quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

...I will stop, I will immediately ask why I am being detained and the basis of the officer's reasonable suspicion that I have committed or am about to commit a crime. If legally detained or arrested and asked, I will give me legal name, but under no circumstances will I provide any further information, save for asserting my rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments.

While that sounds like a fantastic idea, that not talking bit, and is certainly within your rights, it is a good way to land yourself in jail if the officer believes he has probable cause, when your explanation would show him that most likely you were legal and off you'd go on your merry way.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:...If it was, I will stop, I will immediately ask why I am being detained and the basis of the officer's reasonable suspicion that I have committed or am about to commit a crime. If legally detained or arrested and asked, I will give me legal name, but under no circumstances will I provide any further information, save for asserting my rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments.

Before I would go all "lawyer" on a cop, I would normally just see what they wanted. All they may be asking is where the nearest Krispy Kreme is.

Just think of how big of a dick you feel if you went through that whole monolog and the cop just wanted to know if you had seen some old guy that was missing, Silver Alert thing.

Did either of you read what I wrote?

I wrote that IF LEGALLY DETAINED OR ARRESTED I would not converse with the officer other than by providing my name and asserting my rights. If legally detained or arrested I would be a suspect in a crime and doing anything other than remaining silent is stupid.

If the officer's response to my question is that I am not being detained or arrested, and the officer has no reasonable suspicion that I have committed or am about to commit a crime, he or she is free to ask me anything from directions to the nearest Dunkin Donuts to whether I had seen some old guy that was missing.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I wrote that IF LEGALLY DETAINED OR ARRESTED I would not converse with the officer other than by providing my name and asserting my rights. If legally detained or arrested I would be a suspect in a crime and doing anything other than remaining silent is stupid.

If the officer's response to my question is that I am not being detained or arrested, and the officer has no reasonable suspicion that I have committed or am about to commit a crime, he or she is free to ask me anything from directions to the nearest Dunkin Donuts to whether I had seen some old guy that was missing.

I don't think every time an officer detains someone they consider them a suspect. IMO, they detain sometimes simply because they can't yet rule a person out as a suspect, in other words suspect-or-not is to be determined. Or, the officer can't yet explain the person's behavior as being normal. For example, they detain people sometimes just for being extremely nervous, not following lawful orders such as keeping their hands visible, etc., until they can get further determination that something criminal isn't going on.

From the tone of the officer's voice, I would conclude that he was definitely worried about Orr's hand in his pocket.

I understand what Chongosurete said, but I believe the officer should have had his hand on his gun, and ready to draw if not more.
Glad that Orr will be away for a couple of decades and that the officer survived.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
From the tone of the officer's voice, I would conclude that he was definitely worried about Orr's hand in his pocket.

I understand what Chongosurete said, but I believe the officer should have had his hand on his gun, and ready to draw if not more.
Glad that Orr will be away for a couple of decades and that the officer survived.

Even then, he was going to take rounds. This is a perfect example of "if someone wants to shoot a cop, they can". Action is faster than reaction. Certainly shows how fast it can go bad.

Yes, it is absolutely a tough job. While I suspect most of us here would have preferred that the dirtbag missed and officer Smith burned him to the ground, I doubt many of us here would support a shoot first, ask questions later approach. As Chongo so aptly pointed out, the politics have changed and officers have a very tough standard for use of force. I think that would be great if everyone were law-abiding and supported LE. Sadly, that isn't the case. I don't know what the answer is, but I hope things get better for LE.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sig2340:

...I will immediately ask why I am being detained and the basis of the officer's reasonable suspicion

Did either of you read what I wrote?

Yes, the part about "immediately ask why I am being detained". I just think that is a tad over the top for a LEO looking for a good coffee shop or a missing person.

Me personally, I would see what the LEO needed or wanted with me prior to whipping out my Bar Card.

Chongo,

Your explanation to JAllen's questions was very well-stated. Thank you. I realize he was asking questions to which he already knew the answers. It is also accurate in the description of how LEOs trying to do it the right way by today's standards are operating. Proactivity is nosediving, and the subversive members of society will eventually suffer from what they've created.

quote:

Originally posted by L90814:
Chongo,

Your explanation to JAllen's questions was very well-stated. Thank you. I realize he was asking questions to which he already knew the answers.

Not at all. I realize that sometimes people get the impression that I know everything. Alas, it isn't so.

Thanks to decades of mostly sober, responsible good citizenship and clean living, I have had very little contact with officers in my personal capacity and their professional one. Outside of traffic stops, few and far between, I can't think of any time I have encountered that situation.

I'm a little nervous about it, though, because in a thread awhile back, Chongo insinuated that my car would be found "dirty" upon thorough search.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Just my worthless opinion:
Once Orr refused to stop for me, I would have backed away and kept him under surveillance until I had more help. Just the presence of a second officer MAY have deterred this. The time spent waiting and watching would also help build additional PC for a stop. And his prior actions at the grocery and his attempt to avoid you make this a valid Terry stop.

If backup was available.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Not at all. I realize that sometimes people get the impression that I know everything. Alas, it isn't so.

I'm willing to bet that's an underestimation!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

I'm a little nervous about it, though, because in a thread awhile back, Chongo insinuated that my car would be found "dirty" upon thorough search.

Oh, you know he's got jokes! Besides, who searches cars anymore??? I don't care about marijuana, and I'm damn sure not letting fentanyl get me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: L90814,

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I'm a little nervous about it, though, because in a thread awhile back, Chongo insinuated that my car would be found "dirty" upon thorough search.

Is this the thread about using a crowbar to open your car to see a vehicle identification tag, or some such? If so, I thought it was SigPhil that made that statement, but, of course, I may mis-remember.

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I'm a little nervous about it, though, because in a thread awhile back, Chongo insinuated that my car would be found "dirty" upon thorough search.

Is this the thread about using a crowbar to open your car to see a vehicle identification tag, or some such? If so, I thought it was SigPhil that made that statement, but, of course, I may mis-remember.

I don't remember saying this, and it doesn't sound like something I would say, unless it was in jest, and/or in very specific context. Especially to JAllen.

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I'm a little nervous about it, though, because in a thread awhile back, Chongo insinuated that my car would be found "dirty" upon thorough search.

Is this the thread about using a crowbar to open your car to see a vehicle identification tag, or some such? If so, I thought it was SigPhil that made that statement, but, of course, I may mis-remember.

I believe the discussion was about searching a car. I am clean as a whistle myself, have no bad habits, nor use illegal substances, never have had, or even seen, any of that stuff.

I was assured that a drug dog would "find" some evidence to the contrary. Maybe my kid borrowed the car, maybe the neighbor, a mechanic at the Lexus dealer, the fellow who detailed the car last, somehow, my car would turn up "dirty." The risk would increase with a bad attitude.

The problem is that there is no way to absolve oneself of the stain of guilt.

This may have taken place in a discussion about the reliability of drug dog evidence vs. "throwdowns" that some officers are known to improve their lie, to borrow an old golfing term. It's a very delicate topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

Did either of you read what I wrote?

I wrote that IF LEGALLY DETAINED OR ARRESTED I would not converse with the officer other than by providing my name and asserting my rights. If legally detained or arrested I would be a suspect in a crime and doing anything other than remaining silent is stupid.

If the officer's response to my question is that I am not being detained or arrested, and the officer has no reasonable suspicion that I have committed or am about to commit a crime, he or she is free to ask me anything from directions to the nearest Dunkin Donuts to whether I had seen some old guy that was missing.

Chongo is right.

We had a fight at a bar last night. Guy got smashed in the face with a glass and got cut up pretty good. We talked to the suspect. Suspect says the victim started the fight and got beat. Suspect then provided witnesses that could verify it. Saved him a trip to jail, because he was willing to tell his side of the story.

You are "legally detained" on a traffic stop. Do you refuse to converse with an officer then? "Legally detained" and "arrested" are two significantly different statuses with different burdens of proof. They are not interchangeable terms.

Most cops (like...99.999999% of them) want no business jamming up people who don't need it. Sometimes -- dare I say most times -- we have to talk to someone to rule them out as a suspect. Your refusal to aid in that may be detrimental.

It's like dealing with drivers who have been drinking. If you're wearing bar wristbands and have bloodshot, watery eyes, impaired speech and balance, smell of ingested alcohol, and are wearing bar wristbands, it doesn't look great. When you refuse to do any requested SFSTs and refuse to provide a chemical test, the officer can only make a decision based on the observations they've already made.

You can't complain about a one-sided decision when the second side won't talk.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I'm a little nervous about it, though, because in a thread awhile back, Chongo insinuated that my car would be found "dirty" upon thorough search.

Is this the thread about using a crowbar to open your car to see a vehicle identification tag, or some such? If so, I thought it was SigPhil that made that statement, but, of course, I may mis-remember.

I believe the discussion was about searching a car. I am clean as a whistle myself, have no bad habits, nor use illegal substances, never have had, or even seen, any of that stuff.

I was assured that a drug dog would "find" some evidence to the contrary. Maybe my kid borrowed the car, maybe the neighbor, a mechanic at the Lexus dealer, the fellow who detailed the car last, somehow, my car would turn up "dirty." The risk would increase with a bad attitude.

The problem is that there is no way to absolve oneself of the stain of guilt.

This may have taken place in a discussion about the reliability of drug dog evidence vs. "throwdowns" that some officers are known to improve their lie, to borrow an old golfing term. It's a very delicate topic.

While not remembering specifically myself, my general theme as a citizen on letting officers search is 'No', and most particularly because one really never does know whom has left what in their car, and the true stories I could tell trump the 'what-ifs' one might think up, amazingly. That part does sound like me.

My stance on drug dogs...I've never seen one alert and be wrong. I've seen them miss drugs, though. But I've never seem one alert when there was not (or the occupant didn't admit there had been) drugs.

If one declines a search and the officer doesn't already have reasonable suspicion or PC to continue to detain, the stop is over. There is no waiting for a drug dog just to see.

Being polite and cooperative, within reason, often belays further scrutiny. In fact, a refusal to cooperate in certain contexts can lead to legal justification to prolong a stop. I'm sure that's what I meant, if it was me. I can assure all reading, I...we...are not trying to waste time on good guys.