Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/9/2002 12:27:03 AM EDT
I'm curious if undercover police/LEOs are required to identify themselves as police if you ask them or if they can simply lie to you and see if you continue forth with any illegal activity. (Not that I have anything to worry about)
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 12:35:32 AM EDT
Are you a hooker?
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 12:57:04 AM EDT
No
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 12:59:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2002 1:00:44 AM EDT by Ross]
No, they do not have to identify themselves. There is no legal requirement. I don't know why people would think they would have to identify themselves. That's the whole point of "undercover". I guess there's an urban myth though out there. You always see some hooker, John, drug dealer, drug buyer, etc on those cop shows asking the cop if he's a cop. Then the cop says "no" and the suspect thinks he's free and clear. Then they nab him. Ross
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 1:01:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 3:56:57 AM EDT
That's one of the most common misconceptions you ever hear concerning LEOs and undercover criminal investigations - 'If you're a cop, you gotta tell me you're a cop if I ask you, otherwise....!' Otherwise, what? Any evidence that is uncovered is surpressed at trial? The testimony of the LEO is discounted because 'he lied to me'? If that were true, there would never be a successful prosecution of many criminal activities. The hookers seem to have been getting bad legal advice! Eric The(TheyNeedToHangOutWithBetterLawyers!)Hun[>­]:)]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:00:42 AM EDT
LEOs can lie about anything they want at anytime (except under oath obviously) to get information. The old "you buddy is ratting you out you better tell us what you know" routine is lying. I don't believe prosecutors are bound by truth either, but I could be mistaken.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:06:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: LEOs can lie about anything they want at anytime (except under oath obviously) to get information. The old "you buddy is ratting you out you better tell us what you know" routine is lying. I don't believe prosecutors are bound by truth either, but I could be mistaken.
View Quote
The biggest group of liars in every courtroom are the lawyers.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:21:48 AM EDT
Gee, thanks Arock![:D] But that's not exactly true if the [b]media[/b] is present in the Courtroom! [>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:34:33 AM EDT
I hope they ID them selves when they bust in a house,as much as you here them go on about how "you never know who will shoot you" That seems like a good way to find out just who will.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:44:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By big_bore: I hope they ID them selves when they bust in a house,as much as you here them go on about how "you never know who will shoot you" That seems like a good way to find out just who will.
View Quote
Yes, but what about hookers disguised as ATF agents, staging a dynamic entry at 3am to see if "you want a date"?
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:51:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spearweasel:
Originally Posted By big_bore: I hope they ID them selves when they bust in a house,as much as you here them go on about how "you never know who will shoot you" That seems like a good way to find out just who will.
View Quote
Yes, but what about hookers disguised as ATF agents, staging a dynamic entry at 3am to see if "you want a date"?
View Quote
Hookers disguised as the ATF,BAM! the door blows in and you say to your self I'm f*ed but the good news is you are[:X]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 6:25:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Gee, thanks Arock![:D] But that's not exactly true if the [b]media[/b] is present in the Courtroom! [>]:)]
View Quote
No slight meant personally Eric. But having been raised in a family of attorneys and judges and having attended SOME law school myself that's just my plainspoken opinion. Nothing more. Media are useful idiots for more sophisticated agendas. The legal system of this country has been "broken" for a long time. So has the "law enforcement" community. The interaction of these two communities has screwed up my country. I'm not happy about that. I guess we're all cogs but I'm using what small political juice I've got to fix what I can. Let's go shooting sometime soon.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 6:28:50 AM EDT
And remember . . . "All the best looking hookers are COPS."
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 6:29:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bunghole: Are you a hooker?
View Quote
Bunghole, That has to be the single most offensive thing I've ever heard on The Simpsons. [;)]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 6:48:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: I don't believe prosecutors are bound by truth either, but I could be mistaken.
View Quote
Prosecutors are in court as "seekers of truth and justice." [puke] [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 7:24:50 AM EDT
I believe that undercover LEO's are required to identify themselves upon making an arrest; they are required to give their badge numbers if asked by the person who is arrested. Perhaps I am mistaken here.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 7:35:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: I'm curious if undercover police/LEOs are required to identify themselves as police if you ask them
View Quote
Ofcourse not! I have even heard an urdan legend that if you ask them three times they have to answer truthfuly. Are you a cop? No. Are you a cop? No Are you a cop? Okay, you got me, I'm a cop.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 7:41:36 AM EDT
Silly peasants........ Don't you know that the ocifers are better than you serfs and that YOU are required to present your papers upon request BUT the benevolent leo's can lie to you and try to trick you any way possible. "Your papers are not in order comrade, you will come with me to a re-education facility" sounds fair to me[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 8:20:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Don't you know that the ocifers are better than you serfs and that YOU are required to present your papers upon request
View Quote
Really? Show me any law that says you must show ID on demand. The only thing I can come up with, and it's a streatch, is you must carry proof of a valid driver's license when driving on state owned roads and proof of a hunting license when hunting.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 8:25:55 AM EDT
Of course. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 8:36:54 AM EDT
At one time, hookers used to ask the john to touch their boob, thinking that was illegal for a LEO to do. Is that true?
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 8:43:04 AM EDT
The Supreme Court ruled that a LEO can lie in the performance of thier duties. Hun, do you know which ruling it is? Pakrat
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 9:48:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Don't you know that the ocifers are better than you serfs and that YOU are required to present your papers upon request
View Quote
Really? Show me any law that says you must show ID on demand. The only thing I can come up with, and it's a streatch, is you must carry proof of a valid driver's license when driving on state owned roads and proof of a hunting license when hunting.
View Quote
You're not required to show identification, but many states have laws requiring you to correctly identify yourself when requested by an LEO. Note that "lawfuly detained" is a very broad description of circumstances. Texsas Penal Code§ 38.02. Failure to Identify (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (1) lawfully arrested the person; (2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 11:58:57 AM EDT
Not quite right. You are not required to identify yourself when lawfully detained. You can be (under Texas law, at least) arrested for giving false information about your identity. There is Supreme Court case law on this. This is also different than the requirement to show your Driver's License when stopped for a traffic offense.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 9:40:04 PM EDT
It's still amazing the number of nimrods who believe that it's 'entrapment' if they ask an undercover officer if he/she is a cop and they say 'no'. And the requirement to give a 'badge number' is generally a matter of department policy, not law.
Top Top