Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 71, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


LEGAL Can the police retaliate against a citizen for refusing to answer police questions?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 43
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    19,525

    Can the police retaliate against a citizen for refusing to answer police questions?

    In a new case, Alexander v. City of Round Rock, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit considers the following question: If the police pull over a driver and the driver indicates he will refuse to answer any police questions, does it violate the Constitution for the police to retaliate against the driver to punish him for refusing to answer their questions?

    As I read the 5th Circuit’s decision, the court rules that (a) retaliation against the driver for refusing to answer police questions may involve acts that violate the Fourth Amendment, (b) retaliation for refusal to answer police questions doesn’t clearly violate the First Amendment, and (c) such retaliation doesn’t violate the Fifth Amendment.

    The court’s Fifth Amendment ruling strikes me as missing some complications, and I thought I would blog about why I think it’s a tricky issue.

    I. The facts and ruling

    In the case, the plaintiff, Lionel Alexander, was pulled over and declined to answer police questions. According to his complaint, which at this stage of the case the court assumes is accurate (but may not be — that’s a factual question to be developed later), the police conduct was seriously out of control. Specifically, Alexander claims that the police retaliated against Alexander’s refusal to answer their questions by ordering him out of his car and then “pinn[ing] him face down onto the ground.” Several officers joined in, with “one officer press[ing] a boot or knee on the back of Alexander’s neck as his face was mashed into the concrete.” The police then handcuffed him, and an officer asked, “Are you ready to talk to me now?” Alexander responded with an expletive, which led the police to shackle his legs. Amazingly, at that point the officers arrested Alexander. The precise basis for the arrest is a little bit murky. But at least as it was written up in the police report, Alexander was arrested for obstructing a police officer.

    Alexander filed a civil suit against the officers and the municipality (collectively, “the officers”). The district court rejected the civil suit, and the 5th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, in an opinion by Judge Edith Brown Clement joined by Judge Jerry Smith and Judge Leslie Southwick.

    The 5th Circuit’s new decision makes several rulings against the officers in the case. It rules that Alexander has stated a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention and arrest; that qualified immunity should not apply to those claims; and that Alexander has stated a claim for excessive force.

    That all seems correct to me. But I was more interested in the court’s rulings in the officers’ favor, specifically on Alexander’s retaliation claim. Alexander claimed that the officers retaliated against him for refusing to speak to them. According to Alexander, the officers’ retaliation violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his First Amendment rights. The 5th Circuit ruled that any retaliation could not violate Alexander’s Fifth Amendment right and that any First Amendment claim was barred by qualified immunity.

    II. The retaliation claims

    Let’s look more specifically at the courts’ reasoning on the retaliation claims. Here’s the court rejecting the Fifth Amendment claim:

    Alexander’s argument that Garza and the officers retaliated against him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to answer Officer Garza’s questions is easily disposed of. As this court has noted on multiple occasions, “[a]n individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is implicated only during a custodial interrogation.” Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 769, 777 (5th Cir. 2015) (same). Indeed, “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right which can be violated only at trial.” Murray, 405 F.3d at 285; see also Winn v. New Orleans City, 919 F. Supp. 2d 743, 752 (E.D. La. 2013) (same). In other words, the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from being coerced into making an incriminating statement, and then having that statement used against him at trial. But Alexander was never tried. His Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated.

    And here’s the discussion of the First Amendment claim, with most citations omitted:

    We hold that Alexander’s claim on this point cannot overcome the officers’ qualified immunity, because “it was not clearly established that an individual has a First Amendment right to refuse to answer an officer’s questions during a Terry stop.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1244 (10th Cir. 2011). Surprisingly few courts have ruled on this precise issue; the parties point to no cases from this circuit directly on point. The sparse case law that does exist, however, indicates no consensus that a defendant has a First Amendment right not to answer an officer’s questions during a stop like the one at issue here.

    One court summarized the issue well: “Plaintiffs contend that they can state such a First Amendment retaliation claim because Defendants retaliated against them for exercising their right not to speak. However, this right not to speak has been limited to the context of government-compelled speech with respect to a particular political or ideological message. Plaintiffs cite no authority to support the application of the First Amendment protection against government-compelled ideological or political speech into the context of police interviews.”

    It is instructive that Alexander points to no case supporting the contention that there is a clearly established First Amendment right not to answer an officer’s questions during a traffic stop. We therefore conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Alexander’s First Amendment retaliation claim.


    I’ll leave it to the First Amendment experts to weigh in on that claim (calling Eugene!). But I did want to focus on the Fifth Amendment claim, as I think it is more complicated than the court’s short analysis suggests.

    III. The three versions of the Fifth Amendment

    Here’s the problem. Much to the confusion of students of criminal procedure, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in three different ways to do three different things.

    The first Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is what you might call the classic Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The law can’t force you to speak in a way that might subject you to criminal liability. When a person is being compelled to say something that might make them admit to committing a crime, they must “plead the Fifth” and a judge can then rule on whether the privilege applies. If the right is not asserted before the statement is made, the right normally is waived.

    The second Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is a right to the suppression of coerced statements in a later criminal proceeding. If the government interrogates you and you confess, the confession can be thrown out if it was not voluntary. This is an old common-law voluntariness standard that was later construed as part of the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirement. See, e.g., Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 376 (1964) (“It is now axiomatic that a defendant in a criminal case is deprived of due process of law if his conviction is founded, in whole or in part, upon an involuntary confession[.]”). Although most of the cases construing this right view it as part of the due process clause, some case law also (confusingly) grounds this right in the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See, e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003); Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 433-34 (2000).

    The third right is the Miranda v. Arizona right, which is a broader right in custodial interrogation to be given warnings and to be able to stop questioning if you ask for a lawyer or instruct that you wish to remain silent. The Supreme Court says that this is a “prophylactic” on the underlying Fifth Amendment right. There are dozens of Supreme Court cases on this right, and essentially they treat Miranda rights as a separate set of rights inspired by the traditional right against self-incrimination but also separate from it. See generally Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).

    Importantly, these are three distinct rights that are all justified by the same constitutional text that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The first is a right a person can assert not to be compelled by threat of legal punishment to say something that would expose them to criminal liability. The second is a right not to have forced confessions admitted in a criminal proceeding. The third is a right to get warnings in custody and to be able to call off interrogations. They’re all in the same ballpark in a broad sense. They all deal with government questioning under pressure. But they’re three distinct rights with three distinct histories.

    IV. The Fifth Amendment analysis in Alexander

    Now back to the Alexander case. The court’s statement that the Fifth Amendment applies only in custodial interrogation is only about the third of these rights, the Miranda right. But this case doesn’t involve a Miranda claim, so I don’t think that can be a strong basis for the court’s ruling.

    Admittedly, exactly how to classify Alexander’s Fifth Amendment claim isn’t at all clear. That’s why I think the case is tricky. Is it a classic Fifth Amendment claim, in which Alexander was refusing to comply with officers’ questions despite state law that (the officers seemed to think, at least) required him to cooperate? Or is it more of a claim about the second kind of Fifth Amendment right? It’s true that there was no trial against Alexander, and maybe that ends the matter under the second type of claim under Chavez. But at the very least, it seems important to realize that there is a lot more to the Fifth Amendment merits than just Miranda case law.

    More broadly speaking, the facts of Alexander bring up some real tension in cases like Miranda, Salinas v. Texas, and United States v. Okatan about what the “right to remain silent” actually means. Miranda speaks broadly of the right, suggesting it is part of the Fifth Amendment and that you never have to answer police questions. Salinas says you have the right to remain silent but you have to invoke it first. Okatan says that if you did invoke it, the government can’t comment at trial on the fact that you refused to answer questions.

    Alexander seems to have invoked his right properly, and at least according to the complaint he was punished for doing so. It may be that the Fifth Amendment has nothing to say with that: As long as Alexander wasn’t prosecuted, maybe the government can retaliate against him for not speaking so long as it does so within Fourth Amendment bounds in terms of detaining him and using force. Maybe the idea that you have a “right to remain silent” is itself inaccurate, as you have much more limited rights than such a broad phrase would suggest. But my sense is that there are difficult issues lurking in the court’s Fifth Amendment ruling that didn’t come out in the short passage in the opinion.

    I’m not sure any of my uncertainty changes the ultimate result in this case. No matter how Alexander’s Fifth Amendment claim is characterized, I gather that retaliation wouldn’t violate clearly established Fifth Amendment law under prevailing qualified-immunity standards. But it struck me as an important set of issues nonetheless.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...ice-questions/
    Proud Infidel...............and Cracker

    Member: Nowski Brigade

    Deplorable


  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    cornfield county
    Posts
    7,163

    15 and actions like this,

    make it no surprise when I see news of those in blue getting shot anymore, seems they , the cops, are jumping on this obstructing an officer meme way too much, it keeps showing up in too many news storys,
    and as to legal retaliation, all they have to do is just call a dog in, and say it hit on the car, and they tear it up, and then leave you with your car tore apart, along side the road, this seems to happen more often around here in Indiana , from what I hear in local conversations,
    then they wonder why people no longer trust those in blue or brown

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Old Virginia
    Posts
    7,148
    This was printed on the back of my lawyer's business card in Michigan:
    “Officer, I mean no disrespect, but I understand my rights. I have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. I have the right to refuse to consent to any search of my body and personal effects. I wish to exercise all of my rights. If I am under arrest I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights and be allowed the opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney. If I am to be taken into custody, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment of my property. If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business."
    If at first you don't secede, try, try again!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    47,424
    Cops in general are edging ever closer to the center of the crosshairs of the public at large. Usual law enforcement activities (patrolling, policing, revenue generation etc) happen in their current form only with the tolerance of the general public.

    Exceed that tolerance and policing will become military patrolling in fire team or squad size units in armored vehicles.

    Armor is now an option on some factory built cars intended for police use....
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    In CLE again
    Posts
    47,396
    I had some comments but had them answered by reading the actual case:

    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...-50839-CV0.pdf

    Cops were really overly aggressive here. Guys I know would not have gone this route, AT ALL!!!!!
    Mookie War Creed
    "I am the Sword of my Family and Shield of my Nation. If sent, I will crush everything you have built, burn all that you love, and kill every one of you."


    Welcome to dar al harab -dar al kufre.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    cornfield county
    Posts
    7,163

    8 well,

    These guys seem to have missed the MANY cases that indicated that if driving, you MUST answer certain questions....Name, driver's license, etc.
    when several stories heard were, they spoke with the cops, gave them the license and insurance papers, then when the conversation went into an interrogation they shut up, like wanting to know where your going(normal time of day, not 1am) who they were visiting ect, that was over the line, to me, and these were people in their 40s

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11,944
    What the cops were saying was that the man had fewer rights than if he was arrested. If you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent. Not under arrest? You should have the same rights.
    The Social Security number is a bigger threat to Liberty than Communism or ISIS.
    Isn't it strange that we don't require our policemen to attend law school?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Norman,OK
    Posts
    6,312
    Welcome to the facist police state. Real world example: My wife and I were taking her her son to his apartment. As we entered the parking area, two Norman, OK units followed us in and stopped us. Officer said I had had not come to a full stop at a stop sign a block away. He requested my papers. I complied but said nothing.
    He then asked us where we were going and where we were going to. I said nothing. Wife & son answered the question. I was given a warning. Had I asserted my rights, I would have been ticketed and had to pay a fine of between $100 to $200. That was not my first invasive encounter with Norman, OK PD. Either you pick your battles or you will be treated as the enemy.
    Her son has been stopped while walking for wearing a shirt they didn't like. I now drive like the license examiner is with me since their primary tactic is to watch for any small error or vehicle defect they can use as PC to stop, then give you the gestapo treatment.

  9. #9
    All the OP really tells me is that, if the lawyers don't know what the law is, how do any of us regular people have a chance?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    135,188
    Plenty of blame to go around. First, the cops were definitely overly aggressive, of that I have no doubt, and IMO are liable, as is the jurisdiction.

    That being said, if stopped for a traffic violation, you must present your identification and proof of insurance. If you're questioned at that point, the EFFECTIVE strategies I've read about go like this:

    "Officer, do you have reasonable suspicion that I was involved in a crime?"

    "Am I being detained?"

    If those answers are no, then "May I have my documents back and be on my way please?"


    Speaking for myself, that's how I'd have handled it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Norman,OK
    Posts
    6,312
    Several years ago, I was riding my bicycle from a pawn shop, headed home with a scoped air-rifle in my backpack. A "concerned citizen" called 911 and I was stopped by three units in the residential neighborhood. The LT who was in charge said he could see it was an air rifle but then asked if he could have a look in my backpack. I said no. Then the attitude changed. First, the "Well if you don't have anything to hide...." I told him I'd heard that line before but still no. Then he stepped up to trying to provocation, asking if I was sone kind of milita wannabe, etc...
    I didn't take the bait so he cut me loose but as I was getting back on my bicycle, one if the young cops behind me said something also trying to bait me so they could punish me for daring to defy them by asserting my rights. I'll remember that if I see them in need of sheepdog assistance.

  12. #12
    It's their job to get you to self-incriminate and build a case against you for anything that will stick. Of course they are going to put pressure on you the entire time you are in custody. anything else is not doing their job to the fullest extent of their abilities.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    14,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Starrkopf View Post
    It's their job to get you to self-incriminate and build a case against you for anything that will stick. Of course they are going to put pressure on you the entire time you are in custody. anything else is not doing their job to the fullest extent of their abilities.
    The job is not what it was when I started, it was with hind sight changing as I began, and by the time I retired was something I wouldn't have been a part of at many departments. It depends on department leadership, officer background and maturity, and the public demanding a specific manner and set standard of behavior from their police. You can be a hard ass felon arresting machine and still be John Q Public friendly. In the bigger cities of this nation there have been a core of officers for many years who were just that the true public protectors from EVIL yet their heart would melt over a child or particularly viciously assaulted victim. Today we seem for some reason have fewer and fewer officers who have lost what I call target discrimination ability and treat everyone like a felon.
    All love is unrequited-Cmdr. Susan Ivanova //Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave. - Capt. Mal remember boys and girls ATFTRAF

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    31,127
    Quite honestly from reading these posts your police are totally out of control
    freaks in implementing the law, this has probably been true for decades and has nothing to do with left/right wing politics but the American "attitude"..........

    Your police force is probably incompetent at implementing a mature attitude towards enforcing the law.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    1,462
    Arrest of woman for defective headlight:

    An internal affairs investigation is being conducted by the Mount Pleasant Police Department into the actions of one of its officers, after a Mount Pleasant woman was arrested by a department corporal early in the morning of April 5, when the officer became “pissed” with her after pulling her over for a defective headlamp.

    At 4:25 a.m., Pamela Rockwell, who was returning home from Houston, was stopped by Mount Pleasant Police Department Cpl. Bryant Wills for the defective headlamp in the 1300 block of S. Jefferson. Video of the stop shows Wills asking for her driving information, then asking where she worked, a question Rockwell refused to answer, stating he could just write her the ticket and that she, legally, didn’t have to answer the question.

    The officer responds that he hadn’t planned on writing a ticket but if she wanted to talk herself into it, he would write it.

    http://www.tribnow.com/news/video-ar...6e18c73ca.html
    Job5:20: In famine he shall redeem thee from death: and in war from the power of the sword.

    Ps.91: 10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
    11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    Cops in general are edging ever closer to the center of the crosshairs of the public at large. Usual law enforcement activities (patrolling, policing, revenue generation etc) happen in their current form only with the tolerance of the general public.

    Exceed that tolerance and policing will become military patrolling in fire team or squad size units in armored vehicles.

    Armor is now an option on some factory built cars intended for police use....
    And even that can and will be defeated with a little ingenuity, as has been proven so very very well in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and other hell whole battle fields much to the horror of those poor souls that happen to end up on the receiving end of the handy work that comes out of Lucifer's kitchen....
    Rusty in NC
    Don't tread on me!
    sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
    Wickr tiger133

  17. #17
    IMHO, in any encounter with the police a person should answer any questions asked and do what they are told.

    This avoids any problems and prevents you from spending the night in jail and possibly having your vehicle ransacked.

    Now, if the police go over the line, then you sue them later.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    Plenty of blame to go around. First, the cops were definitely overly aggressive, of that I have no doubt, and IMO are liable, as is the jurisdiction.

    That being said, if stopped for a traffic violation, you must present your identification and proof of insurance. If you're questioned at that point, the EFFECTIVE strategies I've read about go like this:

    "Officer, do you have reasonable suspicion that I was involved in a crime?"

    "Am I being detained?"

    If those answers are no, then "May I have my documents back and be on my way please?"


    Speaking for myself, that's how I'd have handled it.
    If you do this, I bet the cops will discover a "reasonable articuable suspician that criminal activity is afoot"-meaning they can pat you down and search your car.
    And that is the beginning of your problems.

    IMHO, answer their questions then sue later if they go over the line. Your way will most likely involve a criminal and civil attorney. My way only a civil case.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    14,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Quite honestly from reading these posts your police are totally out of control
    freaks in implementing the law, this has probably been true for decades and has nothing to do with left/right wing politics but the American "attitude"..........

    Your police force is probably incompetent at implementing a mature attitude towards enforcing the law.

    While yours is ridiculously restricted to the extent of running away from violent offenders is considered a tactic and officers who do use force are considered not quite right and need extra watching .
    All love is unrequited-Cmdr. Susan Ivanova //Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave. - Capt. Mal remember boys and girls ATFTRAF

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cow Hampshire
    Posts
    14,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Starrkopf View Post
    It's their job to get you to self-incriminate and build a case against you for anything that will stick. Of course they are going to put pressure on you the entire time you are in custody. anything else is not doing their job to the fullest extent of their abilities.
    When did it become their job to harass you to the point of reaction?

    And for being in custody, their job is to protect the public from you AND keep you in the condition in which you entered custody until the moment you leave custody. Anything else is your loss - and they are liable to compensate you for your loss if proved.

    Proof is the hard part, of course. Think "Shake & Bake" Freddy Grey down in Baltimore. Those officers were "not guilty." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray

    If you offer resistance, all bets are off. Resisting gives them the excuse they need - and I expect they will not be videotaping your receipt.

    Dobbin
    I hinnire propter hoc ecce ego

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    cornfield county
    Posts
    7,163

    12 thanks Baloo,

    for the reminders, and a point to remember,

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo View Post
    IMHO, in any encounter with the police a person should answer any questions asked and do what they are told.

    This avoids any problems and prevents you from spending the night in jail and possibly having your vehicle ransacked.

    Now, if the police go over the line, then you sue them later.
    It sounds to me like you would easily fall for this one:
    Cop: do you know why I pulled you over? You: because I have a broken tail-light? Cop: I pulled you over for speeding, but thanks for telling me that you have a broken tail-light.
    The Social Security number is a bigger threat to Liberty than Communism or ISIS.
    Isn't it strange that we don't require our policemen to attend law school?

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by cooter View Post
    for the reminders, and a point to remember,
    Of course, don't offer information-only answer the question asked, that's it. It never ceases to amaze me when I start to prep witnesses for deposition how no one understands that concept.
    For instance, if they ask you-do you know what time it is, the answer is either yes or no. That's it. Almost every non-lawyer gives a time to that question-BUT THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION ASKED!
    So, think about what was asked, take a minute and answer it. Always truthfully.

    And once you are arrested then assert the 5th and ask for a lawyer.

  24. #24
    The Largest Street Gang in America ~ 1/6
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9k8L3oDa4

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by changed View Post
    It sounds to me like you would easily fall for this one:
    Cop: do you know why I pulled you over? You: because I have a broken tail-light? Cop: I pulled you over for speeding, but thanks for telling me that you have a broken tail-light.
    No, I would not.

    I'd answer the question asked-and as I am not a mind reader the answer is "No." Speculation is never the right answer.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Norman,OK
    Posts
    6,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Quite honestly from reading these posts your police are totally out of control
    freaks in implementing the law, this has probably been true for decades and has nothing to do with left/right wing politics but the American "attitude"..........

    Your police force is probably incompetent at implementing a mature attitude towards enforcing the law.
    Go listen to "God Save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols. Lyrics quite applicable on this side of the pond.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    135,188
    Sorry Baloo, but I'll stick to my method. Any case they attempt against me would be impossible to prove in court.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    Sorry Baloo, but I'll stick to my method. Any case they attempt against me would be impossible to prove in court.
    At least two problems with your method:

    1. You will potentially be harrassed or arrested and need to hire a criminal lawyer and and you will take lots of time off work and get nothing when you win-except a big bill from your lawyer.

    2. Good luck on proof-its your word against the cop. And cops testify all the time. Unless you are a lawyer or have tons of money to hire a good lawyer and spend lots of time prepping you will likely lose.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Klamath County, Oregon
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Quite honestly from reading these posts your police are totally out of control
    freaks in implementing the law, this has probably been true for decades and has nothing to do with left/right wing politics but the American "attitude"..........

    Your police force is probably incompetent at implementing a mature attitude towards enforcing the law.
    Richard, it's SOME police officers in SOME communities. It's not everywhere or all officers. I've actually never met a bad one -- but I don't often visit large urban areas, either.

    Kathleen
    Behold, these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him.
    Job 26:14

    wickr ID freeholder45

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    135,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo View Post
    At least two problems with your method:

    1. You will potentially be harrassed or arrested and need to hire a criminal lawyer and and you will take lots of time off work and get nothing when you win-except a big bill from your lawyer.

    2. Good luck on proof-its your word against the cop. And cops testify all the time. Unless you are a lawyer or have tons of money to hire a good lawyer and spend lots of time prepping you will likely lose.
    I'm not a lawyer. I AM a Temple-recommend-holding Mormon in good standing in the church. My "word" is better than many.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    47,424
    But you aren't wearing a badge - which puts you on the wrong side of the thin blue line.
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by dieseltrooper View Post
    Welcome to the facist police state. Real world example: My wife and I were taking her her son to his apartment. As we entered the parking area, two Norman, OK units followed us in and stopped us. Officer said I had had not come to a full stop at a stop sign a block away. He requested my papers. I complied but said nothing.
    He then asked us where we were going and where we were going to. I said nothing. Wife & son answered the question. I was given a warning. Had I asserted my rights, I would have been ticketed and had to pay a fine of between $100 to $200. That was not my first invasive encounter with Norman, OK PD. Either you pick your battles or you will be treated as the enemy.
    Her son has been stopped while walking for wearing a shirt they didn't like. I now drive like the license examiner is with me since their primary tactic is to watch for any small error or vehicle defect they can use as PC to stop, then give you the gestapo treatment.
    When it comes down to your word versus a LEO on such things - as didn't come to a complete stop - guess who's word the judge accepts.

    Add in the fact that over the years the laws just keep increasing in numbers and chipping away at the fringes of what the constitution really means in the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments.

    There is absolutely no way that the asset forfeiture abuse that is going on to the tune of $5 billion dollars stolen from citizens with no charges filed against them and no court involvement can ever be legal under the 4th and 5th amendments but it happens everyday.

    There are good and bad people in every profession, but when you add in color of law violations to those bad ones with gooberment's powers, it becomes a nightmare for those they chose to rule and abuse.

    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand

  33. #33
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    S.W. Mich. near South Bend, IN
    Posts
    4,806
    As I recall, awhile back, if you were stopped, in your vehicle, you had the right to remain silent. I think that law was changed, tho, wasn't it? (Of course, you were expected to hand over the required papers...drivers license, car registration, etc.

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo View Post
    At least two problems with your method:

    1. You will potentially be harrassed or arrested and need to hire a criminal lawyer and and you will take lots of time off work and get nothing when you win-except a big bill from your lawyer.

    2. Good luck on proof-its your word against the cop. And cops testify all the time. Unless you are a lawyer or have tons of money to hire a good lawyer and spend lots of time prepping you will likely lose.
    His method is the best for dealing with educated, moral and ethical cops. In areas of the country where the average cop has an IQ of under 80, are prone to lying (Testilying in court), or are otherwise scum, it will not end well, but suing them later may. I have been on scene with young officers who were trying to make conversation with people after a traffic stop and warning when the person stopped used Dennis' method on them. They always looked at me for guidance since they were not expecting it. I simply told them, hand the man back his license and tell him to drive safely. We stopped the "Have a nice day" BS years ago since many smart ass cops used it sarcastically saying "Have a nice day" after writing someone a $140 ticket.

    I am not telling anyone how to "Get away with crimes", but if you have done anything that there is even a chance may be considered a crime, talking to the cops beyond name, address and date of birth (For ID purposes, this is not incriminating speech) is highly dangerous and is to be avoided. Dont let a smart ass cop bait you into acting like a jerk, and don't be one just because you think you can get away with it, you may this time, but he will make damn sure you receive every ticket that he can hit you with from now on. Be firm in not speaking to them, but in a professional way.

    If you are seen driving out of a residence known for selling drugs, expect the cops to look hard for a reason to pull you over. The same for whore houses, fences and so on. Dont drop your buddy off at such locations, you may end up getting tickets. If you commonly drive through "High crime areas" make sure you regularly check your lights, tires and so on as not to give the cops a reason to stop you. Cops are lazy, they will pick the low hanging fruit, dont be the apple that gets picked by driving past the cops with a headlight out.

    For what it is worth, I spent many years supervising cops. I worked very hard to get rid of any liars and scum who violated peoples rights. We had very few and did not tolerate it at all at my department. I got rid of nearly all of the scum that I would not want policing me. I always treated being a cop as a temporary thing, and kept the fact that I have the same desire not to be screwed with by the cops as everyone else. I made my 20 years and retired several years ago. My son is a homicide detective. He has the same attitude that I did. He is very good at his job but will let a known scum bag drive away with a car full of dope or stolen property before he would lie to make the arrest. You will always get them later, there is no reason to destroy your integrity to arrest some scum bag who will be right back on the street anyway.

    Some areas of the country seem to have a lot of ass holes as cops and some of the stories I hear make me want to kick their ass my self.

    Dont let my concern for peoples rights and not treating people badly fool you, I caught more burglars in progress "In the act" than the rest of my 64 man department combined. I had more fingerprint matches than the entire rest of the department combined (My son took over as the highest fingerprint matches after I retired). I had more trial time by the time I retired than anyone still working there when I retired (From being the only fully trained crime scene technician and processing the crime scene for all murders, rapes and other serious crimes for many years.) I made MANY arrests and wrote very few tickets. I will die of old age before some people I arrested can get out of prison, some for stuff that will literally make friends of mine puke just from hearing about it.

    As a side note, I can appreciate the ending scene of Men In Black where the old guy retiring has the young guy flash away his memory so he wont have to remember all of the crap he saw on the job. Whoever wrote that had to have been involved in something or spoken to people who were or they would not have been able to think of that.

  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Thinwater View Post
    His method is the best for dealing with educated, moral and ethical cops. In areas of the country where the average cop has an IQ of under 80, are prone to lying (Testilying in court), or are otherwise scum, it will not end well, but suing them later may. I have been on scene with young officers who were trying to make conversation with people after a traffic stop and warning when the person stopped used Dennis' method on them. They always looked at me for guidance since they were not expecting it. I simply told them, hand the man back his license and tell him to drive safely. We stopped the "Have a nice day" BS years ago since many smart ass cops used it sarcastically saying "Have a nice day" after writing someone a $140 ticket.

    I am not telling anyone how to "Get away with crimes", but if you have done anything that there is even a chance may be considered a crime, talking to the cops beyond name, address and date of birth (For ID purposes, this is not incriminating speech) is highly dangerous and is to be avoided. Dont let a smart ass cop bait you into acting like a jerk, and don't be one just because you think you can get away with it, you may this time, but he will make damn sure you receive every ticket that he can hit you with from now on. Be firm in not speaking to them, but in a professional way.

    If you are seen driving out of a residence known for selling drugs, expect the cops to look hard for a reason to pull you over. The same for whore houses, fences and so on. Dont drop your buddy off at such locations, you may end up getting tickets. If you commonly drive through "High crime areas" make sure you regularly check your lights, tires and so on as not to give the cops a reason to stop you. Cops are lazy, they will pick the low hanging fruit, dont be the apple that gets picked by driving past the cops with a headlight out.

    For what it is worth, I spent many years supervising cops. I worked very hard to get rid of any liars and scum who violated peoples rights. We had very few and did not tolerate it at all at my department. I got rid of nearly all of the scum that I would not want policing me. I always treated being a cop as a temporary thing, and kept the fact that I have the same desire not to be screwed with by the cops as everyone else. I made my 20 years and retired several years ago. My son is a homicide detective. He has the same attitude that I did. He is very good at his job but will let a known scum bag drive away with a car full of dope or stolen property before he would lie to make the arrest. You will always get them later, there is no reason to destroy your integrity to arrest some scum bag who will be right back on the street anyway.

    Some areas of the country seem to have a lot of ass holes as cops and some of the stories I hear make me want to kick their ass my self.

    Dont let my concern for peoples rights and not treating people badly fool you, I caught more burglars in progress "In the act" than the rest of my 64 man department combined. I had more fingerprint matches than the entire rest of the department combined (My son took over as the highest fingerprint matches after I retired). I had more trial time by the time I retired than anyone still working there when I retired (From being the only fully trained crime scene technician and processing the crime scene for all murders, rapes and other serious crimes for many years.) I made MANY arrests and wrote very few tickets. I will die of old age before some people I arrested can get out of prison, some for stuff that will literally make friends of mine puke just from hearing about it.

    As a side note, I can appreciate the ending scene of Men In Black where the old guy retiring has the young guy flash away his memory so he wont have to remember all of the crap he saw on the job. Whoever wrote that had to have been involved in something or spoken to people who were or they would not have been able to think of that.
    I agree to disagree. My way avoids money and lost time.
    Good luck if you follow Dennis' advice. I agree with Dennis if you are rich and can stand a night a night in jail and can deal with litigation. Most people cannot.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11,944
    Baloo sounds like a cop who trolls forums. If you are Baloo, don't forget who you really work for....The People.
    The Social Security number is a bigger threat to Liberty than Communism or ISIS.
    Isn't it strange that we don't require our policemen to attend law school?

  37. #37
    Great post, Thinwater.

    I'll admit that as a blonde female, usually driving a farm pickup truck, I know I'm not a "target " in the way (in our area, at least) teens, or, I suspect, but it would be denied, blacks, because they are so rare here.

    But a couple of times I've been pulled over (only got 2 speeding tickets in my life... one completely bogus, and one totally deserved!). And I had no problem answering a couple questions, as it explained my presence there, didn't violate my privacy and got me headed home the fastest and easiest way possible.

    As an example... one evening I had driven our hired kid home after a long day of haying. I'd planned on picking up a pizza (if memory serves) before heading home, but I was so tired I automatically turned the wrong way out of his driveway. I realized my mistake quickly, and since I was passing the town dump, I pulled in and turned around.

    Just as I pulled back onto the road, and cop came around the curve and passed me.As I expected, he turned around and lit me up. I pulled over to the side of the road and rolled my window down. I was laughing, and I immediately apologized for concerning him, explaining the sequence of events which had led to him seeing me coming out of the dark entrance of the closed dump.

    He laughed, didn't even ask for my ID, and told me to drive safely and get some rest.

    I'm not naive... what he wanted to know was who was parked (for all he knew... he just saw me leaving), and whether I was drinking, selling (or doing) drugs, or turning tricks <g >. That's his job. I know he ran the plates, so he knew who the truck belonged to, and that it was local. I spoke with him enough he could tell I hadn't been drinking, and I was honestly too tired to be nervous.

    Now, if one crossed the line, I'd probably play dumb, rather than antagonize them. I ain't a dumb blond <grin>, but I play one pretty darn good on the occasions that can benefit.

    Now, an interesting story... our youngest son was driving home to visit from college when he was pulled over for speeding about 10 miles from our farm. The young deputy who stopped him was acting like an ass, and Matt politely but firmly asserted his rights... with the upshot being he got cited for some bullsh!t misdemeanor ... I honestly can't remember what it was.

    Because we owned the farm and he was under 21, he couldn't get a public defender. And we were-as usual- cash poor, and couldn't afford a lawyer. Matt decided to simply go to court and defend himself (yes, I know, but rural County courts tend to be a bit more flexible...and it wasn't a felony.

    So, that's what he did. He politely told the judge pretty much word for word (he's inherited my near-photographic memory) what happened. He admitted that he was 7 miles over the limit, but pointed out that he was barely 50 feet past the sign where the speed changes. And he said that there wasn't a single indication that he might be carrying anything illegal, that he'd been fully cooperative until the cop started throwing his weight around, and he knew he didn't have reasonable cause.

    As he finished, he was surprised to find a man standing beside him. He was a plainclothes detective for the sheriff's department, and he knew Matt from when he used to hunt woodchuck and contest on our farm. He addressed the judge, and told him that he knew Matt, and that he'd swear he would never indulge in the behavior the deputy swore he did. He then went on to tell the judge that the young deputy was "pretty green", and didn't have the best judgment yet.

    The judge dismissed all the charges except the speeding he'd admitted to, and reduced it to a parking violation, so it wouldn't raise his insurance. The young cop was gone within a year.

    Summerthyme

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Upstate South Carolina
    Posts
    4,165
    Right after I moved to my new AO, nearly 4 years ago,
    a Greenville SC city cop pulled in behind me.
    I was driving my truck at the time, and I had my scanner on.
    I heard him call in my plates, and a few minutes later
    a woman at their admin center replied, insurance is good,
    tag is good, no 28's or 29's, CCW is good.

    I drove on, with the cop following me for several more miles.
    Maintained proper speed limit, and gave a signal everytime
    that I was changing direction. On my last turn, the cop
    speeded up, and continued on straight ahead.

    Nowski went on to his sister's house, where he was staying
    after moving into the area.

    If you drive, you need a scanner. It can provide you needed
    additional information, about your situation regarding LEO.

    Also, you need to drive check your vehicle everytime
    before you drive. Lights, break lights, turn signals,
    nothing burned out. Its your fault if you get stopped for
    bad equipment. Alot of this, you can stop, even before it gets started.

    Regards to all deplorables,
    Nowski
    "Read everything, listen to everyone, believe absolutely nothing,
    unless you can prove it with your own research." Milton William Cooper

    "Life is a glass, half empty, of spoiled milk, sitting in a bed of thorns." Nowski

  39. #39
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    South Louisiana near New Orleans by the Mississippi River
    Posts
    9,937
    I've always been taught to be respectful to police officers and unless I know if it's an illegal shake down or unlawful detention I will be compliant unless otherwise indicated. If not, then silence and a call to my lawyer.

    Thread drift: Last year I was pulled over for speeding. When the cop came up to the car and told me I was going over the limit, I immediately apologized and explained that I'm still getting used to my new Impala and didn't realize. Looking inside, he said it look nice then he said he would let me go this time but to watch my speedometer in the future.

    (Now that it's older, I know I probably can't use the new car excuse but maybe I can use the "new to me" excuse....or......just OBEY the speed limit!!! )

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    19,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowski View Post
    Right after I moved to my new AO, nearly 4 years ago,
    a Greenville SC city cop pulled in behind me.
    I was driving my truck at the time, and I had my scanner on.
    I heard him call in my plates, and a few minutes later
    a woman at their admin center replied, insurance is good,
    tag is good, no 28's or 29's, CCW is good.

    I drove on, with the cop following me for several more miles.
    Maintained proper speed limit, and gave a signal everytime
    that I was changing direction. On my last turn, the cop
    speeded up, and continued on straight ahead.

    Nowski went on to his sister's house, where he was staying
    after moving into the area.

    If you drive, you need a scanner. It can provide you needed
    additional information, about your situation regarding LEO.

    Also, you need to drive check your vehicle everytime
    before you drive. Lights, break lights, turn signals,
    nothing burned out. Its your fault if you get stopped for
    bad equipment. Alot of this, you can stop, even before it gets started.

    Regards to all deplorables,
    Nowski

    They are shifting to computers for this.

    Your plate gets typed in and WA-LA!...there it is, quicker than a dispatcher.
    Proud Infidel...............and Cracker

    Member: Nowski Brigade

    Deplorable


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.