What to say in Police and LEO Encounters

[Deanimator]

imported post

TatankaGap wrote:

arentol wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

There is a case IN FL now ...

<SNIP>

<SNIP>

J.L. v Florida made it illegal for a police officer to perform a Terry stop on the basis of an anonymous call with insufficent detail to identify anyone in particular and no indication that an actual crime has been committed. ...

<SNIP>

Be careful how much you rely on old cases involving Criminal Procedure - including cases involving stops, searches, exclusionary rule (fruit of poisonous tree) in light of recent and probably forthcoming Supreme Court cases which are and will continue to peel back criminal justice protections plus 'Bama's newly designed 'preventive detention' scheme will play into it -

You could be screaming about the bad "Terry" stop all the way to Supermax if you're not careful - 9 mos later when you get through 'Bama's new fangled "preventive detention" process and a year after when you get your gun back, you might be wishing that you had been a little more cooperative with the initial LEO who might be the one who makes the call re: preventive detention -

This is a very fast and dynamic changing area; all the factors count and there is not instant replay - gotta get it right first time -

IMHO, use all senses and don't go in with too much of your script pre-written as you will have to adapt to the circumstances and play it smart in order to turn a 'stop' from going bad -

The new definition of 'going bad' is possibly way different and worse than the old one which might have involved only some jail time, some legal hassles and even some stitches - the new way of 'going bad' might involve your family having a hard time even finding out the place which 'preventive detention' facility you've been taken too -

I would not think it wise to play a new ball game under the old rules.....:shock:

Don't consent to ANYTHING, EVER and keep your mouth shut until a lawyer is present.

That's the ONLY "game" I ever plan to "play".

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

levernut wrote:

Snipped... and trimmed off the fat.

Scenario-

LEO is involved in legitimate stop and arrest of two citizens...

They violently resist and the LEO is forced to use legitimate force to protect himself and his fellow officer, andsubdue one.

Thearrestee files brutality charges claiming the LEO used excessive force in striking him with a baton and cuffing him too tightly.

The LEOis standing in line a few days later and is addressed by someone behind him. He turns to see one of his colleagues he knows who works in IA:

IA: So, heard youmade a tougharrest last week.

LEO: Hmm [responds noncommittally].

IA: Perp resisted and you had to go upside his head withyour Maglite, huh?

LEO: [Ignores factual error regarding instrument used and location of contact] It's all in the report.

IAO: Well, he probably deserved it, right? Although, you have to admit, it does make us look bad on the news when we rough up college students. Wasn't there some other way you could have subdued him? I'm sure you followed department regs to the letter, but, you know, it makes other citizens uncomfortable when we beat on kids-- whether they deserve it or not. Especially when one of them is African American. Don't you think?

<End scenario>

Now tell me honestly: would the LEO in question continue to engage in this "friendly" converation?

1. Would he try to justify his actions to IA in the hope of educating him about the realities of police work on the streets, and the unfortunate reality of false brutality charges?

2. Would hecontinue to interact so that IA would not depart with a negative opinion of his fellow police officers, and their unfriendliness toward those who work for internal affairs?

3. Or would he refuse to engage in the conversation, and tell IA he will only answer such questions in a formal inquiry with the presence of a lawyer and/or police union representative?

In your scene, the officer was apparently justified in everything he did. The suspects used violence against the officers and the force used was necessary to protect both officers. So in this case, the officer has little to worry about. Clearly, he is able to justify what he did.

While IA does not meet you in the fast food line to talk to you.. I will work with it to answer your questions.

You have someone from IA walking up and questioning the officer about an event the officer KNOWS he was involved in.

It is not like IA suspects the officer could be involved and he may have the wrong guy. So let's say this is a voluntary contact and AI is fishing for information.

If IA walks up and claims you were involved in some event you know you did not do, this is your chance to clear it up so IA can go find the right officer and stop wasting their time on you.

Clamming up does not make IA go away. Now they will look at you real hard and see if they can bust you for anything else. This may not be tot their intent but if you want to play hard ball... two can play that game.



Q1: Not sure why he needs to tell IA about realities on the streets or talk about false charges. If the officer wants to set the record straight... he will need to tell IA what actually happened and in detail. He already knows he is the guy IA is looking for. What is there to hide since he did everything proper.

Q2: Cops in trouble do not care for IA just like people in trouble do not care for cops. If you have done nothing wrong... what can IA do to you? Sure, they could do something improper and fake charges. But why you out of all the cops on the department? There are many people above them in the process that oversee things and a "jury" can hear all the evidence. IA does not need the officer to talk to get him in trouble. If that is the plan.. they can just do it.

Q3: If the officer is suspected in some wrong doing, he cannot refuse to talk to IA. Most, if not all, departments make it mandatory that you talk to IA. Now if you know you are right and IA has bad info, this is your chance to set things straight. IA is not going to "go away" because you refuse to talk. He will be back and eventually you will have to answer for what you may or may not have done when charges are placed.

So why wait for charges or be fired when you could have explained yourself earlier?

Remember... you have not broken any laws.

In your scene.. IA seems to have an opinion that what you did was not right even if it was. He also has some details wrong and you need to make sure he has it right so he can correctly decide how to proceed.

So keeping quiet serves no purpose but strengthen IA's belief that you probably did something wrong and you need to be watched further.

In closing..

The difference is that an allegation is being made directly against the cop for some alleged wrong doing. IA knows who the cop is and can find him if it is determined that the cop did something wrong and needs to answer for it.

In the case of a citizen on the street suspected to be involved in a crime.. the cop does not know who he is and if allowed to leave.. may never be able to find him again. The cop does not know for sure if he has the right guy. IA does.

I hope this was helpful to you.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

levernut wrote:

Snipped... and trimmed off the fat.

Scenario-

LEO is involved in legitimate stop and arrest of two citizens...

They violently resist and the LEO is forced to use legitimate force to protect himself and his fellow officer, andsubdue one.

Thearrestee files brutality charges claiming the LEO used excessive force in striking him with a baton and cuffing him too tightly.

The LEOis standing in line a few days later and is addressed by someone behind him. He turns to see one of his colleagues he knows who works in IA:

IA: So, heard youmade a tougharrest last week.

LEO: Hmm [responds noncommittally].

IA: Perp resisted and you had to go upside his head withyour Maglite, huh?

LEO: [Ignores factual error regarding instrument used and location of contact] It's all in the report.

IAO: Well, he probably deserved it, right? Although, you have to admit, it does make us look bad on the news when we rough up college students. Wasn't there some other way you could have subdued him? I'm sure you followed department regs to the letter, but, you know, it makes other citizens uncomfortable when we beat on kids-- whether they deserve it or not. Especially when one of them is African American. Don't you think?

<End scenario>

Now tell me honestly: would the LEO in question continue to engage in this "friendly" converation?

1. Would he try to justify his actions to IA in the hope of educating him about the realities of police work on the streets, and the unfortunate reality of false brutality charges?

2. Would hecontinue to interact so that IA would not depart with a negative opinion of his fellow police officers, and their unfriendliness toward those who work for internal affairs?

3. Or would he refuse to engage in the conversation, and tell IA he will only answer such questions in a formal inquiry with the presence of a lawyer and/or police union representative?

In your scene, the officer was apparently justified in everything he did. The suspects used violence against the officers and the force used was necessary to protect both officers. So in this case, the officer has little to worry about. Clearly, he is able to justify what he did.

While IA does not meet you in the fast food line to talk to you.. I will work with it to answer your questions.

You have someone from IA walking up and questioning the officer about an event the officer KNOWS he was involved in.

It is not like IA suspects the officer could be involved and he may have the wrong guy. So let's say this is a voluntary contact and AI is fishing for information.

If IA walks up and claims you were involved in some event you know you did not do, this is your chance to clear it up so IA can go find the right officer and stop wasting their time on you.

Clamming up does not make IA go away. Now they will look at you real hard and see if they can bust you for anything else. This may not be tot their intent but if you want to play hard ball... two can play that game.



Q1: Not sure why he needs to tell IA about realities on the streets or talk about false charges. If the officer wants to set the record straight... he will need to tell IA what actually happened and in detail. He already knows he is the guy IA is looking for. What is there to hide since he did everything proper.

Q2: Cops in trouble do not care for IA just like people in trouble do not care for cops. If you have done nothing wrong... what can IA do to you? Sure, they could do something improper and fake charges. But why you out of all the cops on the department? There are many people above them in the process that oversee things and a "jury" can hear all the evidence. IA does not need the officer to talk to get him in trouble. If that is the plan.. they can just do it.

Q3: If the officer is suspected in some wrong doing, he cannot refuse to talk to IA. Most, if not all, departments make it mandatory that you talk to IA. Now if you know you are right and IA has bad info, this is your chance to set things straight. IA is not going to "go away" because you refuse to talk. He will be back and eventually you will have to answer for what you may or may not have done when charges are placed.

So why wait for charges or be fired when you could have explained yourself earlier?

Remember... you have not broken any laws.

In your scene.. IA seems to have an opinion that what you did was not right even if it was. He also has some details wrong and you need to make sure he has it right so he can correctly decide how to proceed.

So keeping quiet serves no purpose but strengthen IA's belief that you probably did something wrong and you need to be watched further.

In closing..

The difference is that an allegation is being made directly against the cop for some alleged wrong doing. IA knows who the cop is and can find him if it is determined that the cop did something wrong and needs to answer for it.

In the case of a citizen on the street suspected to be involved in a crime.. the cop does not know who he is and if allowed to leave.. may never be able to find him again. The cop does not know for sure if he has the right guy. IA does.

I hope this was helpful to you.

Thank GOD, IAD has NEVER hassled a cop who was innocent! :quirky

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

While IA does not meet you in the fast food line to talk to you.. I will work with it to answer your questions.

You have someone from IA walking up and questioning the officer about an event the officer KNOWS he was involved in.

It is not like IA suspects the officer could be involved and he may have the wrong guy. So let's say this is a voluntary contact and AI is fishing for information.

One question: "Weingarten, or Garrity?"

And then STFU until you are presented with documentation informing you of an investigation, its nature, and your rights and assurances.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

While IA does not meet you in the fast food line to talk to you.. I will work with it to answer your questions.

You have someone from IA walking up and questioning the officer about an event the officer KNOWS he was involved in.

It is not like IA suspects the officer could be involved and he may have the wrong guy. So let's say this is a voluntary contact and AI is fishing for information.

One question: "Weingarten, or Garrity?"

And then STFU until you are presented with documentation informing you of an investigation, its nature, and your rights and assurances.

Yes, There are protections in place for police officers during "internal" investigations. Cops are NOT allowed to get an attorney to sit and advise them what to say while being questioned.

Remembering that cops are compelled to talk to IA as a condition of their employment. It did not really fit the scene when trying to match a cop talking to a citizen and IA talking to a cop.

The meeting in the chow line to get incriminating statements simply does not happen. You are called up to the interview room and told why you are there. It is clear you are under the microscope now but you are not allowed to remain silent.

This is why "Garrity" exists.

So you can talk to IA now in the chow line... or later in the interview room. If it is going to happen... it will.

If you did nothing wrong.... what's the problem? Oh!! I forgot. You might spill the beans on something ELSE you did wrong they do not know about and do not want to get caught. :lol:

No criminal wants to get caught for the crimes he has committed.

 

[NightOwl]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Remembering that cops are compelled to talk to IA as a condition of their employment.

There's the difference. If police could simply not talk to IA and not have any negative outcome due to that, I'm sure that option would be taken quite often.

Talking to the police when stopped/approached has two possible outcomes: No gain, you go about your business as you were, or provide no evidence for possible prosecution against you. Innocent people DO end up in prison (regardless of the percentage of people), and they get there by talking themselves intoit through poorly worded statements, misremembering things, minor errors, or various other things that can be used against them. Not talking is merely a citizens means of doing what they can to prevent themselves from being part of that group.

"Don't talk to the police." -Officer George Bruch. Just as a refresher (I'm pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread, but as it seems to be once again relevent): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912

"In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty." Theinnocenceproject.org http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Remembering that cops are compelled to talk to IA as a condition of their employment.

There's the difference. If police could simply not talk to IA and not have any negative outcome due to that, I'm sure that option would be taken quite often.

Talking to the police when stopped/approached has two possible outcomes: No gain, you go about your business as you were, or provide no evidence for possible prosecution against you. Innocent people DO end up in prison (regardless of the percentage of people), and they get there by talking themselves intoit through poorly worded statements, misremembering things, minor errors, or various other things that can be used against them. Not talking is merely a citizens means of doing what they can to prevent themselves from being part of that group.

"Don't talk to the police." -Officer George Bruch. Just as a refresher (I'm pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread, but as it seems to be once again relevent): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912

"In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty." Theinnocenceproject.org http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

While I submitinnocent people have beenconvicted of crimes they did not commit... it is simply NOTbecause they talked to a cop on the streetand were just arrested. It goes way beyond that. There are interviews and long investigations that take place first.

To think a cop walkingdown the streetwill finger you as the pool flasher and arrest you the moment you admit you just came from the pool is nonsense. :lol:

Answering a question as to why you are at a given place or what you are doing simply is not enough to get you arrested as the back woods rapist or the gentlemen bandit.

Most often you are going to be asked these very questions so the officer can have an idea why you are in the area. I am not sure what you can actually say that will get you charged with a crime you did not do. Cops are proactive trying to keep things safe for everyone and catch people who are up to no good.

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit? I cannot think of any and have never seen this happen in my experience.

But I agree... if you have beenarrestedfor a crime... shut up and get your lawyer! The government even wants you to know this becaue cops have to read you Miranda. It officiallylets you know that "You are suspected of a crime and you can get a lawyer if you want one".

The difference for cops is that IA reads theofficer his rights too. It says "you are suspected of wrongdoing and you do NOT get to have a lawyer and MUST talk to us. Anything you say or do WILL be used against you and may get you fired."

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit? I cannot think of any and have never seen this happen in my experience.

Never heard of the Duke lacrosse team, apparently...

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit? I cannot think of any and have never seen this happen in my experience.

Never heard of the Duke lacrosse team, apparently...

You mean the team that was accused by a citizen of a crime?

As I recall, there was a citizen who claimed to be a victim and a prosecutor... not a cop... who allegedly did things that were not proper.

When the police contacted the team... it was during a criminal investigation and they were already suspects in a crime. This is NOT the same as walking up to someone on the street and asking why there are packing a gun in some attempt to arrest them for rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case

The 2006 Duke University lacrosse case was a scandal that started in March 2006 when Crystal Gail Mangum,[1][2][3] an African American stripper, escort[4] and student at North Carolina Central University, falsely accused three white American Duke University students - members of the Duke Blue Devils men's lacrosse team[5] of raping her at a party held at the house of two of the team's captains in Durham, North Carolina, USA on March 13, 2006. Many involved in the case, including prosecutor Mike Nifong, called the alleged assault a hate crime or suggested it might be one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case#cite_note-9

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit? I cannot think of any and have never seen this happen in my experience.

Never heard of the Duke lacrosse team, apparently...

You mean the team that was accused by a citizen of a crime?

You mean the police investigators who're suspected of misconduct?

 

[NightOwl]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit? I cannot think of any and have never seen this happen in my experience.

The difference for cops is that IA reads theofficer his rights too. It says "you are suspected of wrongdoing and you do NOT get to have a lawyer and MUST talk to us. Anything you say or do WILL be used against you and may get you fired."

I trimmed that down to the pertinent parts, to prevent a huge quote pyramid.

1. http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/playvideo.php?file=/Images/748/ochoa_c.wmv&title=&time=04:25 Was approached at burger king and spoken to about a rape/murder, subsequently brought in for questioning. Served 12 years before exonerated via dna evidence.

2. Senator Larry Craig. Think he'd have been convicted of his misdemeanor if he'd kept his mouth 100% shut and waited for a high power lawyer to go to trial for him (or to pull strings later, but maybe that's just my general mistrust of politicians speaking)? The only hard and fast evidence that the police had was his confession...which they talked him into giving.

3. Earl Washington, VA. 18 years in prison for being convicted of a rape/murder, exonerated by DNA evidence.

-Ohio vs. Reiner, SCOTUS, from the ruling statement. "One of the fifth amendments basic functions is to protect innocent men who might otherwise become ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness as well as those of a wrongdoer may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speakers own mouth. Which leads to...

4. Ohio vs. Reiner. Which, admittedly, ends up being nothing, thanks to the supreme court decision backing the rights of the babysitter to not have to answer potentially incriminating questions.

Also, anything you say may be used *against* you in a court of law. Your own lawyer cannot ask the police officer you spoke to to repeat what you said during the conversation for your benefit. Thus, it can't be used *for* you in a court of law. No benefit possible, only negative outcome. See Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a). This alone should be motivation for a reasonable citizen to avoid speaking to the police whenever possible. If I should say I was at mcdonalds last night, and unbeknownst to me some crime happened there, then they now have a reason to further investigate. If I said nothing, there is nothing.

Thanks to KBCraig for mentioning this earlier on this page. http://www.joeasc.org/documents/Weingarten_Rights.doc+Weingarten,+or+Garrity&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us According to that, you're wrong about what you get to do when talking to IA. You *do* get a union rep, so you're not alone, you have someone who is theoretically versed in the interview process and there on your behalf. Also, anything you admit during the interview *cannot* be used against you in a court of law, which is a world of differencefrom the average citizen to police encounter. So, either you don't know your own rights in an IA investigation, or you're deliberately omitting things in an attempt to bolster your point. Here's a couple quotes from the link: "Management is not required to inform the employee of his/her Weingarten[/b] rights; it is the employees responsibility to know and request." and also "During the questioning, the representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics." furthermore "the Garrity[/b] Rule is not automatically triggered simply because questioning is taking place. The officer must announce that he or she wants the protections under Garrity[/b]. The immunity under Garrity[/b] that attaches from a compelled statement is limited."

It's becoming apparent that you're not actually paying attention to what people are responding to you, as you've clearly not followed any links or information given. I can only assume you're trolling the thread, as such this is my final response to you (at least until such time as I think otherwise). This is based on the fact that I pulled all of this information directly from the links/posts replying to you on this page (with the exception of a google search and the first link from that from KBCraigs response).

Either way, I suggest you give the entire video of "Don't talk to the police" a watch, it's an interesting presentation given by a lawyer and a...iirc 28 year police detective. It's quite informative, and was what initially inspired me to look into the matter and take the opinion I have, which is-don't talk to the police. It's simple to find, google the phrase, it's the first video option.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

Snipped... According to that, you're wrong about what you get to do when talking to IA. You *do* get a union rep, so you're not alone, you have someone who is theoretically versed in the interview process and there on your behalf. Also, anything you admit during the interview *cannot* be used against you in a court of law, which is a world of differencefrom the average citizen to police encounter. So, either you don't know your own rights in an IA investigation, or you're deliberately omitting things in an attempt to bolster your point. Here's a couple quotes from the link: "Management is not required to inform the employee of his/her Weingarten rights; it is the employees responsibility to know and request." and also "During the questioning, the representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics." furthermore "the Garrity Rule is not automatically triggered simply because questioning is taking place. The officer must announce that he or she wants the protections under Garrity. The immunity under Garrity that attaches from a compelled statement is limited."

It's becoming apparent that you're not actually paying attention to what people are responding to you, as you've clearly not followed any links or information given. I can only assume you're trolling the thread, as such this is my final response to you (at least until such time as I think otherwise). This is based on the fact that I pulled all of this information directly from the links/posts replying to you on this page (with the exception of a google search and the first link from that from KBCraigs response).

Either way, I suggest you give the entire video of "Don't talk to the police" a watch, it's an interesting presentation given by a lawyer and a...iirc 28 year police detective. It's quite informative, and was what initially inspired me to look into the matter and take the opinion I have, which is-don't talk to the police. It's simple to find, google the phrase, it's the first video option.

It is interesting that people with an internet education think they know more about a topic than the people who actually have first hand experience and knowledge.

You read a few lines and you you are an internet lawyer and union rep. :lol:

I have posted when I know to be true and how it is. What you have read does not always apply to every location. You may think you can have a rep in the room but.. not in all places. In Virginia we have no Unions!! So there are no Union Reps to sit by your side.

Yes, the police in Virginia can have a "union" and even pay dues but the union has absolutely no power. They cannot do anything to help you in an investigation. You even get an attorney but he does not get to enter the room with you. Did you know that?

I chose not to go into the greatest details as they really do not matter here. A point was being made and delving into the most minor of details was not necessary.

You have taken the point and derailed the train!! That one long run on sentence was not required but you had to show me that you are clearly "more educated" on my rights while being questioned. :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit? I cannot think of any and have never seen this happen in my experience.

Never heard of the Duke lacrosse team, apparently...

It really makes no difference.

The point is that the police walking up to you on the street are not trying to pin a rape on you. In the Lacrosse team matter the police contact was done so AFTER an allegation was made by someone saying they were raped.

They were not approached on the street where the cop made small talk trying to get them to slip up and confess to it. Do you see what I am getting at?

I have talked to many people in an attempt to exclude them as being involved in criminal activity. The only way you are going to be able to decide this is to ask and see what they say. But I do not expect you or anyone else to understand. You want cops to wait for the crime to happen in front of them and then make the arrest. :lol:

If only it worked that way... But most bad guys seem to not do it when they know cops are nearby.

 

[levernut]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

In your scene, the officer was apparently justified in everything he did. The suspects used violence against the officers and the force used was necessary to protect both officers. So in this case, the officer has little to worry about. Clearly, he is able to justify what he did.

While IA does not meet you in the fast food line to talk to you.. I will work with it to answer your questions.

You have someone from IA walking up and questioning the officer about an event the officer KNOWS he was involved in.

It is not like IA suspects the officer could be involved and he may have the wrong guy. So let's say this is a voluntary contact and AI is fishing for information.

If IA walks up and claims you were involved in some event you know you did not do, this is your chance to clear it up so IA can go find the right officer and stop wasting their time on you.

Clamming up does not make IA go away. Now they will look at you real hard and see if they can bust you for anything else. This may not be tot their intent but if you want to play hard ball... two can play that game.

Q1: Not sure why he needs to tell IA about realities on the streets or talk about false charges. If the officer wants to set the record straight... he will need to tell IA what actually happened and in detail. He already knows he is the guy IA is looking for. What is there to hide since he did everything proper.

Q2: Cops in trouble do not care for IA just like people in trouble do not care for cops. If you have done nothing wrong... what can IA do to you? Sure, they could do something improper and fake charges. But why you out of all the cops on the department? There are many people above them in the process that oversee things and a "jury" can hear all the evidence. IA does not need the officer to talk to get him in trouble. If that is the plan.. they can just do it.

Q3: If the officer is suspected in some wrong doing, he cannot refuse to talk to IA. Most, if not all, departments make it mandatory that you talk to IA. Now if you know you are right and IA has bad info, this is your chance to set things straight. IA is not going to "go away" because you refuse to talk. He will be back and eventually you will have to answer for what you may or may not have done when charges are placed.

So why wait for charges or be fired when you could have explained yourself earlier?

Remember... you have not broken any laws.

In your scene.. IA seems to have an opinion that what you did was not right even if it was. He also has some details wrong and you need to make sure he has it right so he can correctly decide how to proceed.

So keeping quiet serves no purpose but strengthen IA's belief that you probably did something wrong and you need to be watched further.

In closing..

The difference is that an allegation is being made directly against the cop for some alleged wrong doing. IA knows who the cop is and can find him if it is determined that the cop did something wrong and needs to answer for it.

In the case of a citizen on the street suspected to be involved in a crime.. the cop does not know who he is and if allowed to leave.. may never be able to find him again. The cop does not know for sure if he has the right guy. IA does.

I hope this was helpful to you.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It is interesting that you read some things into the scenario which were not explicitedly stated (but were reasonably inferred). First, it seems you assumed the IA guy was approachingthe LEOin an official capacity. You mentioned IAcould talk tothe LEOany time andhe wouldhave to participate, so they would not likely approachsomeone ina fast food line. What if he was just curious about what had happened andwished to debate theissue of public perception of policeacts, even when technically justifiable? That is why I introduced theidea of engaging the IAO on thesetopics, in the event it was a converation borne of collegial debate.

I was not aware LEOs had to speak to IA without a representative present. Thanks for educating me on that. It strikes me strange that one would have to surrender their 5th amendment rights as a condition of employment.

Finally, one point you did not address: how do you think the LEO would the react if it was not an IAO (who apparently he must speak with if interviewed in an official capacity), but a DOJ investigator?

As you correctly point out in my scenario, the officer's actions were, in fact, completely justifiable; however, would IAO or DOJ necessarily know that in initiating an investigation of a complaint? What if there was another witness, who only witnessed some of the interaction, or there was a discrepency in reporting among the officers involved in the incident? Would it be wise to voluntarily speak on this?

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit? I cannot think of any and have never seen this happen in my experience.

Never heard of the Duke lacrosse team, apparently...

It really makes no difference.

The point is that the police walking up to you on the street are not trying to pin a rape on you.

And I know that HOW?

Oh yeah, I DON'T know that.

In fact I have NO idea why they're REALLY talking to me because they could be LYING as they are permitted to do.

I've got better things to do with my time than to try to figure out if your lips are moving. That's what lawyers are for.

 

[Enoch Root]

imported post

This is a very long thread. I would like you to view these videos. If they've been posted before, deal with it.

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865



"Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912

These two professionals seem to concur: "Don't Talk to the Police"

 

[hansolo]

imported post

Enoch Root wrote:

This is a very long thread. I would like you to view these videos. If they've been posted before, deal with it.

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865



"Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912

These two professionals seem to concur: "Don't Talk to the Police"

Those videos have indeed been posted. Thanks.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit?

Sure. Danbus walked up and asked the police what they were doing when he thought they were hassling a young man in his neighborhood, and wound up arrested.

 

[hansolo]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit?

Sure. Danbus walked up and asked the police what they were doing when he thought they were hassling a young man in his neighborhood, and wound up arrested.

How did the situation turn out? Did he file a suit? Is that arrest still on his record?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

hansolo wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Can youpost some examples where someone said something toa cop and was arrested for a crime he did not commit?

Sure. Danbus walked up and asked the police what they were doing when he thought they were hassling a young man in his neighborhood, and wound up arrested.

How did the situation turn out? Did he file a suit? Is that arrest still on his record?

http://hamptonroads.com/node/456451
Szymecki made headlines last year when he was arrested at Harborfest in Norfolk for carrying a holstered .45-caliber handgun.
In protest, more than 100 gun-rights supporters descended upon a Norfolk City Council meeting, most of them armed. The city wound up dropping the charges against Szymecki when it came to light that the ordinance against firearms at Harborfest violated state law.
Szymecki filed a federal lawsuit against the city last week, "I'm not looking for an opportunity to make money. I'm looking for an opportunity to stop something like this from happening again."
Just a few years ago, each locality could pretty much treat firearms as it saw fit. The result was a hodgepodge of rules. Lawful gun owners could turn into felons merely by crossing a city line.
By 2004, Virginia legislators had been persuad ed to sweep aside local firearms laws and prohibit any more. Now, with few exceptions, localities can only enforce gun rules contained in state code.
Across the country, states and localities have put an estimated 20,000 firearms laws on the books. Even police can be confused - especially when it comes to open-carry.
Dan Moore of Hampton has been handcuffed four times because of his weapon. Moore, 23, now wears a ball cap that's specially embroidered: "Black Man With A Gun."
His first run-in with police occurred in downtown Norfolk last summer. He was waiting for a friend outside Bank of America when someone noticed his gun and called 911.
"The officer came around the corner with his gun drawn," Moore said. "I felt like if I sneezed, or moved the wrong way..."
Moore wound up in the back seat of a cruiser. He was eventually released, but one week later, in the same location, the police appeared again: "They kept asking me, 'What do you think you're doing? Why do you have a gun?' I just kept saying, 'Because I have the right.' "
Chris Amos, a spokesman for the Norfolk Police Department, acknowledged that the officers went too far.
"We have no right to do some of the things that happened to Mr. Moore, and he has every right to do what he's doing," Amos said. "But you have to understand an officer's mind-set. They've been taught that a person with a gun is usually not a good thing. Police get killed all the time by someone with a gun."
Since his troubles in Norfolk, Moore has been arrested in Hampton and Suffolk, both times on the charge of obstructing justice. In each case, Moore, refused to show police officers his ID.
"This is America," he said. "I don't have to show my papers every time someone asks."
Charges were dismissed in Hampton, but Moore was found guilty in Suffolk. In that incident, he had approached officers investigating a vandalism.
Moore, whose sentencing is scheduled for later this month, said he knows he was pushing the envelope.
"I was tired of getting hassled, and I was going at this as the perfect opportunity to let police know, 'Look, you can't do this,' " Moore said. "I don't think I'll do it that way again."