAS then I have to wonder why your open carrying in the first place?

 

[countryclubjoe]

I like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYBshAScmE

"I don't answer questions."

How would this I don't answer questions scenario go if the leo asked the citizen.

After obtaining DL, ownercard and proof of insurance.

Officer- Have you been drinking Mr.XXXX

Citizen-- I don't answer questions.

Could a citizen be forced out of the vehicle and given a roadside sobriety test?

Lets say someone calls police and gives your plate number and reports that you just left a bar and your driving unsafe.

How does my scenario change the I don't answer questions routine?

Also are roadside sobriety test constitutional? Are you not incriminating yourself by submitting to such a test? Are you admitting guilt by not taking the sobriety test?

TIA folks

CCJ

 

[WalkingWolf]

You can't be forced to take a sobriety test, without a court order. But I believe you can be ordered out of the car with PC, and then your actions could be observed, such as walking. A lot would depend on why you were pulled over. If pulled over for weaving, or sitting excessively at a stop sign, or blowing stop signs, a person could probably count on being pulled from the vehicle. If the stop is a road check, I don't think they can pull you from the car without PC. Rulings have changed since I was a officer, or worked DUI. Most times, well every time the people consented, the times they did not consent they fled.

Sobriety checks really are unsafe to be done on the side of the road. Parking lots are better, BUT if you instruct a drunk to drive to a parking lot it will not fare well in court. Most drunks I arrested were sloppy falling down drunk, so no sobriety test was needed.

 

[countryclubjoe]

You can't be forced to take a sobriety test, without a court order. But I believe you can be ordered out of the car with PC, and then your actions could be observed, such as walking. A lot would depend on why you were pulled over. If pulled over for weaving, or sitting excessively at a stop sign, or blowing stop signs, a person could probably count on being pulled from the vehicle. If the stop is a road check, I don't think they can pull you from the car without PC. Rulings have changed since I was a officer, or worked DUI. Most times, well every time the people consented, the times they did not consent they fled.

Sobriety checks really are unsafe to be done on the side of the road. Parking lots are better, BUT if you instruct a drunk to drive to a parking lot it will not fare well in court. Most drunks I arrested were sloppy falling down drunk, so no sobriety test was needed.

Wolf-Thank you for your reply.

Would the call from a citizen to 911 then from the dispatcher to the leo be enough PC to pull a citizen from the vehicle and administer the roadside sobriety test on the citizen?

Best regards

CCJ

 

[WalkingWolf]

Wolf-Thank you for your reply.

Would the call from a citizen to 911 then from the dispatcher to the leo be enough PC to pulled a citizen from the vehicle and administer the roadside sobriety test on the citizen?

Best regards

CCJ

If the caller is not anonymous, then I would say yes. If the caller does not give their information as a witness, then the officer will have to observe PC for himself. But the citizen still does not have to submit to the sobriety test. A person behind the wheel that is intoxicated, can and should be removed from the vehicle to take control of a dangerous weapon from them(the car). Leaving a drunk driver behind the wheel for any amount of time will not look good in court.

I have seen officers lose cases for telling a drunk to drive the car off the road after the car has been stopped.

 

[Tackleberry1]

Never submit to a field sobriety test!

If the cop is asking you to do it... he's already decided to arrest you. The FST's only purpose is to get video evidence for your conviction... Do NOT give it to him!

Never submit to a breathalyzer or blood draw without a warrant!

If the cop is that certain you are over the limit them make him arrest you, make him get his warrant, make him waste as much time as possible before your blood is drawn.

Upon giving your blood, immediately demand to bs released so you can get an independent test.

Your night ended the moment the blue lights came on. The only question now is how much evidence your willing to hand over.

Do not answer questions, demand to speak with your lawyer, and give them nothing!

Or... Be nice... Do as your asked... And watch yourself get screwed.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Never submit to a field sobriety test!

If the cop is asking you to do it... he's already decided to arrest you. The FST's only purpose is to get video evidence for your conviction... Do NOT give it to him!

Never submit to a breathalyzer or blood draw without a warrant!

If the cop is that certain you are over the limit them make him arrest you, make him get his warrant, make him waste as much time as possible before your blood is drawn.

Upon giving your blood, immediately demand to bs released so you can get an independent test.

Your night ended the moment the blue lights came on. The only question now is how much evidence your willing to hand over.

Do not answer questions, demand to speak with your lawyer, and give them nothing!

Or... Be nice... Do as your asked... And watch yourself get screwed.

Hi Tackleberry1- Great info, much obliged.
I personally always reserve my rights when dealing with any type of government agency.

Are judges on call 24/7 signing off on these warrants? Is the blood drawn at the local police headquarters or at the nearest hospital?

While this topic is not OC related, I could see how the exercising of our rights and handling encounters with leos is similar in helping us protect our freedom, so I thank the moderators for allowing this discussion to continue.

Best regards

CCJ

 

[eye95]

True, but if he tells me that he isn't detaining me; that it's just a 'friendly conversation'; that no RAS is involved then it's "Adiós, muchacho."
If he lies and says he does have RAS, then he's welcome to my name, rank and serial number and not a bit more until I've spoken with my attorney.

Exactly. But what about the situation where you keep asking if you are free to go or if you are being detained, and he won't answer? He just keeps avoiding the question. If he does have RAS (and, again, you have no way of knowing), and you don't ID yourself as required during a detention, you have then broken the law, even if there turns out to be no underlying crime.

That's why I always advocate making a non-aggressive move to leave if the officer will not make it clear if you are detained or not. If he let's you go, no detention. If he commands you to stop or grabs you, you have incontrovertibly established that you have been seized. Assume its legal, ID yourself to the extent required by law, and KYBMS.

 

[eye95]

Ok... Here is how to handle the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE&sns=em

Once again... If he has RAS he is not going to engage you in conversation. At a minimum he is going to disarm you and cuff you... even if it's just for "officer safety"

If a caller lied and claimed you were acting dangerously you can bet your backside the encounter will begin with all the hallmarks of a FELONY stop.

The "game" as played by responding LEO's is to coerce you into Identifying yourself without getting his jurisdiction sued. These guys know the difference between an OC activist and a dangerous person on sight yet choose to test us and intimidate us into bending to their will.

No thanks... I'll gladly take a wrongful arrest for my principles and settle the situation in court.

If your willing to lay down by showng your papers without RAS then I have to wonder why your open carrying in the first place?

I am not "willing to lay down by showing [my] papers without RAS." If you can find anywhere where I have said any such thing, point it out. (You can't.) Otherwise, I'll thank you NOT to put words in my mouth. Since you seem to have trouble understanding what I am saying, let me lay it out clearly for you:

If I am stopped, my first goal is to find out if I have been seized. I will flat-out ask if I am free to go. If I am, I will walk away. If I am not, I will respond as the law requires for a lawful detention. That means, in Ohio, I will respond to requests for my name, address, and DOB. I will not respond to any request to show an ID. If the officer will not make it clear whether or not I have been seized, I will slowly start to walk away. If he makes no effort to stop me, I'm gone. If by command or by grabbing me he stops me, I am seized, and that fact has been just as clearly established as if the officer told me that I was not free to go. Again, I will act as though I am lawfully detained because I have no way of knowing whether or not the detention is lawful. If the detention is lawful and is determined to be lawful in court (which is the only place it can be decided unequivocally), and if I refuse requests to state my name, address, or DOB, then I can be found guilty of a crime, even if there was no underlying crime.

In this case, the OCer talked way too much. The only things he said that were useful were asking to leave and stating his non-consent. The officer almost surely did not have RAS for the stop. ALMOST. The OCer has no idea what the 911 callers related. Any embellishments during the calls could create RAS in a flash.

So, if you are going to engage me in conversation, please discuss what I am actually saying and not some strawman or I can just move on.

 

[Tackleberry1]

Not trying to put "words in your mouth".

Your previous comments about having NO way of knowing "if" the officer has RAS... led me to believe that that you would provide ID if the officer was aggressive enough, refused to answer your RAS questions, and continued to hound you for ID.

If I misunderstood your position, then I apologize.

It is my belief and personal experience that if the officer did not immediately disarm and cuff the OCer, he had no real concerns about "officer safety"... and if he has NO concerns about his own safety, what possible RAS of a crime could he have?

Putting yourself in the Officers position helps us understand that the "manner" in which we area approached by LEO's will tell us EXACTLY what they believe is going on and whether or not they have RAS.

At the end of the day, we are all engaging in an activity that we know will draw the attention of the "authorities"... how hard and far we decide to push is certainly a personal matter and I should not be second guessing anyone's resolve.

All that said... the responding LEO's demeanor and actions WILL tell you whether or not he has RAS.

Tack

I am not "willing to lay down by showing [my] papers without RAS." If you can find anywhere where I have said any such thing, point it out. (You can't.) Otherwise, I'll thank you NOT to put words in my mouth. Since you seem to have trouble understanding what I am saying, let me lay it out clearly for you:

If I am stopped, my first goal is to find out if I have been seized. I will flat-out ask if I am free to go. If I am, I will walk away. If I am not, I will respond as the law requires for a lawful detention. That means, in Ohio, I will respond to requests for my name, address, and DOB. I will not respond to any request to show an ID. If the officer will not make it clear whether or not I have been seized, I will slowly start to walk away. If he makes no effort to stop me, I'm gone. If by command or by grabbing me he stops me, I am seized, and that fact has been just as clearly established as if the officer told me that I was not free to go. Again, I will act as though I am lawfully detained because I have no way of knowing whether or not the detention is lawful. If the detention is lawful and is determined to be lawful in court (which is the only place it can be decided unequivocally), and if I refuse requests to state my name, address, or DOB, then I can be found guilty of a crime, even if there was no underlying crime.

In this case, the OCer talked way too much. The only things he said that were useful were asking to leave and stating his non-consent. The officer almost surely did not have RAS for the stop. ALMOST. The OCer has no idea what the 911 callers related. Any embellishments during the calls could create RAS in a flash.

So, if you are going to engage me in conversation, please discuss what I am actually saying and not some strawman or I can just move on.

 

[Tackleberry1]

Exactly. But what about the situation where you keep asking if you are free to go or if you are being detained, and he won't answer? He just keeps avoiding the question. If he does have RAS (and, again, you have no way of knowing), and you don't ID yourself as required during a detention, you have then broken the law, even if there turns out to be no underlying crime.

That's why I always advocate making a non-aggressive move to leave if the officer will not make it clear if you are detained or not. If he let's you go, no detention. If he commands you to stop or grabs you, you have incontrovertibly established that you have been seized. Assume its legal, ID yourself to the extent required by law, and KYBMS.

I agree with this.

If my RAS question is ignored, deflected, not answered, ect...

I will stop talking until the officer pauses his repeated requests for ID. At that point he will typically say something like... "are you refusing to Identify yourself?"

The response I advise is:

"Tell me what crime you suspect me of committing... Or I am leaving."

If he does not answer that question... I too will slowly attempt to walk away while saying "you have a nice day officer."

Tack

 

[carolina guy]

The officer doesn't have to clarify anything. He does not even have to tell you the truth.

There is no way to determine that the officer does not have RAS.

Police officers with RAS or PC have a really effective method of making their desires known...otherwise, why "feed the bear?"