Am I free to leave now, officer?

[Powderman]

I guess that I should know by now that posting in threads like this brings a lot of misunderstanding.
My tricks of the trade? Two words--training and experience. That's all...nothing more. And yes.....I love stupid criminals.

 

[ArtP]

I'm not sticking up for your comments, but I took your "trade secrets" comment as nothing more than a poor choice of words, something I certainly do myself. If you had a "do-over" I'm sure you'd say the same but choose different words.

This is not a criticism, simply saying I read between the lines.

 

[ArtP]

I honestly want to know: Was the "by eating dinner" reply a smart-*** remark or was it an earnest question?

I don't want to put words in Navy's mouth and he did already answer the question.

But let's say Navy found the cops original question to be smart-aleck and insulting itself. If I were in that situation, knowing I was completely in the clear, I just might get smart-arse back, and not be sorry about it. It's human nature.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I love stupid criminals.

I'm at the office taking a break from reviewing the transcripts of a wire that were just posted on a federal docket. It is remarkable how easy it is for a stupid criminal to confess to a crime and go to jail for 20 years. Hanging out with the wrong people + 5 words + recorder + FBI task force = life in jail.

 

[dr1llpr3ss]

And would you care to tell me exactly what reason the officer had to disturb my dinner?

Person calls 911 and reports a MWAG in a restaurant. Officer shows up. Sees a person eating dinner in a restaurant at dinner time, enganging in EXACTLY the same behavior everyone else is engaging it at the time, and he is carrying a firearm in a manner which is not prohibited by any statute or ordinance. Now, exactly WHAT reason WOULD an officer have for interrupting the peaceful and lawful behavior of a citizen in this case?

Ideally the officer would have seen that nothing suspicious had occurred and then would take the time to locate the patron who called 911 and edumacated them on the rights of an individual to open-carry a firearm and how that in and of itself is not disturbing the peace or going armed to the terror of the people.

 

[Powderman]

Ideally the officer would have seen that nothing suspicious had occurred and then would take the time to locate the patron who called 911 and edumacated them on the rights of an individual to open-carry a firearm and how that in and of itself is not disturbing the peace or going armed to the terror of the people.

That happens quite a bit here in my state. Namely in (believe it or not) the city of...

SEATTLE.

In the most recent one I know about, a person complained that "a man has a GUN on his side, in the open!!!"

Cop's reply:

"OK. So what?"

The complainant was disturbed.

"Officer, he's carrying a GUN. In PUBLIC!!!!"

Seattle Officer's response:

"Yes, he is, in full compliance with State law. He's perfectly legal to do so. If you're interested, read RCW 9.41. Is there anything else?"

".....well....no...."

"You have a nice day, then."

The fact that this took place in an area near downtown Seattle--one of the most liberal cities in the country---gives me hope and made my day.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Also, I've heard that 911 operators are screening calls better by asking such questions as what is the person with the gun doing, where is the gun. If the person is doing what everyone else is doing and the gun is in a holster, then they explain there is nothing illegal.

 

[chhodge69]

We have our trade secrets as well.

I, for one, do not take this phrase to mean anything insidious. We all learn the nuances of our professions over time. It's the "bad apples" that fail to do this.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Never "step ouside" to talk to the police. Out there it is there word against yours and we all know how that goes in court. I used to work in a bar and several times I saw the police lure a customer outside to "talk" so that they could charge him with public intoxication. Your response should be "am I breaking some law officer?" and if not "Then am I free to go?" or in this case, free to eat my dinner.

 

[JohnKSa]

Not quite.

If I ask to look in a vehicle during a contact or traffic stop, it is because I have gathered enough evidence--by open/plain view--to ask.

If the evidence is strong enough, and I can articulate through experience and training that there is a high probability that an item of contraband is in the vehicle, then I will detain and secure a search warrant.

If an LEO has probable cause then he doesn't need a warrant or the owner's permission to search.

Ok, so maybe an LEO would ask, even when he doesn't have to, simply because it's polite, I don't know.

Regardless, the fact remains that when an officer asks to search there's absolutely no reason for anyone to ever say yes unless that person really wants the officer to search. If the LEO has probable cause or a warrant then the answer doesn't matter anyway and if he doesn't have either of those things and you don't want the officer to search then it makes no sense to say yes.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Never "step ouside" to talk to the police.

^^^^^+1. What Owen said.

If an LEO has probable cause then he doesn't need a warrant or the owner's permission to search.

Not universally true. A LEO can only conduct a search without consent or a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime for which the person is already suspect will be destroyed if not immediately confiscated or there is danger to a person. Otherwise, the police may detain the suspect until the probable cause is presented to a judge and a search warrant is issued.

 

[Powderman]

Actually, if the search is to go beyond the zone of immediate control of the driver--excluding locked containers/glove compartments--then a warrant IS most certainly necessary.

And pardon me, folks, but there is a LOT of paranoia being expressed here. Don't step outside to talk? What's that about?

If I ask someone to step outside a place like a bar, it might be because it's just too darned noisy.
Or, it may be to separate two possible or actual combatants.
Maybe I just want to get YOUR side of the story.

But, I don't LURE anyone anywhere. If I have developed probable cause to effect lawful arrest, then the focus of my investigation will go into cuffs. Period. The only choice the arrestee has at that point is to submit to lawful arrest or to resist. The part about resisting can get a bit messy, and someone might well get hurt. But--if I have PC to make he arrest, then the arrest is made.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, I understand the distinction, I'm not sure exactly what bearing it has on the matter at hand. So let's simplify. My point is twofold.

1. An LEO only needs to ask for permission to search if the owner's permission is actually required to legally effect the search. Is that correct or incorrect?

2. A citizen's denial of permission to search can not make his situation (from a legal standpoint*) worse than it already is. Is that correct or incorrect?

*The caveat is included because I think we all understand that, from a purely practical perspective, an unethical LEO has the ability to make a citizen suffer if he so wishes.

 

[Shadow 7D]

there are some great videos on youtube (and some REALLY bad ones)
The one I remember is posted here every once in a while, is a lecture to first or second year law students about why you NEVER* talk to cops

The set up is 3 friends going somewhere when they are stopped by a cop and the cop fishes with the 'are you drunk' or 'I smell pot' And such

The scenario is ran through to the end.
there never is a good outcome except the when they refuse the search

now for the *
if you are the victim you MUST establish you victim status.

 

[Bonesinium]

Paranoia can often be the better part of discretion.

 

[basicblur]

The edumucation of the public (and LE ) continues...

Also, I've heard that 911 operators are screening calls better by asking such questions as what is the person with the gun doing, where is the gun. If the person is doing what everyone else is doing and the gun is in a holster, then they explain there is nothing illegal.

It's happening/has happened in VA, particularly some northern areas.
VCDL got involved in a big case (that never should have become one) up north a couple? of years ago-the result was the PD involved scheduled additional training for the officer(s) involved (and probably others), and also the 911 operators.

Since that case, there have been numerous MWAG reports that have been handled by 911 by simply asking a few questions:
1. Where is the gun?
2. What is the person with the gun doing?
After these two questions, the next two 911 responses usually are:
3. MWAG is breaking no law-what he is doing is legal under VA law.
4. If something happens, feel free to give us a call.

Simple-no muss, no fuss.
Everybody just take a big step back and breathe...

 

[Lost Sheep]

Trying to keep some tactics, techniques, and protocols somewhat hush-hush is really not quite what you're making it out to be. Declining to post some tricks of the trade on a public forum is hardly having secret laws; that's a ridiculous leap!

Think about it: most police-work involves, to some extent, stupidity on the part of criminals. There's a saying, "the smart ones don't get caught." Smart criminals don't consent to searches, confess to crimes soon after being arrested, and talk the cops' ears off without a lawyer present. For that matter, they are less likely to leave behind evidence. As it is, I quite like that aspect of our system; there's poetic justice in criminals getting caught due to their own stupidity, when their rights are theirs to uphold or forfeit for whatever reason. Often that reason is simple ignorance and laziness - not paying attention in 7th grade Social Studies/ELPS and not knowing anything about the constitution. Yes, there's poetic justice when someone has rights and is simply too ignorant to know it, and then traps themselves after having done wrong.

Should police procedure be "freely available," maybe, I suppose. It should be open to inquiry, sure, and certainly to review and audit from multiple directions. But you're pretty much verging on conspiracy-theory level thinking, if you are going to view the issue as either: everything police do should be published on an internet forum (and who knows where else), or we're on our way to a police state.

There are appropriate channels for inquiry or examination of police, and I'm not saying that you need an official reason, or even a very good reason to ask. Curiosity is good enough, IMO. In some cases police should be more forthcoming; I filed a complaint just last wek on a local police officer because of some unconstitutional actions she took presumably in the name of secrecy. However, it's just absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there should be some active effort to make police tactics and techniques a matter of public knowledge; that would compromise the safety and effectiveness of all police officers.

I also am in the middle on this particular question, but I would like to point out that not only is Officer safety at risk and at issue, it is the Safety of the Public. On two fronts. One; the public has a right to be safe from Government overstepping its bounds (not just police, either). Two; the public is safer if police have better tools than the lawless, and that includes the advantage of secrecy over the tactics available to officers.

The public has a right to know what the law is and the rules of admissibility and such. Unfortunately it takes lawyers years of study to dope all that out. Most ordinary citizens don't have the time to school themselves, so mostly only lawyers, police and criminals devote vital energy to the study. The rest of us pick up what we can in what time we have available after work, family and the other necessities of life.

I mentioned that the public has a right to know police rules of engagement, but some things are better made public on a "need to know" basis. Patrol schedules, for example.

Most departments require officers pass a rigorous background check and psychological test, too. We depend on these men and women to be trustworthy, and by and large, they are. Those that get lazy, burnt out, go bad or otherwise lose that quality need to be retrained, reinvigorated or weeded out, but in the interest of public safety, we need to support them and let them have the tools to perform the duties we ask of them.

Geez, where did this soapbox come from and why am I standing on it?

Lost Sheep

 

[1911 guy]

Here's my take on it and I'll say right up front that this is NOT an attack or such on Powderman. I've read many of his posts and he comes off as one of the Good Guys.

But...

Suppose I have interaction with a police officer. Any officer for any reason. I don't know him, he doesn't know me. He's going to be (hopefully) polite and professional. I'll be the same to him/her. But it's going to be by the book. I will give no advantage and do not expect them to,either. Like I said, we are unknown quantities to one another. How do I know it's a good cop? How does he know I'm a good citizen? We don't. So I'm not consenting to searches, going outside, or anything else.

Having said all that, I've had exactly ONE minorly bad experience and that was over ten years ago. Been pulled over for speeding and lights burned out maybe three or four times since and have always had the good fortune to run into professionals. Not griping, just saying all sides need to use caution.

 

[NavyLCDR]

And pardon me, folks, but there is a LOT of paranoia being expressed here. Don't step outside to talk? What's that about?

If I ask someone to step outside a place like a bar, it might be because it's just too darned noisy.
Or, it may be to separate two possible or actual combatants.
Maybe I just want to get YOUR side of the story.

When I am quietly enjoying a peaceful dinner in a restaurant, there is no valid reason for a cop to ask me to step outside.

As far as "secret tactics" and search warrants and such, let's look at a situation where this might arise. Cop stops you for weaving in traffic. Upon approach to the vehicle he smells alcohol. Problem is, even though there is the odor of alcohol, the subject marginally passes the field sobriety tests and blows a .02 on the field breathalyzer. Now what's the cop going to do?

Well, he thinks to himself, "Open container in a vehicle is illegal, I smelled much stronger alcohol smell in the vehicle than on the subject here, so I have probable cause to search the vehicle for an open container."

So, he asks the subject, "You don't mind if I look in your car do you?" Subject, "Yes, I do mind, I do not consent to any search of my vehicle."

Now what's the cop going to do? First, I'll bet he tries a tactic like this,"If you have nothing to hide, then why can't I look? The fact that you don't want me to look tells me there must be something you want to hide." or "You know, we can do this the easy way or the hard way." or "I have probable cause to believe there is an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, therefore I can search your car with or without your consent" or "you know, we can just wait here all night until I get a search warrant, or you can just consent to letting me look in your car".

The last statement is the most truthful. The cop, in this case, cannot search the vehicle for an open container without consent or a search warrant; because, with the subject removed from the vehicle and nobody else present, there is no danger of evidence being destroyed before a search warrant can be obtained. However, the cop on the street certainly is not going to tell you that!

AND some cops may even just tell you they have probable cause of an open container, what their probable cause is, and search the vehicle with you in handcuffs without getting a warrant, hoping that you won't find out that such a search is more than likely completely illegal. Then the prosecutor, knowing the search was more than likely completely illegal will try to get you to plea bargain so they can still get a conviction on something, like reckless driving and not have their whole case tossed out of court because of an illegal search.

 

[hatt]

"I had the Right to remain silent, I just didn't have the ability."

Every time I see these threads I think of that. A cop is not your friend. He didn't pull you over because he wanted to hang out. He's not asking you a bunch of questions because he likes your conversation. He's digging for info to use against you. It's a game. Why people insist on not using the game rules advantageous to them immediately is beyond me. Unless people just like to play the game longer, but passing up on a sure touchdown pass while you're down a few points doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Powderman]

When I am quietly enjoying a peaceful dinner in a restaurant, there is no valid reason for a cop to ask me to step outside.

Agreed.

Cop stops you for weaving in traffic. Upon approach to the vehicle he smells alcohol. Problem is, even though there is the odor of alcohol, the subject marginally passes the field sobriety tests and blows a .02 on the field breathalyzer. Now what's the cop going to do?

Well, the method you described is somewhat tortuous. I could go that route.

However, what is more than likely to happen is this:

Driver is weaving. I call the stop in, and initiate it.

I note the strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. I ask if the driver has been drinking--of course, it's only two beers. The driver is asked to step from the vehicle. By this time I have called for a second officer.

The second officer observes as I ask the standard questions and perform FST's, in front of the camera in my patrol unit. Last test is the breathalyzer/PBT. Now, the guy blows a .02. ????????????

1. Get another PBT to verify. Still a .02?
2. Person is detained, not arrested. Car is checked by simply sticking your head next to the open window or open door and sniffing. Smell alcohol? Possible open container. Still no problem.
3. One of the questions I have already asked is it the driver has been taking prescription meds. If they have, get a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) to observe and verify symptoms. They can STILL be arrested for DUI/DWI for taking prescription meds that have an intoxicating effect. Even over the counter meds can get you charged with DWI.

You see, the search of the vehicle doesn't even come in to play here. I stopped you vor weaving and traffic infractions. During the stop, you displayed symptoms and indications that (based on my training and experience) led me to believe that you were possibly impaired. You flunked the FST's. Your next step is more than likely the hospital, where you'll have an appointment with a friendly nurse or doctor (see RCW 46.61.508) for blood alcohol testing.

Like I said before, training and experience. I have no reason to taint findings with the fruit of the poisonous tree (illegal search) when the law gives me tools to gather evidence legally and without violating the rights of others.

 

[Powderman]

He's digging for info to use against you. It's a game.

No, sir, it's not. Not by a long shot.

Depriving someone of their liberty--even on a temporary business--is VERY serious business. When I stop someone and detain them I have a dog-goned good reason. You can bet on that.

And I don't initiate the circumstances that can take over 10K from someone's pocket lightly, either.

On the other hand, you, as a fellow citizen, have the RIGHT to drive or move freely through and upon the roads, without some imbecile plowing into you and killing you or your family because they decided to get drunk; or wash down that Dilaudid with some wine; or load up on Sudafed because they have a REALLY bad cold, and follow it with NyQuil.

 

[Mike1234567]

What about those of us who have neurological problems? Might we be detained or arrested even though we're under the legal limit? Or might we be charged with DWI/DUI because an officer or a Drug Recognition Expert doesn't believe that we have a medical condition?

 

[Birch Knoll]

You flunked the FST's

Of course, FST's are designed to be flunked.

From Wikipedia:

In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study of the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped people performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink and drive" (sic). The blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects was 0.00, unknown to the officers. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to be able to drive.

When serving as a juror in a OUI case here in Maine, I watched the arresting officer demonstrate to the jury the tests he administered to the defendant, and explain the many, many small errors a subject may make in complying with the officer's detailed instructions, each such error being taken as evidence of impairment. Incidentally, by his own criteria, as he explained it to us, the officer failed the test himself.

 

[Deanimator]

Depriving someone of their liberty--even on a temporary business--is VERY serious business.

While I find your attitude admirable, I also find it quite rare in police.

What I see instead all too frequently is a sheer contempt for the liberty of citizens. Over and over I see cops who are casually dismissive of the right of citizens to go unmolested while committing no crime. When police INTENTIONALLY deprive someone of their liberty contrary to law, all too many cops not only defend the acts of their fellow LEOs, they attack the victim(s).

Example:

The Chicago PD used to have a unit call "S.O.S." (Special Operations Section). They were tasked with prosecuting mostly gun and (I believe) drug offenses. As with the Atlanta narcotics unit that murdered Katherine Johnston, things got wildly out of control. They forced their way into the home of the neighbors of a "person of interest" and questioned the occupants. One of the occupants was a minor child, whom they forcibly removed from the home and from whom they demanded information about the neighbors, such demands being in the form of various threats. Additionally they threatened the child in order to ensure his silence.

Flash forward, S.O.S. is broken up due to such behavior... and a series of robberies, home invasions and kidnappings by the members of the unit. Earlier this year, the above kidnapping victim, now an adult, sued the CPD and the city for his kidnapping. The owner of a well known police blog proceeded to viciously attack the VICTIM of a CHILD KIDNAPPING for his "opportunistic law suit". At no point did the blog owner deny that the kidnapping actually occurred, merely that it was "opportunistic" to seek redress for it.

Let us recall that this was not a lawful investigative detention, but a bona fide kidnapping of a CHILD. And it was not the only such kidnapping committed by members of that unit. Yet, we see a serving police officer attack the VICTIM, then a CHILD, of a KIDNAPPING. There was considerable support in the comments section for that attack on a KIDNAPPING VICTIM.

As I said, you appear to have the right attitude. Unfortunately, it seems rather an unpopular position in the profession.