Question(s) for LEO
Another thread reminded me of some things I've always wondered about. Any information, preferably from law enforcement officers, would be much appreciated.
1. Does a citizen have to talk to the police? If Joe is walking down the street doing nothing wrong and a police officer stops him and asks who he is and where is he going, does the citizen have to answer?
2. Does a citizen have to talk to the police if there is a criminal investigation / police business being conducted? If Joe is walking down the street and walks the site of a break in and a police officer stops him and asks if he was involved, does the citizen have to answer?
3. In the same vein as number 2, if pulled over by police for a simple traffic stop and asked, "Are there drugs in the car?" or "Is there a gun in the car?" does the citizen have to answer? At a DWI checkpoint if a person is asked, "Have you been drinking tonight?" Can the person simply refuse to answer the question?
Thank you for any information you can provide.
1. Does a citizen have to talk to the police? If Joe is walking down the street doing nothing wrong and a police officer stops him and asks who he is and where is he going, does the citizen have to answer?
2. Does a citizen have to talk to the police if there is a criminal investigation / police business being conducted? If Joe is walking down the street and walks the site of a break in and a police officer stops him and asks if he was involved, does the citizen have to answer?
3. In the same vein as number 2, if pulled over by police for a simple traffic stop and asked, "Are there drugs in the car?" or "Is there a gun in the car?" does the citizen have to answer? At a DWI checkpoint if a person is asked, "Have you been drinking tonight?" Can the person simply refuse to answer the question?
Thank you for any information you can provide.
0
-
I think laws about those issues vary by jurisdiction.
And... while you may have the LEGAL right to not speak with the policeman, doing so would not display a great intellect.
Doug0 -
But, Doug, that's the rub. Saying that not talking to and cooperating with the police does not display a great intellect ignores the fact that the police are trying to put people in jail.
Let's assume that Joe is innocent and as pure as the driven snow. Let's say that Joe happens to be walking by a store late at night. Earlier that day he stopped in the store to buy a Coke, and the guy behind the cash register was rude to him. Joe told him to go to hell and left. Now, late at night, there are police cars parked in front of the store.
Police officer: What are you doing?
Joe: I'm going for a walk.
Police officer: Have you been in this store today?
Joe: Yes, I went in to buy a Coke. The guy was rude to me.
Police officer: Hmmm, did you get aggressive with him?
Joe: I told him to go to hell and left.
Police officer: Well, somebody stabbed him and made off with the cash register. You were there today and he made you mad. You're our main suspect.
Remember, Joe is innocent, but he's already admitted to being a the scene of the crime and that he had words with the victim. He's now a suspect, and all because of what he said. Had he told the police officer, "I don't want to speak to you" and walked away, he probably wouldn't be a suspect.
I am not coming at this as someone who thinks all police officers are thugs. In fact, I think they're doing an important job. I'm just wondering about the legality of it all.0 -
No, your not required to speak to the ofrcs. You may or may not get arrested. If they have probable cause to arrest you, they will.
If no probable cause exists, they might just take down your information and release you.
Your problem is you dont know what information they have. If you answer their questions and appear cooperative they are less likely to suspect you or wrong doing.
Put yourself in the ofcrs position. You are investigating a crime and someone at the scene you want to talk to says, I refuse to talk to you. The first thing you think is "What is he hiding"
You want to know the "legality" of it. Well, the legality and reality of it are, if you refuse to speak, you will likely get arrested if they even think you did anything wrong.0 -
To me it breaks down into two questions:
1) Is it legal to refuse to talk to a policeman, and
2) Is it smart to refuse to talk to a policeman.
I believe that there are laws, where if you were being interviewed as a potential witness to a criminal act and refused to talk to the policemen, you could be charged with something like "Impeding a police Officer in the lawful pursuit of an investigation" or maybe "Obstruction of Justice".
My opinion is that if you were to refuse to speak with the lawman, you would find yourself quickly cuffed and locked in an interrogation room.
There is a difference between theory and practice,
While you may have been right, you are still locked up - accomplishing what ??
Also, I would not want to cross paths with that particular policeman in the future.
One thing my Dad taught me that I took to heart was "Avoid the APPEARANCE of evil".
Also a difference between idealism and reality - Reality ALWAYS wins.
Good luck.
Doug0 -
[8D]-This simple question opens up a plethora, concerning YOU--
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
Another thread reminded me of some things I've always wondered about. Any information, preferably from law enforcement officers, would be much appreciated.
1. Does a citizen have to talk to the police? If Joe is walking down the street doing nothing wrong and a police officer stops him and asks who he is and where is he going, does the citizen have to answer?
2. Does a citizen have to talk to the police if there is a criminal investigation / police business being conducted? If Joe is walking down the street and walks the site of a break in and a police officer stops him and asks if he was involved, does the citizen have to answer?
3. In the same vein as number 2, if pulled over by police for a simple traffic stop and asked, "Are there drugs in the car?" or "Is there a gun in the car?" does the citizen have to answer? At a DWI checkpoint if a person is asked, "Have you been drinking tonight?" Can the person simply refuse to answer the question?
Thank you for any information you can provide.
--I was never a "traffic" cop-just "Narcotics" but your questions and the mere fact of your asking, requires more answers than questions--
--ie:1) do you have a shady past
2) are you upset about a "stop"
3) is a relative in trouble??
4) have you always hated cops??
5) are you an american citizen??
6) do you "hide" firearms in your vehicle??
--this could go on and on and on, you evidentally have inhibitions--
----JIMBO0 -
--I was never a "traffic" cop-just "Narcotics" but your questions and the mere fact of your asking, requires more answers than questions--
--ie:1) do you have a shady past
2) are you upset about a "stop"
3) is a relative in trouble??
4) have you always hated cops??
5) are you an american citizen??
6) do you "hide" firearms in your vehicle??
--this could go on and on and on, you evidentally have inhibitions--
----JIMBO
Wow, Jimbo, impressive. I asked a few simple questions about constitutional rights. You respond by asking me if I have a shady past, relatives who are in trouble, if I hate cops, if I'm an American citizen, and if I hide firearms in my vehicle. Oh, and that I have "inhibitions."
I suppose your response is so outrageous that you're making my point for me; you're pretending to be a policeman who would gleefully abuse his powers if anyone dared question him. Then again, I think that such a post requires an intellect and subtlety that you probably just don't have. So let's deal with things on face value.
I am a perfectly upstanding citizen. Never been arrested, never done anything wrong. Same with all my relatives. I guess they don't teach reading comprehension at the police academy, because you missed the "I am not coming at this as someone who thinks all police officers are thugs. In fact, I think they're doing an important job" sentences in one of my posts. "Have you always hated cops" is a wonderfully phrased question, isn't it, Jimbo? Again, see previous sentences. Finally, yes to American citizen and no to hiding firearms in my vehicle.
So, Jimbo, try, try, try your very hardest to think. Go back again and look at the orignial questions. Rummage through the filing cabinets, and there, buried deep down at the very bottom, is a copy of the constitution and probably something about ethics and legalities. Blow the dust off of them and crack them open. Once you've done the reading, perhaps you can answer me.0 -
The circumstances you describe are what's referred to as a "Terry stop", so called because it's authorized under a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Terry vs. Ohio many years ago. This is something taught in Police 101 nationwide.
Under this ruling if an LEO reasonably believes that a crime has been or is being committed and also reasonably suspects Joe's involvement, he's allowed to detain and speak with him. If the officer also reasonably believes Joe might be armed he's allowed to pat him down and search his immediate reach for weapons. Under these circumstances Joe is required to identify himself but not necessarily provide further information or answer other questions.
Joe might actually be walking down the street and doing nothing wrong, but totally unaware that a crime has just been committed nearby and the police are actively looking for the suspect. The problem often stems from the fact that the officer either doesn't have time or is not at liberty to explain what he's working on. The individual officer's people skills also have a lot to do with how Joe sees the situation.
Joe might not realize that the questions he's being asked are also to determine if he's a potential witness, such as asking where he's coming from. Without him realizing it Joe might've been in a position to supply important information, including the fact that he saw nothing at all.
Joe's refusal to answer any questions will inevitably prolong how long he's detained because his possible involvement has to be eliminated by gathering information from other sources.
There's anoter aspect of this Joe often doesn't think about. If, strictly on principle, he refuses to answer any questions beyond giving his identity it's actually the victim of whatever crime was committed that he's hurting. The quicker Joe's identification is determined, he's eliminated as a suspect and any possible helpful information has been collected the faster the police can continue their search for the bad guy.
People often fail to see a situation beyond how it's effecting them. Some Joes who are stopped by the police, asked for identitifcation and hit with questions when they know they haven't done anything wrong become offended. After all, they're an honest citizen and these cops work for them. In absence of an explanation, this stop and questioning can be seen by them as an abuse of power. It doesn't cross their minds that these cops also work for the victim of whatever crime has just been committed and by acting in a reasonable and cooperative manner they're actually helping this person.0 -
[8D]-Well my answer to you , mlincoln, is-your answer to my diatribe could have been a SIMPLE ---NO-- But you answered like you were on a TRIAL of you PEERS--
--Sorry to stir up past inhibitions and not give you a simple "my quota" answer--
----JIMBO0 -
-Well my answer to you , mlincoln, is-your answer to my diatribe could have been a SIMPLE ---NO-- But you answered like you were on a TRIAL of you PEERS--
--Sorry to stir up past inhibitions and not give you a simple "my quota" answer--
----JIMBO
Really, honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say.0 -
Thank you, Txs, for a very detailed and thoughtful answer. 0 -
I believe it was Terry vs Ohio, thanks Txs, you beat me to it.
Trinity +++0 -
A recent court decision said you must show Id if asked, answer questions until/when/if they read you your rights, then it would be wise to keep quiet. 0 -
I'm not sure that says what I want,talk until not after. 0 -
It's going to depend on the demeaenor of the officer.
If I'm approached in a civil manner and asked questions, I'm apt to answer them. If Johnny Law wants to get all Storm Trooper on my ass, then we're both in for a long wait for a very short conversation. And don't give me any crap about harming the victim of a crime with my reticence, if an officer has stopped me and wants to question me, I have a right to know why.
I was raised by a policeman to be polite and helpful to the police. But I won't live in a Police State.
Besides, I usually have time on my hands. And being detained for no lawful cause is what we in the radio business call "show prep".0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
The individual officer's people skills also have a lot to do with how Joe sees the situation.
The source of most "problems" that people have with the police.....Arrogance! On both sides!
But the officer is presumed to have training in handling his/her "attitude".
Nothing's scarier than a spooked cop!
Allen0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
...don't give me any crap about harming the victim of a crime with my reticence, if an officer has stopped me and wants to question me, I have a right to know why.
...being detained for no lawful cause is what we in the radio business call "show prep".Yes and no.
Technically speaking, you need only be told they're conducting an investigation of a (fill in the blank) offense. Details of any ongoing investigation are protected confidential information, which means there's no legal requirement for them to tell you more than this. In short, at this point they aren't required to actually explain why you're suspected of involvement.
Notice I say there's no requirement that you be told details out there on the side of the road, not that some details couldn't be given out. Once a person has been identified, a few questions have been asked and it becomes clear they actually aren't involved in the offense, they'll probably get an explanation of what's going on and why they were checked. Of course, how much explanation the person ends up getting on the roadside depends quite a bit upon their demeanor, too.
If you feel you were unlawfully stopped, your recourse is to afterwards file an official complaint. By the time it's addressed the investigation of the original offense will probably have been completed and your questions could then be answered.
Reread my explanation of the elements of a Terry stop. Contrary to what you might think, under some circumstances it's lawful for you to be temporarily detained and maybe even have your person and portions of your vehicle checked for weapons even though you haven't committed any offenses. The standard here is only articulable and reasonable suspicion, not definitive proof. Sometimes it's simply a matter of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time while driving a certain car or wearing certain clothing. This concept is nothing new. It's constitutionality was ruled on about 40 years ago.
Please research what I'm saying here so you have a better grasp of how things work. I'd hate to see your fellow honest citizens unable to receive justice due to you tying up the cops by arguing mistaken beliefs.0 -
LEO: "I'm asking the questions, here."
Jimdeere: "Yes, sir."0 -
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
Another thread reminded me of some things I've always wondered about. Any information, preferably from law enforcement officers, would be much appreciated.
1. Does a citizen have to talk to the police? If Joe is walking down the street doing nothing wrong and a police officer stops him and asks who he is and where is he going, does the citizen have to answer?
2. Does a citizen have to talk to the police if there is a criminal investigation / police business being conducted? If Joe is walking down the street and walks the site of a break in and a police officer stops him and asks if he was involved, does the citizen have to answer?
3. In the same vein as number 2, if pulled over by police for a simple traffic stop and asked, "Are there drugs in the car?" or "Is there a gun in the car?" does the citizen have to answer? At a DWI checkpoint if a person is asked, "Have you been drinking tonight?" Can the person simply refuse to answer the question?
Thank you for any information you can provide.
#1. No
#2. No
#3. No then yes0 -
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
LEO: "I'm asking the questions, here."
Jimdeere: "Yes, sir."
[:D]...but only temporarily.
It's generally the best polcy to let him ask his questions first, because if it's a Terry stop situation there's definitely been some sort of crime committed, something articulable and reasonable has drawn suspicion to you and he's trying to determine if you're involved. If you feel as if he's looking at you like you're some kind of criminal, you're right. That's why he contacted you.
If you give it a minute he'll find that you're actually just joe innocent citizen and he'll probably be a lot more receptive to conversation.
It happened to me late one night recently. I met one on the road who u-turned, lit me up and had me on the side of the road with orders to keep my hands in plain sight. Turns out a burglary had just occurred a short distance down the road I was on and the bad guys were seen leaving in a car like mine. A few minutes of patience on my part led to an explanation and a thank you for my cooperation. No problem, that's what I pay them for.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
LEO: "I'm asking the questions, here."
Jimdeere: "Yes, sir."
[:D]...but only temporarily.
It's generally the best polcy to let him ask his questions first, because if it's a Terry stop situation there's definitely been some sort of crime committed, something articulable and reasonable has drawn suspicion to you and he's trying to determine if you're involved. If you feel as if he's looking at you like you're some kind of criminal, you're right. That's why he contacted you.
If you give it a minute he'll find that you're actually just joe innocent citizen and he'll probably be a lot more receptive to conversation.
It happened to me late one night recently. I met one on the road who u-turned, lit me up and had me on the side of the road with orders to keep my hands in plain sight. Turns out a burglary had just occurred a short distance down the road I was on and the bad guys were seen leaving in a car like mine. A few minutes of patience on my part led to an explanation and a thank you for my cooperation. No problem, that's what I pay them for.
Thanks, Txs, but I'm only about half innocent.[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
...don't give me any crap about harming the victim of a crime with my reticence, if an officer has stopped me and wants to question me, I have a right to know why.
...being detained for no lawful cause is what we in the radio business call "show prep".Yes and no.
Technically speaking, you need only be told they're conducting an investigation of a (fill in the blank) offense. Details of any ongoing investigation are protected confidential information, which means there's no legal requirement for them to tell you more than this. In short, at this point they aren't required to actually explain why you're suspected of involvement.
Notice I say there's no requirement that you be told details out there on the side of the road, not that some details couldn't be given out. Once a person has been identified, a few questions have been asked and it becomes clear they actually aren't involved in the offense, they'll probably get an explanation of what's going on and why they were checked. Of course, how much explanation the person ends up getting on the roadside depends quite a bit upon their demeanor, too.
If you feel you were unlawfully stopped, your recourse is to afterwards file an official complaint. By the time it's addressed the investigation of the original offense will probably have been completed and your questions could then be answered.
Reread my explanation of the elements of a Terry stop. Contrary to what you might think, under some circumstances it's lawful for you to be temporarily detained and maybe even have your person and portions of your vehicle checked for weapons even though you haven't committed any offenses. The standard here is only articulable and reasonable suspicion, not definitive proof. Sometimes it's simply a matter of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time while driving a certain car or wearing certain clothing. This concept is nothing new. It's constitutionality was ruled on about 40 years ago.
Please research what I'm saying here so you have a better grasp of how things work. I'd hate to see your fellow honest citizens unable to receive justice due to you tying up the cops by arguing mistaken beliefs.
You can do your own research into how I've defended cops right here on GunBroker.
I'm not going to be tying up any investigation. Like I said, if I'm approached with a modicum of respect, I'll respond in kind. Last year I attended a community outreach program put on by the local PD. It's a wonderful program, designed to explain to the general public what Johnny Law's job is. Even though I was raised by a cop, I found the class to be extremely informative.
We covered just this topic in class. The Terry stop was discussed at length among me and the other, much more liberal media members in the class with our instructor. The one thing that kept coming up was that we understood that the cops are doing their job. And that job, low-paying and thankless as it is, requires a real good feel for public relations. We as citizens aren't demanding our asses be kissed, but having a good rapport with the public will often net you far more information than hiding behind reflective sunglasses.
Again, I'm not disputing what the law says. I'm saying that there are a large number of people who despise the "Us Against Them" mentality we see displayed by a growing number of cops.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
I'm saying that there are a large number of people who despise the "Us Against Them" mentality we see displayed by a growing number of cops.I despise the us against them mentality when it's displayed by either side.
I maintain the attitude that I work for the public, not simply my superiors (they're just managers). If I can help people understand the logic behind a few things we do it might help them work with me.
I really wasn't trying to bust your chops. I was trying to explain how just because you hadn't done anything wrong you shouldn't assume a cop is displaying a storm trooper mentality or doing anything illegal by stopping you and asking questions.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs Originally posted by Colonel Plink
...don't give me any crap about harming the victim of a crime with my reticence, if an officer has stopped me and wants to question me, I have a right to know why.
...being detained for no lawful cause is what we in the radio business call "show prep".Yes and no.
Technically speaking, you need only be told they're conducting an investigation of a (fill in the blank) offense. Details of any ongoing investigation are protected confidential information, which means there's no legal requirement for them to tell you more than this. In short, at this point they aren't required to actually explain why you're suspected of involvement.
Notice I say there's no requirement that you be told details out there on the side of the road, not that some details couldn't be given out. Once a person has been identified, a few questions have been asked and it becomes clear they actually aren't involved in the offense, they'll probably get an explanation of what's going on and why they were checked. Of course, how much explanation the person ends up getting on the roadside depends quite a bit upon their demeanor, too.
If you feel you were unlawfully stopped, your recourse is to afterwards file an official complaint. By the time it's addressed the investigation of the original offense will probably have been completed and your questions could then be answered.
Reread my explanation of the elements of a Terry stop. Contrary to what you might think, under some circumstances it's lawful for you to be temporarily detained and maybe even have your person and portions of your vehicle checked for weapons even though you haven't committed any offenses. The standard here is only articulable and reasonable suspicion, not definitive proof. Sometimes it's simply a matter of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time while driving a certain car or wearing certain clothing. This concept is nothing new. It's constitutionality was ruled on about 40 years ago.
Please research what I'm saying here so you have a better grasp of how things work. I'd hate to see your fellow honest citizens unable to receive justice due to you tying up the cops by arguing mistaken beliefs.
[/quote
Very well said !0 -
Never say "sorry" I was speeding etc. It's an admission of guilt.
Only answer the questions that you are being pulled over for respectfully. When he/she cop is done, ask "am I free to leave"
My Grand Father was a cop and always told me 10 minutes talking to a cop or detective without counsel could get you the death sentence.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
I'm saying that there are a large number of people who despise the "Us Against Them" mentality we see displayed by a growing number of cops.I despise the us against them mentality when it's displayed by either side.
I maintain the attitude that I work for the public, not simply my superiors (they're just managers). If I can help people understand the logic behind a few things we do it might help them work with me.
I really wasn't trying to bust your chops. I was trying to explain how just because you hadn't done anything wrong you shouldn't assume a cop is displaying a storm trooper mentality or doing anything illegal by stopping you and asking questions.
Nonetheless, I got my ass schooled here. And I'm man enough to admit it.0 -
To me, it's about respect and common courtesy. If i am treated with courtesy and respect i will return it. If i feel as if i am being bullied or threatened i will clam up. Even if i have nothing to hide, i am speaking to a stranger whose intentions and attitudes i know nothing about, and one who has the power to make my life very difficult if he so chooses, right or wrong.
I will gladly help a police officer with an investigation if i am able to as long as he treats me as innocent until proven guilty, with some common courtesy.
By law you don't have to answer any questions about whether you have committed any crime (5th amendment). You also don't have to consent to let them search you or your vehicle-4th amendment (if they are asking they don't have the right, and are trying to get you to waive your right by consenting)0 -
Something that was not mentioned here is that in most situations the Officer's attitude is a reflection of the attitude of the person he is contacting. If you are rude he will probably be rude, if you are nice he will probably be nice.
Bode0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments