The first thing I learned when I started interacting with people after I became a police officer is that EVERYONE lies to the cops. If people told me the truth, I wouldn't have to use trickery and deceit. People lie for lots of reasons, but almost everyone does it. I learned really quickly not to trust anyone -- even victims are often filing false reports for personal gain.
"WHAT!?! IANAL, and I don't deal with the police on a regular basis, but I can't imagine that threatening a loved one and lying in the manner described above could be construed as anything but coersion. And you clearly are making an implied threat and promise in the above scenario - give up the name or the old man goes to the clink. Especially when there is no legal basis for taking the man to jail for not giving up his name. I'd hope a half-decent lawyer could get the case thrown out based on this kind of information gathering - but maybe I'm just ignorant."
Coercion for giving a name? You have a right against self-incrimination, which is why you are read your Miranda rights (to remain silent, etc) before questioning about crimes. Daughter has nothing to lose -- she is not going to incriminate herself in any way. NOR is she going to incriminate her father. A NAME IS NOT INCRIMINATING, according to any and every case law and every statute that I know of. I have never heard of charging someone with a crime because of their name. [Unless your name is Bill Gates, then maybe you should be!;) ] They may have committed a crime, but the name is not the crime. Of course the daughter can choose not to say anything and call my bluff. Then dad goes free, without knowing who he is.
Also understand that this would not be my first choice, obviously. I'm not going straight to trying to trick the daughter. I was really just offering that as a last resort. I doubt that in this case that would have been necessary.
I consider this along the same lines as having two murder accomplices in seperate interrogations, and telling one that the other spilled the beans. Sure its a trick, but it works and they wouldn't talk otherwise. Obviously in that example the suspects would have been fully advised of their rights before questioning.
Having outstanding warrants is NOT testifying against yourself. Having a warrant means that you have been accused of a crime -- you then can choose not to testify -- and you have a right to confront your accussers and ask questions of them in court. Checking a name for warrants really in no way says anything about the person being checked - it is standard procedure that most officers just to make sure. Even if I don't think that the 65 year old grandma that I just pulled over is likely to have a warrant, I gotta check.
How would it look if grandma had an open warrant for terrorist activity and went on to bomb something. Then I'm REALLY in a jam for not having checked her and it makes it look like officers aren't doing their jobs.
I agree with you that you have rights and I respect them. If you or anyone else wants to make their contact with me last longer by clamming up and not saying ANYTHING, that's fine. I get paid either way, and I do the best job I can either way.
BTW, I'm loving this thread. You guys are great for asking questions and making reasonable statements and expressing in a reasonable way!
Heh. I don't know about the laws where cops are called "beefs", but here where they are called "pigs", you can't charge someone with a crime like that without a victim. Since the woman is long gone that's probably why they let you go. They can still stop and check you out though.
***Hrrmm... I think my blood donut level is low, I need a 12-pack!
In practical terms, a Terry stop is much different from an investigative detention. First, no citizen felt compelled to call the police about a crime in progress. An officer on patrol observes something out of the ordinary, and decides to stop and basically say, "I'm watching you, who are you and what are you up to today?" If there is a reason like a bulge in a jacket or some other information leading the officer to believe there might be a weapon on the person, they may pat down the exterior of someone's clothing. It is considered much less of an invasion of privacy than a search. Terry stops are useful mostly to PREVENT crimes by letting potential suspects know they are being watched. It is NOT a custodial situation, and the person is free to leave.
However, in an investigative detention, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has ALREADY happened, and that the person stopped is likley involved. This is different because it IS a cutodial situation, but only up until the point where it is determined that a crime has not occurred.
A different example of this would be if a shooting had just occurred, and witnesses gave the responding officers a description of the suspect. Other officers in the area are going to be looking for people matching this description, and stop them. These people are NOT immediately free to leave -- if they were then officers would certainly be unable to solve anything. They will be placed in investigative detention until it is somehow determined they are not involved. (Often by driving a victim to them to see if the victim can ID them - that's when PROBABLE CAUSE is then established to arrest) That is a much more cut-and-dry example of investigative detention. These suspects cannot be tranported to the station or jail, and cannot be held for an "unreasonable" amount of time. But it is ridiculous to say that an officer should let this potentially violent subject stand around not in handcuffs. So it is mostly for everyone's safety.
The case in question though is admittedly a borderline case of when investigative detention should be used. However in my experience, if I am alone as an officer and have an intoxicated individual who I believe may have assaulted someone, I don't feel comfortable having them at my back while I question potential victims or witnesses. Like I said, it's often in the phrasing of your reports and statements -- I'm a reasonably intelligent person and can articulate reaons why I would place someone in investigative detention in this case.
Also your statement that Terry only allows for a modicum of questions, etc is true... however in this case it's not really a Terry stop. But beyond that, even if I determine that no ASSAULT has occurred, I have still not determined that no crime has occurred. I will hold the dad in investigative detention for really what would amount to about 5 minutes afterwards to determine that nothing else is going on. Because it is an unusual situation. I can't hold dad for hours or anything. It's all about what's reasonable.
And finally, yes I'll probably be sued. Any officer can stick their head in the sand and sit on their hands and not do anything to fight crime. Any GOOD officer will be proactive and observant and use tools like Terry stops, etc. Those officers are more likely to be sued. There's a reason cases like Terry and others go to the Supreme Court; they are on the edge of legality... Are they unreasonable search and seizure??? So any good officer gets sued. It's a pain personally but a necessary part of the job; and I will prevail if I can state the reasons for what I did and not violate people's rights. The only problem is that we live in such a litigious society that most people are just suing to get some money, not because they actually feel their rights were violated.
Well I don't want get in any arguments --
Queuetue I do respect the fact you feel strongly about your rights. However some of the rights you feel strongly about are not necessarily rights!
You wrote "If you ask me to show you papers, and I say no, then the answer is no. I'm not required to testify against myself - thats the fifth amendment"
Not trying to be a smartass here at all, but please explain to me how giving an officer your name and birthdate could be a form of self-incrimination? Your name is just that - a name, not giving information about a crime or confessing to a crime. You specifically state if I ask you for papers -- you will say no. Ok, that's FINE! But at some point I'm going to want to know who you are... And often even if I have probable cause to arrest someone (NOT saying that happened in this case), I can use something called "discretion". I can choose not to arrest or even charge you at all. Do you think I'm going to do that if you are completely uncooperative? No, if I find reason you are certainly going to jail.
I deal and talk with many people on a daily basis. I have friends who are not officers that I have lengthy discussions with on stuff like this. I tend to get a feeling about a person's attitudes toward law enforcement pretty quickly.
Queuetue you and I could point and counter-point for a very long time but I get the feeling that neither opinion will change. So will respect your opinion and hope that you will respect mine, even if you don't agree with what I do. As some advice, though, please use common sense on the street and cooperate, ESPECIALLY if you feel you did nothing wrong. You are really only hurting your chances of getting off with a warning by making the officer's job more difficult than it already is.
Your absolutely right, I failed to clarify that. There are many many ways in a given situation to figure out someone's name.
In this situation, the deputy could run the registration of the truck, and with the owner's name you can then run a driver's license check on that owner. Assuming that this guy owns the truck. If he doesn't want to say, again most states list physical descriptors in the driving record so if it matches up one can be reasonably assured this is the person your dealing with. I think that would have worked just fine given this situation.
If that doesn't work you can ask the daughter. You can even explain to her that her dad might go to jail if she doesn't give up his name. (Even if the deputy has NO INTENTION AT ALL to take him to jail) Trickery and deceit are valid tools for law enforcement to use. (As long as we are not entraping people, or making threats or promises to gain admissions or confessions.) While some of you may feel that telling the daughter her dad might go to jail is a threat, in fact it is not. It is not self-incrimination for her to tell her dad's name, nor is it a threat against HER in any way.
There are usually many ways to get name. But, in fact, failing any other ways to get his name, if I determine NO crime has been committed, he will be released. Of course I might be a little bit worked up about dealing with someone who is that uncooperative, but it will pass. It happens all the time to officers. They might not be happy about it, but mostly because they are frustrated.
But it will take LONGER to release someone who won't give their name because I'm trying to use all the tools available to me to find it out. If you think you didn't do anything wrong, and know you don't have any open warrants, then why in the world would you want to make the contact last longer??? Just to prove a point? Ok, but most people have better things to do.
And lastly again I can only speak for Maryland laws, which are certainly different from those out west. But as a piece of advice, if you are ever arrested you should give your full name and identifying information. If you do not, you will be a "John Doe" (or Jane). Generally a few hours after your arrest (at least in my jurisdiction), you are presented before a commissioner and presented with the charges against you. At that point, the commissioner decides on weather to PR you and release you on your promise to come to court, hold you on a bond, or hold you without bond.
If you won't tell who you are, they are not going to think that you will come to court. If they don't think that you will come, they will hold you until your court date! (Or set a high dollar bond - but unlikely if they don't know anything about you) Your court date is generally 1.5 months away, sometimes more. It makes no sense to sit in jail that whole time just because you won't give your name to make a point. But again that really only applies AFTER you are under arrest, so it's a little bit of different situation.
Hope that clarifies my first post a little. Good point Alsee.
1st: In Maryland, failure to obey the lawful order of a Police Officer is a misdemeanor offense. The lawful order is to exit your vehicle since the tow truck driver has lawful possession of your vehicle, and you are preventing him from lawfully driving away (since you are in the vehicle). That is the crime. The only question the officers have to answer in their heads is, "did the tow driver have lawful possession?"
2nd: You are then resisting arrest. Since their is a crime being committed in the presence of the officer, he can use reasonable, necessary force to arrest you. Breaking a window is not excessive in this case if your doors are locked.
Not saying that I would have done this. If you were a smartass or in any way an asshole, you'd have your window broken and be extracted. But, if you were as you say polite and cool about it, my response to the tow driver would be drop the vehicle and take it up in civil court for your tow fee.
Sounds to me like you were being a smart-ass though... "Officer, I want to inform you that this conversation is being recorded, and anything you say or do could be used against you in a civil court of law. (HA! I just read him his rights!)"
Hrmmm, would have been interesting to see how your case would have played out in court.
This is probably a bad place to post my opinions after looking at the feeling of the majority here. But everyone is entitled to their opinions, and everyone bases their opinions about police officers on their personal experiences. Unfortunately many things that officers routinely do is often misunderstood by those interacting with them. But I don't really have the time to get into that.
Concerning this case: I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience. Unfortunately I believe that he could have handled this call in a better way.
This is an example of how I like to think I would handle a call of this nature. (If I was ALONE WITHOUT backup on the scene)
D: Sir, step back here and talk to me.
H: Ok
D: Listen, I'm here because we got a call about some fighting out here, what's going on?
H: Nothing I'm not parked illegally.
D: Ok sir can I see your driver's license please?
H: Nope, no way, no how.
D: Do you have any ID on you?
H: None that I'm going to show you.
D: Ok listen, I want to know who you are and I want to go check on that person in the truck. I want to make sure your not going to run off so please give me your ID.
H: Why?
D: I'm not going to leave you back here without knowing who you are or having some other way of making sure your not going to attack me or run off. You know who I am, but I don't know you from a mass murderer. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but for my safety I like to know who I'm dealing with.
H: Not showing you nothing!
D: Ok sir if you don't cooperate with me I'm going to place you in investigative detention, which means for my safety while I figure out what is going on, I'm going to put some cuffs on you and sit you down while I conduct my investigation.
H: What are you investigating?
D: A call for an assault or domestic violence.
H: Why don't you just take me to jail now? Here. (Holds out hands)
D: Ok sir put your hands behind your back, understand that your not under arrest but being detained. (cuffs and sits him on the ground)
D: (approaches truck and talks to daughter)
At that point I figure out that their has PROBABLY not been an assault because both stories (obtained seperately from the two parties) seems to match up. However, as a good law enforcement officer, it does not end there. There could be something going on here that is not readily apparent. Daughter could be not talking because she thinks dad is going to beat her (it does happen!) Daughter could not be daughter at all, but kidnapped or a runaway being harbored by this guy. Somebody called the police for a reason! I will not end my investigation until I check both names for local warrants and the national computer for warrants, missing, etc, etc. Once I am satisfied that everything is on the up-and-up, I release pops from the cuffs and everyone goes on their way. With a proper warning to pops not to drive since he is intoxicated.
Again, it's easy for me to say what I would have done having ALREADY SEEN what happened. This officer was trying to do the right thing although perhaps got a little too caught up on the whole ID thing.
The moral is: Fine, if you don't want to tell me anything about anything, you will sit there in cuffs till I figure out what is going on. If nothing, your free to go. If something, THEN your under arrest. People tend to assume as soon as cuffs go on that you are under arrest. This is not always the case, and as an officer I always tell people: you're not under arrest yet, but you're also not free to go. You are in what's called investigative detention. At this point it's basically for an officer's safety, and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. An officer can hold a suspect there on the scene for a "reasonable" amount of time to figure out what's happening.
In this case, I believe that the deputy has reasonable suspicion to detain the father. 1st- the call for domestic battery. 2nd- intoxicated, somewhat belligerent man s
Slashdot Mirror
"WHAT!?! IANAL, and I don't deal with the police on a regular basis, but I can't imagine that threatening a loved one and lying in the manner described above could be construed as anything but coersion. And you clearly are making an implied threat and promise in the above scenario - give up the name or the old man goes to the clink. Especially when there is no legal basis for taking the man to jail for not giving up his name. I'd hope a half-decent lawyer could get the case thrown out based on this kind of information gathering - but maybe I'm just ignorant."
Coercion for giving a name? You have a right against self-incrimination, which is why you are read your Miranda rights (to remain silent, etc) before questioning about crimes. Daughter has nothing to lose -- she is not going to incriminate herself in any way. NOR is she going to incriminate her father. A NAME IS NOT INCRIMINATING, according to any and every case law and every statute that I know of. I have never heard of charging someone with a crime because of their name. [Unless your name is Bill Gates, then maybe you should be! ;) ] They may have committed a crime, but the name is not the crime. Of course the daughter can choose not to say anything and call my bluff. Then dad goes free, without knowing who he is.
Also understand that this would not be my first choice, obviously. I'm not going straight to trying to trick the daughter. I was really just offering that as a last resort. I doubt that in this case that would have been necessary.
I consider this along the same lines as having two murder accomplices in seperate interrogations, and telling one that the other spilled the beans. Sure its a trick, but it works and they wouldn't talk otherwise. Obviously in that example the suspects would have been fully advised of their rights before questioning.
Having outstanding warrants is NOT testifying against yourself. Having a warrant means that you have been accused of a crime -- you then can choose not to testify -- and you have a right to confront your accussers and ask questions of them in court. Checking a name for warrants really in no way says anything about the person being checked - it is standard procedure that most officers just to make sure. Even if I don't think that the 65 year old grandma that I just pulled over is likely to have a warrant, I gotta check.
How would it look if grandma had an open warrant for terrorist activity and went on to bomb something. Then I'm REALLY in a jam for not having checked her and it makes it look like officers aren't doing their jobs.
I agree with you that you have rights and I respect them. If you or anyone else wants to make their contact with me last longer by clamming up and not saying ANYTHING, that's fine. I get paid either way, and I do the best job I can either way.
BTW, I'm loving this thread. You guys are great for asking questions and making reasonable statements and expressing in a reasonable way!
Heh. I don't know about the laws where cops are called "beefs", but here where they are called "pigs", you can't charge someone with a crime like that without a victim. Since the woman is long gone that's probably why they let you go. They can still stop and check you out though. ***Hrrmm... I think my blood donut level is low, I need a 12-pack!
I will agree to that. I think ultimately arrest based solely on failure to produce ID is unreasonable.
However, in an investigative detention, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has ALREADY happened, and that the person stopped is likley involved. This is different because it IS a cutodial situation, but only up until the point where it is determined that a crime has not occurred.
A different example of this would be if a shooting had just occurred, and witnesses gave the responding officers a description of the suspect. Other officers in the area are going to be looking for people matching this description, and stop them. These people are NOT immediately free to leave -- if they were then officers would certainly be unable to solve anything. They will be placed in investigative detention until it is somehow determined they are not involved. (Often by driving a victim to them to see if the victim can ID them - that's when PROBABLE CAUSE is then established to arrest) That is a much more cut-and-dry example of investigative detention. These suspects cannot be tranported to the station or jail, and cannot be held for an "unreasonable" amount of time. But it is ridiculous to say that an officer should let this potentially violent subject stand around not in handcuffs. So it is mostly for everyone's safety.
The case in question though is admittedly a borderline case of when investigative detention should be used. However in my experience, if I am alone as an officer and have an intoxicated individual who I believe may have assaulted someone, I don't feel comfortable having them at my back while I question potential victims or witnesses. Like I said, it's often in the phrasing of your reports and statements -- I'm a reasonably intelligent person and can articulate reaons why I would place someone in investigative detention in this case.
Also your statement that Terry only allows for a modicum of questions, etc is true... however in this case it's not really a Terry stop. But beyond that, even if I determine that no ASSAULT has occurred, I have still not determined that no crime has occurred. I will hold the dad in investigative detention for really what would amount to about 5 minutes afterwards to determine that nothing else is going on. Because it is an unusual situation. I can't hold dad for hours or anything. It's all about what's reasonable.
And finally, yes I'll probably be sued. Any officer can stick their head in the sand and sit on their hands and not do anything to fight crime. Any GOOD officer will be proactive and observant and use tools like Terry stops, etc. Those officers are more likely to be sued. There's a reason cases like Terry and others go to the Supreme Court; they are on the edge of legality... Are they unreasonable search and seizure??? So any good officer gets sued. It's a pain personally but a necessary part of the job; and I will prevail if I can state the reasons for what I did and not violate people's rights. The only problem is that we live in such a litigious society that most people are just suing to get some money, not because they actually feel their rights were violated.
You wrote "If you ask me to show you papers, and I say no, then the answer is no. I'm not required to testify against myself - thats the fifth amendment"
Not trying to be a smartass here at all, but please explain to me how giving an officer your name and birthdate could be a form of self-incrimination? Your name is just that - a name, not giving information about a crime or confessing to a crime. You specifically state if I ask you for papers -- you will say no. Ok, that's FINE! But at some point I'm going to want to know who you are... And often even if I have probable cause to arrest someone (NOT saying that happened in this case), I can use something called "discretion". I can choose not to arrest or even charge you at all. Do you think I'm going to do that if you are completely uncooperative? No, if I find reason you are certainly going to jail.
I deal and talk with many people on a daily basis. I have friends who are not officers that I have lengthy discussions with on stuff like this. I tend to get a feeling about a person's attitudes toward law enforcement pretty quickly.
Queuetue you and I could point and counter-point for a very long time but I get the feeling that neither opinion will change. So will respect your opinion and hope that you will respect mine, even if you don't agree with what I do. As some advice, though, please use common sense on the street and cooperate, ESPECIALLY if you feel you did nothing wrong. You are really only hurting your chances of getting off with a warning by making the officer's job more difficult than it already is.
In this situation, the deputy could run the registration of the truck, and with the owner's name you can then run a driver's license check on that owner. Assuming that this guy owns the truck. If he doesn't want to say, again most states list physical descriptors in the driving record so if it matches up one can be reasonably assured this is the person your dealing with. I think that would have worked just fine given this situation.
If that doesn't work you can ask the daughter. You can even explain to her that her dad might go to jail if she doesn't give up his name. (Even if the deputy has NO INTENTION AT ALL to take him to jail) Trickery and deceit are valid tools for law enforcement to use. (As long as we are not entraping people, or making threats or promises to gain admissions or confessions.) While some of you may feel that telling the daughter her dad might go to jail is a threat, in fact it is not. It is not self-incrimination for her to tell her dad's name, nor is it a threat against HER in any way.
There are usually many ways to get name. But, in fact, failing any other ways to get his name, if I determine NO crime has been committed, he will be released. Of course I might be a little bit worked up about dealing with someone who is that uncooperative, but it will pass. It happens all the time to officers. They might not be happy about it, but mostly because they are frustrated.
But it will take LONGER to release someone who won't give their name because I'm trying to use all the tools available to me to find it out. If you think you didn't do anything wrong, and know you don't have any open warrants, then why in the world would you want to make the contact last longer??? Just to prove a point? Ok, but most people have better things to do.
And lastly again I can only speak for Maryland laws, which are certainly different from those out west. But as a piece of advice, if you are ever arrested you should give your full name and identifying information. If you do not, you will be a "John Doe" (or Jane). Generally a few hours after your arrest (at least in my jurisdiction), you are presented before a commissioner and presented with the charges against you. At that point, the commissioner decides on weather to PR you and release you on your promise to come to court, hold you on a bond, or hold you without bond.
If you won't tell who you are, they are not going to think that you will come to court. If they don't think that you will come, they will hold you until your court date! (Or set a high dollar bond - but unlikely if they don't know anything about you) Your court date is generally 1.5 months away, sometimes more. It makes no sense to sit in jail that whole time just because you won't give your name to make a point. But again that really only applies AFTER you are under arrest, so it's a little bit of different situation.
Hope that clarifies my first post a little. Good point Alsee.
2nd: You are then resisting arrest. Since their is a crime being committed in the presence of the officer, he can use reasonable, necessary force to arrest you. Breaking a window is not excessive in this case if your doors are locked.
Not saying that I would have done this. If you were a smartass or in any way an asshole, you'd have your window broken and be extracted. But, if you were as you say polite and cool about it, my response to the tow driver would be drop the vehicle and take it up in civil court for your tow fee.
Sounds to me like you were being a smart-ass though... "Officer, I want to inform you that this conversation is being recorded, and anything you say or do could be used against you in a civil court of law. (HA! I just read him his rights!)"
Hrmmm, would have been interesting to see how your case would have played out in court.
Concerning this case: I believe that the deputy is probably a good officer with good intentions, as most officers are based on my experience. Unfortunately I believe that he could have handled this call in a better way. This is an example of how I like to think I would handle a call of this nature. (If I was ALONE WITHOUT backup on the scene)
D: Sir, step back here and talk to me. H: Ok D: Listen, I'm here because we got a call about some fighting out here, what's going on? H: Nothing I'm not parked illegally. D: Ok sir can I see your driver's license please? H: Nope, no way, no how. D: Do you have any ID on you? H: None that I'm going to show you. D: Ok listen, I want to know who you are and I want to go check on that person in the truck. I want to make sure your not going to run off so please give me your ID. H: Why? D: I'm not going to leave you back here without knowing who you are or having some other way of making sure your not going to attack me or run off. You know who I am, but I don't know you from a mass murderer. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but for my safety I like to know who I'm dealing with. H: Not showing you nothing! D: Ok sir if you don't cooperate with me I'm going to place you in investigative detention, which means for my safety while I figure out what is going on, I'm going to put some cuffs on you and sit you down while I conduct my investigation. H: What are you investigating? D: A call for an assault or domestic violence. H: Why don't you just take me to jail now? Here. (Holds out hands) D: Ok sir put your hands behind your back, understand that your not under arrest but being detained. (cuffs and sits him on the ground) D: (approaches truck and talks to daughter)
At that point I figure out that their has PROBABLY not been an assault because both stories (obtained seperately from the two parties) seems to match up. However, as a good law enforcement officer, it does not end there. There could be something going on here that is not readily apparent. Daughter could be not talking because she thinks dad is going to beat her (it does happen!) Daughter could not be daughter at all, but kidnapped or a runaway being harbored by this guy. Somebody called the police for a reason! I will not end my investigation until I check both names for local warrants and the national computer for warrants, missing, etc, etc. Once I am satisfied that everything is on the up-and-up, I release pops from the cuffs and everyone goes on their way. With a proper warning to pops not to drive since he is intoxicated.
Again, it's easy for me to say what I would have done having ALREADY SEEN what happened. This officer was trying to do the right thing although perhaps got a little too caught up on the whole ID thing.
The moral is: Fine, if you don't want to tell me anything about anything, you will sit there in cuffs till I figure out what is going on. If nothing, your free to go. If something, THEN your under arrest. People tend to assume as soon as cuffs go on that you are under arrest. This is not always the case, and as an officer I always tell people: you're not under arrest yet, but you're also not free to go. You are in what's called investigative detention. At this point it's basically for an officer's safety, and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. An officer can hold a suspect there on the scene for a "reasonable" amount of time to figure out what's happening.
In this case, I believe that the deputy has reasonable suspicion to detain the father. 1st- the call for domestic battery. 2nd- intoxicated, somewhat belligerent man s