Slashdot Mirror


Man Arrested For Taking Photo of Open ATM

net_shaman writes in with word of a Seattle man who was arrested for taking a photo of an ATM being serviced. "Today I was shopping at the downtown Seattle REI. I was about to buy a Thule hitch mount bike rack. They were out of the piece that locks the bike rack into the hitch. So I was in the customer service line to special order one. It was a long line and while I was waiting, I saw two of guys (employees of Loomis, as I later learned) refilling the ATM. I walked over and took a picture with my iPhone of them and more interestingly of the open ATM. I took the picture because I'm fascinated by the insides of things that we don't normally get to see. ... That was when Officer GE Abed (#6270) spun me around and put handcuffs on me."

44 of 1,232 comments (clear)

  1. Today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    FML

    1. Re:Today... by beckett · · Score: 5, Informative

      calling REI seattle branch (888.873.1938 toll free) directs you to REI Public Affairs information. their number is 253.395.5958 Loomis & Fargo phone number 206.802.0410 in seattle. calling them i got a phone number that goes to someone's personal pager, so i think they may not be interested in having further conversations about this* *call often

    2. Re:Today... by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

      calling REI seattle branch (888.873.1938 toll free) directs you to REI Public Affairs information. their number is 253.395.5958

      Before referring me to the "public affairs" for "more current" information, the manager told me, that REI have not in fact accused the guy of "trespassing":

      He took me out of the cell and took off the cuffs, had me sign a "You have been trespassed by REI and can't go back for a year" form then Officer Abed walked me out the door. And that was that.

      In other words, it seems like the pig lied. Surprise, surprise...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Australia, an email has recently done the rounds containing a .pdf file about a recent ATM scam. The email contained hundreds of pictures of devices that have been fitted to ATMs which look like normal components that capture both the card number and user's PIN, which are subsequently collected by the scammer not long after that.

      This email was the first thing that came to my mind. I don't really see anybody looking from the ATM refiller's perspective; I am sure they have been told to record events like these; and for this exact reason they had the incident report.

      I don't know what is up with America. Every time a police officer arrests somebody over being a smart-arse about something trivial, you all scream FUD. I do not know anybody that even has or has used a lawyer before here. Has your legal system become so backward that exercising your amendments forbade common sense? Yes, i have prepared myself to be modded troll, and yes; i listened to the entire lecture by Professor James Duane (which i found very interesting), but there's no burglary or murder going on here. A simple "I took a photo of your ATM because I like to learn how the insides of things work; Would you like me to delete the photo from my iPhone and Google it when i get home instead?" should have sufficed.

      The mentioned .pdf can be found here.

  2. precautionary... by Brigadier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Probably just for show, with no past history and no way to show intent they have to let you go. Of course there are those of us who would say 'if it's a secret then don't do it in the open'

  3. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Normally when I see stuff like this, I would indeed call it a case of being a smart ass, like the guy who puts Goatse on his laptop wallpaper when he goes through airport security. But how is this being a smart ass?
    Him
    When you're done over here, come talk to me.
    Me
    No, thanks.
    Him
    Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
    Me
    No, you wonâ(TM)t.
    Him
    I'll call the cops.
    Me
    I can't stop you.

    He has no reasonable obligation to talk to an ATM repair man.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  4. The Internet Age by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is simply amazing how many companies don't understand the true power of the internet. As a result of one single incident like this, REI is going to lose many customers and many sales (I for one won't shop there any more until this gets resolved favorably). Bad news travels extremely quickly these days.

    REI spends a huge amount of money on marketing - and this year's entire budget just got flushed down the toilet. Evidently they should spend a bit more on employee training. (Yes, the guilty parties in this case were from a subcontractor - but REI's own security personnel should have stepped in and done the right thing).

    REI also promises a 24-hour response time to email - my (politely worded) email about this issue hasn't been replied to, 25+ hours and counting later.

  5. Re:Thus proving that well-known proverb.... by squidfood · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that people who are stupid enough to pay Apple's inflated prices for their products really are stupid.

    And that's why they're shopping at REI.

  6. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I headed in to reading this article very skeptically when I saw he described himself as an anarchist at the top of the page. That said, it sounds like he wasn't that much of a jerk or the cops would have slapped on resisting arrest or other charges that can similarly be pulled out of their ass.

    Ultimately, what I take from this is that it is true that cameras in today's America are still considered dangerous weapons, and that Seattle police have learned nothing since the stink about harassing a photo student for taking pictures of the Ballard Locks. Score another point in the win column for the terrorists.

  7. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unless he is accused of a crime, he has no obligation to provide his information to a police officer. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't say a damn word as soon as the police cuffed me except to demand a lawyer. I would definitely be looking to consult a lawyer about pressing charges.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  8. OK, this is lame, but... by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to defend Officer Abed's overreaction (nor her probably violation of your civil rights) but when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom, it's absolutely the wrong time to cop an attitude. Save the "playing the 9/11 card" rhetoric for your blog.

    When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?" If they can't give you a proper answer, you say, "I'm sorry, but if I'm not accused of anything, I don't think I have to talk to you."

    Say these things in a respectful tone of voice. And then Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Getting into lame political arguments with a cop is not ever going to accomplish anything useful. On the contrary, arguments and self-justification can give them the legal hook they need to act against you. If you don't believe me, ask Randal Schwartz.

    1. Re:OK, this is lame, but... by niko9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?" If they can't give you a proper answer, you say, "I'm sorry, but if I'm not accused of anything, I don't think I have to talk to you."

      Say these things in a respectful tone of voice. And then Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Getting into lame political arguments with a cop is not ever going to accomplish anything useful. On the contrary, arguments and self-justification can give them the legal hook they need to act against you. If you don't believe me, ask Randal Schwartz.

      He's right. Personally, I wouldn't even so go as far as asking what law I broke. Just ask if you are being detained or not. If the answer is yes, don't say another *word*.

      For every one else I would watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646

      Watch this video at least once a year. Every year.

      This video is of law professor James Duane giving a lecture on why you should never, *EVER*, talk to the police without a lawyer no matter what the circumstances. Even as something as seemingly simple as getting a speeding ticket. He also lays out (in layman's terms) why the fifth amendment was designed to protect the innocent. He gives equal time to a police detective as balance to everything he had just said.

  9. His mistake by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't talk to the police! When are people going to get this through their thick heads? There is one question you need to ask the police: "Am I free to go?" and maybe a followup of "Am I being detained?" which is the same question, really. If they say yes to the first, you walk away. If they so no to the second, you walk away! Don't try to justify your actions, you're not required to. Don't try to be smart, or demand your "rights". And don't, under any circumstances, answer any questions.

    Personally, I blame all these cop shows on tv. The "interrogation" scenes make for good drama, but only stupid people talk to the police.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  10. Re:I'm curious by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    oh, you imagine a law...how nice.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Re:What did you think would happen? by base3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's just sad. And yet, when the cameras are pointed at us, we're reminded that no one has an expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps there are some yet uncorrupted people in power who see the contradiction?

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  12. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by Wonko · · Score: 5, Informative

    In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks - it's actually illegal to walk down the street without a driver's license (or non-driver's ID). We seem to have little regard for the Constitution.

    You would be incorrect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

  13. REI's response by kfort · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wrote REI yesterday to express my disapproval and this is the form letter I got back last night:

    (what I wrote)

    I'm very disappointed with how you treat your customers and I will make
    a point not to shop at your store when I need outdoor equipment. You
    should respect your customers and not treat them like criminals for
    taking pictures.

    (what they wrote)
    We are aware of the incident at our Seattle store in which an individual
    was removed by Seattle Police. While it's unfortunate this occurred on
    store property, the ATM machine is owned and maintained by an
    independent bank vendor. We did not call the police and did not detain
    the individual. We regret this situation happened, but feel our team
    acted appropriately under the circumstances and are committed to
    providing a welcoming and safe environment for all of our customers.

    Thank you for taking time to provide us your feedback. We appreciate the
    opportunity to respond. For additional information, I'd encourage you to
    contact the Seattle Police Department.

    Best,
    Bethany

    Bethany Nielson
    Public Affairs | Recreational Equipment, Inc.

  14. Re:Expectation Of Privacy by Zerth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except a store is private property. And if the store has a no photography policy, and the ATM company has industrial secrets or something, then they can have the picture confiscated, and the police would need to take the person in to custody to ensure no copies of the picture were created.

    .

    No, they can't. A store may not legally confiscate your photos. They can ask you to leave, they can sue you to prevent you publishing the photos, but they can not prevent you from taking them nor confiscate them afterwards without a court order.

    Confiscating is either theft or conversion, threatening to do so is coercion. A law officer may take custody of your possesions when effecting an arrest, but may not confiscate your film without a court order.

    http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

  15. Re:What did you think would happen? by GoldMace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He should have said he thought they were breaking into it and he was taking a picture to send to the news and police and asked to see their identification. Only idiots would break into an ATM in front of people and not be wearing security guard uniforms.

  16. Re:Spoke with Police Dept. by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Nope.. Just ref'd me to their media department.

    Uhh.. so you called the police department, and the DESK guy essentially said "didn't happen like that, call our media people"?

    Do you think that 3rd hand information (rent-a-cop-> cop on scene-> desk cop) who didn't really tell you anything is more accurate than 1st hand information?

    --
    AccountKiller
  17. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whose the guy that keeps saying "Me"?

  18. "inside of atm" with quotes by doronbc · · Score: 5, Funny

    You would be surprised what comes up when you google image search "inside of atm" with quotes & safe search off.

  19. Re:What did you think would happen? by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though. I hope the fun is worth it.

    It's not about "fun", and it's certainly not about taking the easy way out.

    The fact is that if we want to HAVE rights, it's necessary to assert them. Do you really have a right to take pictures in public if you can be legally harassed, cuffed and hauled in for questioning for doing it? You do not.

    Does it matter whether or not you can take a picture of an ATM? Probably not. But it definitely DOES matter that you aren't required to abide by the whims of random company employees, that they can't force you to identify themselves to you just because they don't like the way you looked at them. And it matters that the police be able to understand that citizens who did nothing wrong should not be harassed.

    But if everyone is like you, if no one is willing to stand up, even though it's unpleasant, inconvenient and occasionally expensive, over time we'll lose the option of deciding whether we want to go along to get along or not.

    Civil rights activists of all sorts are necessary, especially the ones who just want to take the opportunity to assert their right to remain more or less anonymous.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  20. Re:Exactly where do people get off by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being polite != helping. And when they stop being polite to me, I have no further use for being polite to them.

  21. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by CarpetShark · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems that he was arrested for being a smart ass.

    That happens a lot.

    Officer: "You're under arrest for driving with only three wheels."

    Driver: "But there are four wheels. Two on the front and two on the back. Two plus two equals four."

    Officer: "Alright smart-ass, out of the car."

  22. How to respond to this by John+Murdoch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Folks,

    Posting angry comments here on SlashDot can be recreational--but all the ranting and raving anyone does here won't make a bit of difference in the real world.

    What WILL make a difference in the real world, of course, is taking advantage of all of the links so helpfully provided in TFA. All you have to do is send a polite email to some of the people involved, pointing out that the two Loomis employees acted really foolishly; that the REI "loss prevention officer" made REI look...well, like losers; and that the Seattle Police Department really, really needs to send a couple of officers off to Constitution Camp.

    Here's the email I just sent to the U.S. headquarters of Loomis (employer of the guards who started this nonsense):

    Folks,
    It looks like two of your employees went way, way far out of their way to find something to step in this morning in Seattle:

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/12/2239211&art_pos=1

    Follow the link: it shows a photo of your two employees, shortly before they grossly violated the civil rights of a law-abiding citizen. And had their stupidity compounded by the Seattle police.

    Talk to somebody in your I.T. department who is knowledgeable about the Internet. Ask him or her what happens when a story like this gets posted all over the web. About how tens, or hundreds of thousands of emails flood in to the responsible parties (like, for instance, REI--YOUR CUSTOMER). And how that can have a really, really damaging impact on YOUR CUSTOMER's business.

    Then you might consider the impact on your relationship with a corporate customer after two of your employees have exposed them to a phenomenal amount of really, really bad publicity.

    You might want to think about how you could mollify this guy.

    Cheers!

    Oh--and just to save you the trouble, I emailed your corporate headquarters in Sweden to bring them up to speed on the story too.

    Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.

    1. Re:How to respond to this by thenols · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.

      I just talked to someone at Loomis and expressed my discontent with the situation.

      Then I called the REI talked to the manager, and she said that REI did _not_ request a tresspass against the customer, and that he was invited back to the store. She also told me that a couple months ago they had planned to remove the ATM because the bank that owned it wasn't making enough money on it, and that the removal of this ATM from their REI had nothing to do with the incident.

      Then I called the precinct, and they basically dismissed it as "don't believe everything you read on the internet" and gave me the phone number of the public affairs office. So I called them and he said there are always two sides to a story so don't be to surprised if you have only read one side. He then asked if I had read the police report yet. I agreed that there is always two sides to a story, and then asked how I could get a copy of the police report to get the rest of the story. He said you can come in person to the precinct and request it, or you could send an email to spdpdr@seattle.gov and request it. You need the date (May 8th), the time (4:53pm) and the location to get the report.

      The detective also said they wouldn't impose tresspassing on someone unless the owner or a manager of the store requested it, which is in direct conflict to what the manager just told me...

  23. If you do something in the open... by Qubit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...people are going to see.

    That's pretty much a "No duh!" situation there.

    What if they guy had had a lipstick cam behind his ear? What if he just walked up to the techs while they were refilling the ATM and made smalltalk about how he used to refill ATMs as well? He could have gotten MUCH better snapshots and the techs would have been none the wiser.

    If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.

    That way if someone tries to take a picture of the ATM, it's really obvious that the techs are trying to keep it shielded and it's a lot easier for them to tell the person to stop and/or call the police on them.

    Second, people who aren't law enforcement agents cannot generally stop or detain people. They may have a license to carry a handgun, and they may dress like a police officer, but they aren't empowered to act like an officer. If someone tries to talk to you or asks you to talk to them, politely refuse and walk away.

    In this kind of situation, if a guy with a gun who is not a cop tells me that he wants to talk to me, I'd usually suggest walking away. Put down the purchases, hand them to a friend, ask the woman behind the counter to put them on hold for you, whatever. Just walk out of there.

    The benefit of such a situation is that you get out of there, you clear your head, etc... and then you can go back and conduct your business later, hopefully when man-with-gun is gone. And if this armed person who is not a member of the law enforcement tries to detain you (an unarmed person walking away), then the cops, the court, the company, and the crowd around you (yes, I alliterated that for y'all) will probably be much more supportive of your actions.

    Unless this guy with the camera was an active danger for them, then I don't see any reason for them to talk to him. The second the armed guys engage him they know that it will put him on the defensive, and considering the fact that there are two armed guys there, the power dynamic is going to get really bad, really quickly.

    The only thing these guys should say is something like "please stand back from the ATM," "Please don't take pictures", etc... The only time they should engage with a civilian is when they are feeling actively threatened.

    "The Loomis guys wanted me to give them my ID so they could write a report about me for their bosses...The REI security people that had been called in by now wanted the same thing.

    Um...no?

    Both Loomis and REI have lawyers. And my guess is that both teams of them are (correctly) telling every one of their employees involved in this incident to have a big slice of superglue pie. You can ask anyone for their ID, but only the police can make the request a requirement, and only in certain instances.

    Would having the ID make life easier for the Loomis and REI employees? Sure. But so would having each store patron take off their clothes at the entrance to ensure that they aren't carrying-in weapons and aren't carrying-out shoplifted goods. I don't want to be subjected to either of these unreasonable privacy invasions by stores, so I won't patronize businesses that employ them.

    Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.

    The photographer didn't remove any cash or any other items. Had the Loomis guys tackled him, that would have probably been a threat of assault, followed by assault. Further, the guys are armed, which probably raises the penalty for both charges a few notches.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  24. Re:Social Engineering first by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see where you're coming from, but I think it's not very nice to say he 'brought it upon himself'. He didn't do anything wrong.

    He could've played the 'cool' card like you say, but then we wouldn't have this nice story about abuse of authority.

    We need to stand up more against this shit while it's doable, I mean, getting cuffed and losing half your day. A hassle.

    If we don't, things might come to a point where we can't stand up anymore because we're just taken outside and shot. And nobody is allowed to say your name again under the same penalty.

    Being Orwellian and way out there on purpose to drive the point home, of course.

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
  25. Re:You just defined smartass by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This quote from TFA strikes me as both taunting and smartass-y:

    I told them plainly that I'm not in the habit of giving my ID to people just because they want it, especially fake cops who put money in box and get to play at being real cops.

  26. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cops came over when we were leaving and threatened to take me in for not having an ID on me.

    Just because a cop says something doesn’t mean they’re not bullshitting

  27. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had a similar situation. A local photographer was taking pictures of park rangers who wanted to arrest him for taking there picture. They had him in handcuffs. I walked over and said the following

    "You are violating this man's civil rights. He has every right to take your pictures because this is a public place (a park) and so long as he doesn't publish the photos in a derogatory way, you have no reason to keep him against his will. And if you continue to keep him against his will I will testify in court that you are violating his civil rights." The rangers talked amongst themselves, contacted their supervisor, and then let the guy go.

  28. Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, no.

    If they wanted privacy, they should have put a curtain around it.

    It's a public place, a public camera. There is no probable cause here.

    I think you're chucking your sense of liberty. First it's IDs, then it's little yellow stars on your chest. Never forget.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  29. Re:I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. by BluBrick · · Score: 5, Funny

    The better reaction would have been to piss your pants and faint at having had a gun pulled on you. THAT, by the time it got documented by the supermarket and possibly even in ambulance and police records, would provide indisputable proof that something happened.

    Hahaha! Yes, immediately throw your wallet at him, then put your hands in the air and yell "Here, take it, just don't shoot me! I have a family!".

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  30. Re:You just defined smartass by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

    This blogger needs to learn some tact. The best way to deal with security guards (who have no real power) is simply to ask, "Are you police?" followed by, "Then you have no authority over me. I'm now going to leave." They cannot detain you from leaving unless you've stolen their property (like Levis jeans) which is not the case here.

    As for actual police, the best way to deal with them is to exercise your Miranda Rights (remain silent). Every time you open your mouth, you give them evidence that can be used against you. Better to shut your mouth and keep calm - almost bored.

    BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car. More Supreme Court cases then I can list here have affirmed this multiple times. Don't cave-in to the police simply because they *believe* they have certain powers. 99% of the time they are exceeding their legal authority as circumscribed by the courts.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  31. Re:And not illegal to handcuff him by dmsuperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are in no way required to be polite or even talk to a cop. He may be nicer to you, and may choose not to exert his right to detain you to question you, which would be beneficial, but that doesn't mean being an ass is illegal or even wrong. Especially when he was being fucked with for doing nothing wrong.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };: Go!
  32. Re:And not illegal to handcuff him by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point is, he went out of his way to take the picture. He even admitted to it.

    And this is reason to be detained....why, exactly?

    I go out of my way to take pictures all the time. If it's a cool thing to take a picture of, then I'll do what it takes, within reason, to get a picture of it.

    And walking a couple of dozen feet across a store isn't exactly going a long way out of his way.

    The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  33. Re:And not illegal to handcuff him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Police do not have the "right" to detain anyone. Police are granted special powers by the people through the government in order to protect the people. These special powers are not a right, they are a tool that are required to be used in the least obstructive way. A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused. The more power an officer uses in the moment the more scrutiny is going to be used on him later.

    For example if a cop tell you that you must not leave he is using some power and nobody will bat an eye. If the cop cuffs a person and questions them he is using further power and can possibly get in trouble if he does it wrong. If a police officer tackles a person then cuffs them he is going to be further scrutinized. If a police officer beats or shoots or sprays pepper spray on someone then detains them they will of course fall under further scrutiny. Any of those actions can be abuses or legal uses of their power under different situations.

  34. Re:You just defined smartass by RubberDogBone · · Score: 5, Informative

    All you need to say are five magic words: Am I free to go?

    If the answer is yes, then you go. Now. Leave.

    If the answer is no, then they have charges they plan to file/etc and that changes the ballgame immediately. Miranda rights come into play if it's the cops, or false imprisonment or kidnapping charges if it's just a rent-a-cop or Loomis worker. If it's the cops, that also means the ticker starts on how long they can detain you without charging you with something. Generally this is only a few minutes up to half an hour in some cases. That's not to say they won't outright lie or invent charges.

    But any time someone tries to detain you, just say AIFTG? and watch the wheels of justice spin.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  35. Re:You just defined smartass by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But basically who wouldn't give up a little comfort to put down a smartass?

    Careful.

    The United States was founded by several people who were widely considered to be "smartasses". There's a nice portrait of one of them on the hundred dollar bill.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  36. Re:You just defined smartass by lowflying · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Am I free to go" can (often does) result in a practiced non-answer, where the answer should be "yes."

    In which case "I decline the encounter" is the appropriate follow up.

  37. Re:You just defined smartass by hacker · · Score: 5, Informative

    "All you need to say are five magic words: Am I free to go?"

    Actually, the phrase is: "Am I being charged with a crime, or am I free to go?"

    There's an actual reason for that exact wording. If they say "Yes", what are they answering? The police are trained in using this double-speak against you all the time. Use it against them as well.

  38. Re:You just defined smartass by lowflying · · Score: 5, Informative

    Declining the encounter is telling the officer that you are not consenting or agreeing to participating in the contact with them voluntarily, and directly informing them of your intention to leave without further consensual interaction.

    The reason to decline explicitly is to avoid implying consensual (voluntary) participation after they didn't clearly answer your question.

    You may end up being detained or arrested (the second and third categories of interactions, along with consensual), but it forces an answer to the original question "Am I free to go?" And it establishes the latest moment that those events could have occurred.

    The sequence of events can be very important. If you have "volunteered" something in consensual conversation, there was no need to inform you of your post-arrest Miranda rights.

  39. Re:And not illegal to handcuff him by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've found the Seattle Police Department to be very non-dickheady.

    Go 10 miles in any direction and the story completely changes. But the Seattle police department tend to be pretty cool. And they're fast. Freakishly fast. I had to call 911 last year to report an assault in progress and they arrived in less than 40 seconds. I saw an accident last week and before I could even make a U-Turn to go a block around a patrol car had already pulled up and was checking on the drivers.

    They seem more interested in keeping traffic moving than making some sort of ticket quota. In all of my interactions they've been incredibly friendly and bent over backwards to be patient.

    I don't know anyone personally in the police department and I'm not in any way employed. I've just been so pleasantly suprised and impressed by the Seattle Police Department since moving here that I think they deserve some recognition for not being complete pricks like other places I've lived (I'm looking at you Lynwood PD).