• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What cops need to consider about armed citizens

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,991
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#21
Yes, laws may vary as a result of the location one is present. And for those located where the laws and Constitution of the US are in effect, I stand by my statement of MY OPINION and MY understanding of the Law and to expand on my earlier comment --- If one is NOT suspected of having violated, currently violating, or about to violate the Law--- NO MATTER WHAT ONE IS DOING, the LEO has NO AUTHORITY to interfere with the individual and therefore must, to avoid violating the person's Constitutionally protected rights--- LEAVE THEM THE "HECK" ALONE!!!!!
Not according to the supreme court.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,991
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#23
If there is no RAS, which is what FreedomLover seems to be intimating, where has SCOTUS decreed contrary to FreedomLover's exclamation otherwise regarding LE authority.
Consensual encounters - Voluntary encounters - Knock and talk

See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) There is no doubt that, if this same encounter had taken place before Bostick boarded the bus or in the lobby of the bus terminal, it would not rise to the level of a seizure. The Court has dealt with similar encounters in airports, and has found them to be "the sort of consensual encounter that implicat[e] no Fourth Amendment interest." Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1984). We have stated that even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, see INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984); Rodriguez, supra, 469 U.S. at 5-6; ask to examine the individual's identification, see Delgado, supra, 466 U.S. at 216; Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 557-558 (1980); and request consent to search his or her luggage, see Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion) -- as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.

Also, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411,423-24 (1976). No warrant is required to arrest someone in a public place, to fully search them incident to that arrest, including any containers they might be carrying, or to "stop and frisk" them.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
107
Location
Kentucky
#24
Qualified immunity deals with civil matters not criminal matters. Qualified immunity does not protect a cop from being criminally charged with a crime and prosecuted for that crime.
In theory yes. In practice not so much. Correctly or not QI has been the excuse judges hang their hat on to pull a bad cops fat out of the fire when there was no other way for them to do it.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
107
Location
Kentucky
#25
Consensual encounters - Voluntary encounters - Knock and talk

See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) There is no doubt that, if this same encounter had taken place before Bostick boarded the bus or in the lobby of the bus terminal, it would not rise to the level of a seizure. The Court has dealt with similar encounters in airports, and has found them to be "the sort of consensual encounter that implicat[e] no Fourth Amendment interest." Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1984). We have stated that even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, see INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984); Rodriguez, supra, 469 U.S. at 5-6; ask to examine the individual's identification, see Delgado, supra, 466 U.S. at 216; Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 557-558 (1980); and request consent to search his or her luggage, see Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion) -- as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.

Also, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411,423-24 (1976). No warrant is required to arrest someone in a public place, to fully search them incident to that arrest, including any containers they might be carrying, or to "stop and frisk" them.
Which is why one should never stop and talk to a cop unless one is being legally detained.

And IF legally detained silence is still golden. One never has to answer any LEOs questions.
 

Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,419
Location
White Oak Plantation
#26
Consensual encounters - Voluntary encounters - Knock and talk

See Florida v. Bostick, ...
First, this is a SCOTUS construct, like RAS and QI, created out of thin air...the ether. Decreed so as to remove cops from being held criminally/civilly accountability for clearly unconstitutional/illegal acts. Second, there can be no consent without two folks agreeing beforehand.

Cops don't approach you out of the goodness of their blessed little hearts in the vast majority of cop/citizen interactions. We always have the right to not "consent"...no?

Incidentally, your silence is considered as consent by the same court the conjured RAS and QI out of the ether.

Logic dictates, and self preservation demands, that merely ignoring the cop and walking away without "acknowledging" him is foolhardy at a minimum and potentially lethal in the worst case.

In case anyone here misremembers the drill:

Conversation
COP: “Hi, can I ask you a couple of questions?”
YOU: “Are you detaining me or am I free to go?”
COP: “I just want to talk to you.”
YOU: “I choose not to talk to you.” (you walk away)

Detention
COP: “Hi, can I ask you a couple of questions?”
YOU: “Are you detaining me or am I free to go?”
COP: “I’m detaining you. Hands against the wall.”
YOU: “Why am I being detained?” (or, “What is your reasonable suspicion?”). Memorize and report the response.
In either case the cop...uh, SCOTUS, compels us to interact with that cop so that we do not have to interact with that cop.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
107
Location
Kentucky
#28
First, this is a SCOTUS construct, like RAS and QI, created out of thin air...the ether. Decreed so as to remove cops from being held criminally/civilly accountability for clearly unconstitutional/illegal acts. Second, there can be no consent without two folks agreeing beforehand.

Cops don't approach you out of the goodness of their blessed little hearts in the vast majority of cop/citizen interactions. We always have the right to not "consent"...no?

Incidentally, your silence is considered as consent by the same court the conjured RAS and QI out of the ether.

Logic dictates, and self preservation demands, that merely ignoring the cop and walking away without "acknowledging" him is foolhardy at a minimum and potentially lethal in the worst case.

In case anyone here misremembers the drill:

In either case the cop...uh, SCOTUS, compels us to interact with that cop so that we do not have to interact with that cop.
Actually no. One does not lawfully have to speak to a cop, period. Not even when detained.

And especially not voluntarily.
 

Top