I work with a lady whose son is at West Point and he recently relayed to me a tale of harrassment by an LEO.  First of all this is a good kid.  Good grades, works hard, good attitude toward life and people; a fine example of what West Point is looking for in future officers.  This kid is straight, clean cut, and respectful of authority.  He was recently exiting a freeway off-ramp, when he reaized he was going off the wrong exit.  He then put his turn signal back on and returned to the freeway from the off-ramp; and illegal lane change.  He was then pulled over by a local LEO, verball abused, hand-cuffed and placed in the back of the police cruiser while the LEO ILLEGALLY searched the kids car.  I say illegal because the LEO had absolutely no probable cause.  At no time did the LEO ever place this kid under arrest or tell him he was under arrest or read him any sort of Maranda rights.  The LEO then searched the kids wallet and found his military ID and $100 bucks.  He then said that he was going to call his CO and have the MP's pick him up. He further accused the kid of illegally obtaining the $100.  The LEO then continued this type of intimidation for quite some time with more threats before he wrote him a ticket for reckless driving and let him go.

My question for you guys is what's up with this officer.  This doesn't seem like either professional or legal behavior for an LEO.

My other question is do you think that there are some LEO's that pick on adolescents?  If you do think so then why do they do this?  Are they just bullies?  Or do they have daughters at home  and they just hate all young males?  

All thoughts would be appreciated.

I also have some questions for the LEO's and legal scholars here.

1. If you are walking down the street and an LEO asks you to stop must you?

2. Must you answer any of his/her questions or even respond?

3. Must you produce Identification?

Just curious. Would love to hear SWATDOG's response as I trust his answer's (may not agree with but trust as educated)

AdTechArms

It's the same reason muggers pick-on the elderly.  They're easier targets.

A piece of good advice that you can give to the woman's son is to tell him to ask for the officer's supervisor when something like this happens again.

If the kid was near West Point when it happened, you might want to tell the mother to call the kid's advisor (or someone else in authority) to let them know the police are harrassing cadets.  In basic training, we had a couple of local LEO's who used to steal money from our wallets when we went to town.  I mentioned it to our sargeant, and he, the base commander(!!), and two MP's went to the station and tore the officers and the local sherrif (to use his term) "a new one."  They didn't like having competition on harrasing us.  Our sargeant wanted to be the only person to give us a hard time, and he resented the competition from the police.  If she talks to the right person at West Point, she'll probably get that same sort of protective reaction from them.  They don't want others giving their cadets a hard time, because they want to do it themselves.

That guy sounds like either a rookie or an asshole. I once met a cop from Mass who was proud to say he and his buddies were "traffic nazis" who wrote a lot of tickets. Whatever.
We used to catch Navy guys speeding headed back to the base late at night. Some had been drinking on occassion. Like all of them every weekend night. We didn't want them to get in trouble so we would mess with them then let them go.
Our favorite was "Organ Donor". We would have their DL, look on the back and say "I see you're not an organ donor". Then we would say "My sister is waiting on a transplant right now. Why aren't you an organ donor?"
They would be like "I want to be". Then we would say "Do you want to donate this body part and that body part?" pretending to check off the backs of their license.
 Then we would say "What about your dick? Do you want to donate your dick to science?" They would be like "Yeah, OK". Then we would let them go. It doesn't seem that funny typing it but it's funny at the time.

ADTECHARMS,

I'm not sure exactly how the laws read in your neck of the woods, but seeing as how we're talking about U.S. constitutuional issues, they shouldn't be that much different than here (Utah).  

First off, let me say that I've never felt like I've been harrassed by an LEO, even before I became one.  My dad and grand-dad were both cops, and I was always taught to be respectful and courteous towards law enforcement.  Granted, I grew up out here in the The West (BTW, Kalifornia is NOT part of The West, anymore), where the crime rates are fairly low, urban sprawl is fairly nonexistent, and cops are generally pretty decent fellows.

Here in Utah, an LEO can stop you and inquire as to your actions if he/she has what is termed a "reasonable suspicion" about your activities.  This is a standard of evidence much lower than the "probable cause" required for an arrest.  Practically anything can suffice.  And why not?  I believe a good cop is one that is out there, paying attention to detail, and inquiring into anything he perceives to be out of the ordinary.  Of course, maintaining a professional and courteous demeanor with the public at all times is also of utmost importance.  

In answer to your questions:

1:  Yes, you must stop.  You must obey a lawful order from a Peace Officer.  You can be detained for a "reasonable" amount of time in order to determine what's going on.  Unless you're engaging in an unlawful action, why wouldn't you stop?  You can argue in court later about whether or not the cop's order was lawful, but it certainly doesn't help your case to evade or disobey the cop.  If I recall correctly, a recent Supreme Court decision said that fleeing from the police when ordered to stop constitutes probable cause to believe that unlawful activity is being engaged in.  

2:  No, you have the right to remain silent, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.  Realize, however, that if you do not speak with Officer Friendly when he pulls you over for speeding, that he may have to detain you longer in order to ascertain that you are aware of what is happening, you are OK, etc.  (Come on folks, use common sense!)  If you feel like things are escalating, and that you are being set up or accused of committing a crime you haven't, by all means VIGOROUSLY invoke your Fifth Amendment rights, and ask for an attorney!

3: As far as actual law or case law goes, I'm not sure about whether or not you are "required" to produce ID for an LEO.  Think about it, though.  An LEO stops you to inquire about your activities, and you refuse to identify yourself.  You have now just made your activities all the more suspicious, justifying further inquiries, detention, etc.  

I think most cops out there are good, but sure, like anywhere else, there are some power-hungry, elitist batards, too.  If it's the UN Gun Police breaking down your door to take your guns, then yeah - no cooperation, give 'em the ammo first!  But if it's Onion Breath Joe, Self-Enthroned Dictator of the County, harassing you over an illegal lane change, remain polite and in control, then report it to his department, and sue his ass!

Read "You & The Police!" by Boston T. Party.

It is a quick read but very informative.

Regards,
SOL

Yes. If the officer is making a reasonable suspicion or probable cause stop, failing to stop generally falls under "Evading Arrest or Detention" depending on your state laws. An investigative detention is exactly that, it is a temporary detention of a person when the "three way test" has been met:
1) Activity out of the ordinary;
2) Reason to believe that a person is linked with the activity;
3) reason to believe that the activity is linked with a criminal act.

The seminal case in this was an instance where a police officer saw a known burglar lurking in the shadow outside of a closed business in a business district, at about 2 or 3 in the morning when all of the businesses were closed. The officer stopped the subject and found that he was carrying a crowbar and items of stolen property. subsequent investigation found that the subject had just burglarized a nearby business. When the suspect appealed his conviction because he felt that the stop was illegal, the Supreme Court established the doctrine I mentioned above for reasonable suspicion stops.

A Probable Cause stop is different. In that case, and officer has already determined based on his observations or other facts, that the suspect has committed a violation of the law. When an officer stops someone on a PC stop, they are under arrest. You must stop.

None of that prevents an officer from making a "consensual contact." Generally, this means walking up to a person and asking if they would mind talking to the officer for a moment. A police officer has the same right to do this that anyone else does. In these cases, however, the officer should make it clear that you do not have to talk to them if you do not want to.



No. You must comply with reasonable commands for officer safety, but you are not required to speak or answer any questions. Bear in mind, however, that reasonable suspicion stops are ongoing; your refusal to answer questions or providing misleading or false information heightens reasonable suspicion and can cause a detention to go on even longer.

Generally, no. Most states have statutes requiring that a person produce a driver's license when stopped for a TRAFFIC VIOLATION. This does not apply to reasonable suspicion stops, and the Supreme Court has held a person cannot be arrested for refusing to identify themselves during an investigative detention. However, just like refusing to answer questions, refusing to identify does heighten reasonable suspicion and can prolong a detention. The courts have even held that transporting a person from the scene of a detention and fingerprinting and photographing them is generally reasonable, if the original reasonable suspicion is strong enough, although you generally won't see that unless the person detained is suspected of a fairly serious offense.

Refusing to identify yourself during a probable cause stop (an arrest)is different. Even if the officer decides to give a warning or a ticket (like for jaywalking), it is illegal in most states to refuse to identify yourself when arrested, whether the arrest is custodial or non-custodial. This also includes stops for traffic violations.

Giving false identifying information is usually illegal as well.

The bottom line is that if you haven't done anything wrong and are not wanted, it is easier just to give the officer an ID and be on your way. Also bear in mind that if you are wanted, even for something very minor like traffic tickets, most states have some pretty serious enhancements for giving a false name or other identifying information when stopped if you have warrants for your arrest, and oftentimes those enhancements far exceed the original offense.

Thank you for the info. I have no warrents and don't plan on giving false information. Next question. First open-carry is legal in NC. Does the possesion on a gun in a holster on your hip while legal and in full compliance with the law constitute "reasonable suspicion" or Probable cause"

300thMIBde said:



I love that quote.  Vigorously be quiet.

I work for an armored car company, and I once called the police because I saw a guy casing-out a jewelry store.  When I pulled into the parking lot, the guy was on the roof.  Before I left, he was inside the place trying to get a view of the storage room through a partially open door.  The police stopped him on the sidewalk about 100 feet from the store.  He answered their questions with one of the two responses, "May I go now?" and "Am I under arrest?"  That was all he said.  The police had to let him walk, because they had nothing on him.  I ended-up having to fill-out a statement and wait two and a half hours for a "supervisor" to show-up to review my statement.  Typical police.  The innocent civilian is harassed by them more than the criminal.  Anyway, I was impressed with how well that guy wielded the 5th amendment in his defense.  I learned from him.

I'm not a cop yet but I do know there are a lot of guys that see every one as a bad guy and they just need to find out what they have done.
But that is not the way most LEOs are.

I don't want to make any one mad but and I don't pretend to know every thing about this case but I am yet to see a young man that will say "a cop pulled me over and it's was all MY fault"

I don't know NC law, so my opinion is of limited value. Assuming open carry is legal, and that there are no exceptions that allow a police officer to make stops on persons carrying in public,I would have to say that a reasonable suspicion stop solely for legally carrying a weapon is probably not a valid stop.

However, it probably would not take much more in the way of articulable facts to make it a legal stop (high crime area, reported as "suspicious," looking in windows, muttering to himself, wearing a tin foil hat etc.) to make a good reasonable suspicion stop on a person who was legally carrying an unconcealed weapon. How your local law enforcement responds to this is likely a matter of what kind of guidance they have on it from their courts and prosecutors. Also, they would have more reason (though not necessarily authority) to positively identify you if you were carrying a weapon, to make sure that you are not a person prohibited from possessing a weapon.

I'm still fuzzy on the traffic manuever

1) he veered off the off-ramp back into traffic after going partially down the off-ramp??
2) He stopped on the off-ramp then backed onto the highway and got back into traffic??
3) He pulled partway down the off-ramp, U-turned and came up it the wrong way and made a right turn to get back into traffic.

Someone explain to me why he didn't follow the off-ramp to the surface road and then legally take the on-ramp to get back onto the road.

No PC?? what about the Wiley E. Coyote driving?? In most States Reckless Driving is a criminal charge. So you can be arrested for it. You don't have to read Miranda unless you are doing in custody questioning, that excludes questions to ID the arrestee. A police officer can search incident to arrest, the arrestee, the vehichle they were in and anything in their "wingspan" or immediate control.

The officer may have then decided to issue a CRIMINAL citation and release WP without requiring bail to be posted.

If you say he was threatened or intimidated I'll believe you. Did you think the Mr. WP almost crashed into another person or the officer with the Wiley E Coyote driving and the officer had one of those "oh spam" moments???

In dealing with people that go to "elite" schools they often quickly, loudly, and repeatadly say exactly where they are going to school, an attitude similar to college/pro athletes are known for.

Remember your account of the incident is from 1 side. I think we've all been in situations where we have done something and a peer or sibling distorts the incident when they tell an authority figure. I wonder what exactly the threats were, I should take you to jail, I may have your car towed. Or it just may have been the officer, maybe after nearly being crashed into, said what were you thinking? Then again the officer may have just been being a jerk.  

He further accused the kid of illegally obtaining the $100.  The LEO then continued this type of intimidation for quite some time with more threats before he wrote him a ticket for reckless driving and let him go.

I would have told this prick that I got the C note from his wife for sex!!!
[-!-!-]
But HEY, thats just me.

M4gery,

- to clarify, he was going down the off ramp and, without stopping, decided to return to his original lane before he exited.  Don't know why he didn't just exit and go back on.

You say that you don't have to read Maranda till you're doing in-custody questioning?  I'm not involved in the legal field so I'll re-phrase this in english to make sure I have it correctly.  What you're saying is that once a person is arrested then you have to read them their Maranda rights??  Right?  Wrong?  However they don't have to be read their Maranda rights prior to being arrested.  Wouldn't this then lend itself to abuse by LEO's?  If you're gonna arrest a perp, first you ask him all kinds of questions and once you've got all the answers and confessions from him THEN you arrest him and read him his Maranda's rights?  Doesn't make sense.  Or do I have this wrong?

"A police officer can search incident to arrest....."  I don't have the foggiest idea of what this sentance means.  Please explain.

No, I don't think my friends' son was involved in reckless driving

Your comment about people going to elite schools, college athletes ect...  I'd probably agree with you.  These sorts of people can tend to think of themselves as being special and above everybody else.  However my friend's son didn't tell the officer he went to WP, the officer found his military ID when he searched his wallet.  Therefore I don't think he was exhibiting this type of behavior.

You said he was cited for Reckless Driving, which is a crime, a misdemeanor in many states. It is an arrest. If the officer arrests someone he can search them "incident to arrest" as part of the arrest. The officer may decide to issue a citation and release the person on a criminal ticket without requiring bail. Or they can bring 'em "downtown" and make them wait until they see the Judge.

Miranda only has to be read if someone is in custody and is going to be asked questions about a crime. If the officer sees someone commit a crime they can arrest and not read any rights so long as they don't ask them about the crime. The officer can ask stuff to ID the person name, address, phone #, etc. Or yes the officer can talk to someone first then arrest them. Do you think an officer should have to read everyone they talk to the Miranda Rights prior to saying anything to them?

The attitude, I was giving an example. However WP could have been BS that he was stopped, when the officer told him the reason he was stopped he may have been BS too. Perhaps the officer had a bad attitude or maybe the officer was getting a 'tude from WP. I can't say WE weren't there, I was just speculating.

Let me see your papers.........how far we have fallen.........

Yeah to be held accountable for our actions, the horror.

Oh crap here I go----the little kadet should have been ticketed and sent home....ya happy oly? I ain't talking about that OK? This is my
bone.....
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or        affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the                   persons or things to be seized.

Simple huh.....arrest him charge him take him downtown or whatever the law requires...but he is a Citizen of this country and should be treated with respect and a reasonable measure of
decorum.....

I thought you were going to change your screen name JD something or other.

The 4 Amendment wasn't violated, the SCOTUS has ruled on such things.

If you read my posts, I said the officer may have been out of line, that only one side of the story was obtained, and perhaps the officer just had a bad attitude. I never said the officers behavior was proper.

M4gery,

But can an officer search them if he doesn't arrest them.  Or if an officer is giving them a citation for reckless driving can he search them and decided not to arrest them?

Interesting comments on Miranda rights.

And yes you're right, we weren't there.

SB

Yep Joe Dirtbag is alive and well...Let us reason together and have a beer....I don't give a single horseflop what the SCOTUS has ruled..The SCOTUS has ruled on other things that I think neither one of us will agree with...I want the police department to stop with the harassment....yep a generalized statement that is open to refusal. I had a similar incident happen to me....I went to the Judge immediately after the stop and the officer was reprimanded and I was let out of the ticket....I asked the judge to return it so I could pay it and he tore it up. I am tired of the customer service bureau
(police department) being so uncustomer oriented
.....

If it is a misdemeanor citation even if he is released, it is an arrest. The severity of the offense matters, not whether or not the person is required to post bail.

The officer put him in handcuffs, I would say he was arrested at that point. I don't know if the officer has to make a decision immediately as to the cite-release/downtown options. I believe he can arrest initially and decide during the process that bail will/will not be required to be posted. And part of the decision might have been the military ID, because you can find military personnel pretty easy and most CO's have little sense of humor if a PD calls up and tells them one of their troops has a warrant.