Just to reiterate what YooperSig said: Consensual Encounters are the basis of a lot of interactions. An officer sees something that peaks their interest, they ask if they can talk to the individual, ask for ID. These aren't demands. It's up to the individual to know what the law says and then to decide how far they want to push an issue such as this.

If the officer thinks he has enough to now turn that consensual encounter into an investigate detention and you feel that you shouldn't have to comply with what are now demands for ID then you may have to spend a night in jail, lawyer fees, etc. to prove that you are right. Or you could find out you were wrong. Of course, if this happens then they will still have identified you.

Personally, I would give ID and comply with other basic requests. As to vehicle searches or searches of my home? No, there are strict guidelines that have been affirmed by judicial actions. I would say it's less of a grey area.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

Today I learned a new term.
Prima Nocta - Prima nocta is the semi-historical legal right of a monarch to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night.

Hence the phrase ”It’s good to be King”

quote:

Oh and I enjoy how they lied about being given his description.

Go back and watch it again. The description was brown curly hair with a 3 year old. He matches that description.

For the rest of the officer's actions: First let's talk to the guy and determine if the original complaint even holds water. Does he seem intoxicated. Maybe they had reason to believe he was. The arrest is where I say they could have handled it better. The officers did a piss poor job in de-escalation. The guy wants to not provide ID so tell him what is going to happen and is there anybody he can call to pick up the child before we take him into custody. If he fights after that, then fuck him.

ETA: Seems like they know which vehicle belongs to the person that got called in. So they have a name. I would have approached the guy and said, "Is your name so and so?"

Direct quote from officer.

"We really don't have much of a description".


Skull leader wrote:

The arrest is where I say they could have handled it better.

Could have handled it better? How about not assaulting the guy when he wasn't breaking any law. They "arrested" him for not providing ID which he only has to do when he's under arrest in Texas.

Why is it that if an officer is ignorant of a law it's no big deal, just a mistake, but if I'm ignorant of the law I'm told I can't use that as an excuse, would then be assaulted and jailed. They didn't even give him a chance before they ASSAULTED HIM. You'll probably say he had his chance when asked for ID but the fact is he had no legal obligation to provide it, then they ASSAULTED HIM.

The fact that you won't come out and say these officers are assholes and that they assaulted this guy speaks volumes on your character.

I've gone down the YouTube 1A audit rabbit hole. I can't decide what's more irritating, the idiot "auditors" or the ignorant cops who "fail" the audits. These videos have been around long enough for every cop to be aware of the concept. How long does it take recognize an audit and not get baited into the troll?

I'll admit I didn't watch the entire video. But my statements are still valid as the officer's believed they were effecting a lawful arrest.

quote:

Why is it that if an officer is ignorant of a law it's no big deal, just a mistake, but if I'm ignorant of the law I'm told I can't use that as an excuse, would then be assaulted and jailed.

This individual, as well as yourself if ever put in this position, have avenues you can pursue with the courts if you feel it necessary.

I put this in the "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" bucket.

I'm a business man in a smallish town. I want good relations with my cops. If they ask, I will likely give them ID.

I recognize that a right unused, can become a right surrendered, but I hope I am smart enough to walk that line if I ever need to do so.

Furthermore, if you are carrying, your rights in this area may change. Florida has no duty to disclose, but if the officer asks (and almost all of them are trained to do so) you must answer truthfully and provide LTC and Identification on request.

just tell them you are going to vote

quote:

just tell them you are going to vote

I don't live in one of the "vote without ID" jurisdictions.

I have to show ID.

Matter of fact, last time around, I showed a passport card and the untrained blue-hair (volunteer?) could not figure out how to handle it. I had to tell her to call a supervisor.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
I've gone down the YouTube 1A audit rabbit hole. I can't decide what's more irritating, the idiot "auditors" or the ignorant cops who "fail" the audits. These videos have been around long enough for every cop to be aware of the concept. How long does it take recognize an audit and not get baited into the troll?

The auditors are loathsome but I agree with your point. After thousands of these interactions being videotaped, how is it that I understand more about the law during these encounters than the police officers responding? Seeing video after video of officers lying/misinformed about what they can do in regards to stopping and ID’ing someone, detaining, arrest, etc. Is it attitude? Training? On occasion you see officers that know the law and perform admirably.

There was one video of a teenager walking around videotaping the outside of a building. On the sidewalk, in public. Responding female officer escalates the situation and gets the kid in cuffs in the back of her car. Sgt shows up and he is asking her about what the kid did. “Oh he’s pointing and taking pictures and the people inside didn’t know what he was doing, made them nervous, didn’t know his intent, etc etc etc”. Sgt says “ok time out a second....none of that is illegal”. She continued to try and make her case for the arrest but the Sgt said to let him go. It was actually nice to see someone take a step back and apply the law and common sense.

The auditors started using a phrase that makes me laugh recently. Cops show up “yes youre being detained”. Auditor asks why. “Youre being suspicious.” Then the auditor says “suspicion....is that a misdemeanor or a felony?” Kind of makes the point.

Another thing to be aware of. Some of these people will edit out some of the tape to, at times make themselves look better and make the cops look worse. And yes, I do have first hand knowledge of it happening in at least one of these incidents.

I know can’t believe it right??????

And sometimes it is cops that don’t know and look like crap.

I think half the problem is people calling the cops on stupid shit and expecting the cops to do something about it when there is a big nothing burger. And cops doing something stupid when there is a big nothing burger.

Now I got to look for that PSA involving cautions of being in Tijuana because of cartels, use of cautions on sea travel on the east side of Africa due to piracy, and the rogue gang of out of control cops of central Pennsylvania...........

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
The auditors started using a phrase that makes me laugh recently. Cops show up “yes youre being detained”. Auditor asks why. “Youre being suspicious.” Then the auditor says “suspicion....is that a misdemeanor or a felony?” Kind of makes the point.

You may think it's a clever turn of phrase, but the fact is that suspicion, provided it's reasonable, is enough legal justification for an officer to temporarily detain someone in order to further investigate that crime that they believe is afoot.

This is why the Supreme Court had laid out different levels of justification for a temporary investigative detention (reasonable suspicion) versus something like an arrest or full blown search (probable cause).

See Terry v. Ohio, one of the foundational 4th Amendment Supreme Court cases involving an officer "seizing" (temporarily detaining) someone, and all the subsequent rulings that built upon that standard.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
The auditors started using a phrase that makes me laugh recently. Cops show up “yes youre being detained”. Auditor asks why. “Youre being suspicious.” Then the auditor says “suspicion....is that a misdemeanor or a felony?” Kind of makes the point.

You may think it's a clever turn of phrase, but the fact is that suspicion, provided it's reasonable, is enough legal justification for an officer to temporarily detain someone in order to further investigate that crime that they believe is afoot.

This is why the Supreme Court had laid out different levels of justification for a temporary investigative detention (reasonable suspicion) versus something like an arrest or full blown search (probable cause).

See Terry v. Ohio, one of the foundational 4th Amendment Supreme Court cases involving an officer "seizing" (temporarily detaining) someone, and all the subsequent rulings that built upon that standard.

Cripes Rogue!!!! What are you doing??? Putting facts out there!!!!! No need for that.

Our 'laws' are a subjective mess involving copious amounts of pretzel logic...for God's sake stay out of the system.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
The auditors started using a phrase that makes me laugh recently. Cops show up “yes youre being detained”. Auditor asks why. “Youre being suspicious.” Then the auditor says “suspicion....is that a misdemeanor or a felony?” Kind of makes the point.

You may think it's a clever turn of phrase, but the fact is that suspicion, provided it's reasonable, is enough legal justification for an officer to temporarily detain someone in order to further investigate that crime that they believe is afoot.

This is why the Supreme Court had laid out different levels of justification for a temporary investigative detention (reasonable suspicion) versus something like an arrest or full blown search (probable cause).

See Terry v. Ohio, one of the foundational 4th Amendment Supreme Court cases involving an officer "seizing" (temporarily detaining) someone, and all the subsequent rulings that built upon that standard.

Cripes Rogue!!!! What are you doing??? Putting facts out there!!!!! No need for that.

(Disclaimer before writing more...not a cop or legal expert.) Suspicion as a reason to detain/ID someone has to be related to a crime. Standing on the sidewalk with a camera doesnt seem to meet that in my mind. We see it mis-applied in countless videos where the arriving officer gets a call of someone standing in public filming and the officer detains someone based on suspicion. Suspicion of what? Officers seem to be well within their right when arriving on scene to briefly detain people in order to make contact with a complainant to assess the situation. The second the officer understands that the detainee is simply standing in public with a camera, it should be over. Too often, and the reason for the popularity of these videos, the officers arriving want to overstep and argue/lie about the need for someone to produce ID or make accusations that aren’t supported by any evidence they have.

I’m not going to post a thousand videos here but there are literally countless videos of officers lying to people about the need to Identify when they have no authority in those jurisdictions to do so. More specifically Texas, where video after video has responding officers failing to understand basic law on when someone is required to identify themselves.

The kicker is the Texas ID law has been settled for several years. If these rinky dink towns don’t have the budget for continuing education then the state or county or feds need to step up and provide funding for said training. But I doubt a town of 100k doesn’t have the budget.

Am I wrong for assuming the cop with stripes ( corporal?) isn’t somebody with some seniority and should have known before they had to call the Sargent ? The look on the sargents face is... “Jesus. How much are these 3 idiots gonna cost the city now”

Another side anecdote. A friend of mine is a Lieutenant on a major Bay Area PD with almost 1000 sworn officers. He was over one day in my garage and we were looking at some guns in the safe and he gets a call. An auditor is inside the PD station videotaping it and generally being an annoying asshat. So they call him on his cell to ask what they should do. Of course he says be courteous and just ignore they will go away eventually. This wasn’t 10 years ago before this auditing was a thing this was last summer. I’m like seriously ? You don’t have a standard procedure for these people that all they want is to get a negative reaction out of an officer so they can put it online looking like a jerk ? And preferable to the auditor would be videoing an illegal arrest so they can get paid? Seems this would be a basic memo to be sent out.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
The auditors started using a phrase that makes me laugh recently. Cops show up “yes youre being detained”. Auditor asks why. “Youre being suspicious.” Then the auditor says “suspicion....is that a misdemeanor or a felony?” Kind of makes the point.

You may think it's a clever turn of phrase, but the fact is that suspicion, provided it's reasonable, is enough legal justification for an officer to temporarily detain someone in order to further investigate that crime that they believe is afoot.

This is why the Supreme Court had laid out different levels of justification for a temporary investigative detention (reasonable suspicion) versus something like an arrest or full blown search (probable cause).

See Terry v. Ohio, one of the foundational 4th Amendment Supreme Court cases involving an officer "seizing" (temporarily detaining) someone, and all the subsequent rulings that built upon that standard.

I couldn't agree more and I'm sick of those idiots thinking they're so clever with that phrase. Yeah, levels of suspicion--certain levels, as I understand, will give the police the authority to detain and identify. Mere suspicion doesn't. What the idiot auditors can't get through their thick skulls is that a perfectly legal activity may still give rise to suspicion. Go walk into a bank in the summer with a ski mask on. Some of those auditors are so freakin' obnoxious and I just hate it when they own cops.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:
I think half the problem is people calling the cops on stupid shit

The auditors call the cops on themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

I couldn't agree more and I'm sick of those idiots thinking they're so clever with that phrase. Yeah, levels of suspicion--certain levels, as I understand, will give the police the authority to detain and identify. Mere suspicion doesn't. What the idiot auditors can't get through their thick skulls is that a perfectly legal activity may still give rise to suspicion. Go walk into a bank in the summer with a ski mask on. Some of those auditors are so freakin' obnoxious and I just hate it when they own cops.

There is a difference between walking into a bank with a ski-mask on and standing on the sidewalk in public holding a camera. Officers in these videos routinely play the “suspicious” angle when contacting the latter and frankly, it makes them look ridiculous. I don’t know if its ego, training, habit, leadership/administration or a combination of all. There are also videos of officers that understand the law, act accordingly and quickly realize that a person standing in public with a camera is doing nothing wrong. They don't escalate the situation and are quick to clear their call and move on to the next task.

In 2021, with thousands of these videos online I am awestruck at the lack of awareness some of these responding officers have. Its obviously an issue and if I were in any leadership position in an agency, I’d make sure that my officers were properly instructed on how to handle these events. Some departments appear to be doing their officers and communities a disservice by not addressing it or going so far with agency policy to make officers believe they need to ID anyone they contact, contrary to law. Plenty of videos of officers stating “Its our policy to ID anyone we come in contact with”....officers being pushed by policy instead of law.