Police procedure question (1 Viewer)

[dennis63]

You ALWAYS have the right to remain silent.

In my state (Delaware), the law specifically states that if a police officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person out in public has committed a crime or is about to, the officer may stop the person and ask them their name, their destination and their "business about," or reason for being in the area.

If the person answers the officer's questions and resolves the suspicion, the officer may end the encounter. If the person's answers do not resolve the officer's suspicions, the officer may further detain the person in order to investigate further. The detention may only last "for a reasonable time," before the person stopped must be released or charged with the commission of a crime. The courts have held that the "reasonable time" is up to two hours.

Refusing to answer by "remaining silent" would arouse more suspicioin from even the most sympathetic officer, and would accomplish nothing other than lengthening the time you are detained before the police eventually figure out that you were not involved in any crime.

The "right to remain silent" is a protection against self-incrimination during custody and interrogation by police. You have the right not to answer specific questions regarding your involvement in a crime. Your right to remain silent does not extend to identifying yourself to an officer when stopped in public.

The police may have received intelligence that a vehicle similar to this woman's truck was being used to transport drugs. Her innocent nervous reaction may have heightened the officer's suspicion, and his request to sit in the police car is a sure sign he was going to request a search and did not want her in the truck or out on the highway where she could be hit, especially if he were alone and could not watch her the entire time.

If a person is stopped and has a real fear that something about the stop or the officer is amiss, their first call should be to 911, not to a relative 1,000 miles away.

I LOVED the post suggesting the police might plant evidence. Throughout a 25-year police career, it never occurred to me or my colleagues to "plant" evidence. We would have to move and dispose of all the real evidence first, which would have been just too much trouble, and some really heavy lifting in some cases.

 

[gopherblue]

Not sure what you’re getting at there, buddy.

But I’ve personally never driven drunk, touched weed or any other illegal drug, or transported illegally imported meerkats across state lines.

I’ve never been to Belize....

 

[Coyote]

Oops I misunderstood the situation as this happened to my wife 1,000 miles from our home on her way to visit family. It was a city police officer not a highway patrol officer who pulled her over on I-80 for "following too closely". She was by herself. The officer asked her to get out and sit in his car several times but when she said no each time he took her license and papers back to the car and then she called me. She was upset by this and wanted me on the line. The officer returned and gave her a warning and then started asking her questions:

Officer: Where are you going?
Wife: To visit my sister in law and her family in Iowa

Officer: What do you do for a living?
Wife: Describes job.

Officer: Where do you work?
Wife: Tells him where she works.

Officer: Where did you stay last night?
Wife: At a camp ground.

Officer: Was the camp ground busy?
Wife: Kind of???

Office: Do you have other vehicles?
Wife: Yes I have a 4-runner

Office: Why would you be driving this truck? Big trucks like this get terrible mileage.
Wife: I have a smoker in the back for the brother in law and some skis.

Officer: It doesn't make sense for you to be driving this truck so far.

Office: How long have you had the skis?
Wife: I don't know maybe a year. Why

Officer: You are behaving suspiciously and we need to search your truck.

She is crying by now and asks me what to do. I tell her that if I were there with her I would say no to the search but as she is alone and far from home so I don't know.

A second officer joins and asks if she is ok. She tells him that the first office wanted her to get into his car. The first officer thrn says that he only asked once as a courtesy so that they did not have to yell over the road noise and denies pressing the issue.

I hear one of them then ask:
Do you have meth in the truck?
Wife: No

Officer: Do you have cocaine in the truck?
Wife: No

Officero you have anything illegal in the truck?
Wife:No-I don't know why this is happening. As she is sobbing.

The second officer then says that they need to inspect the back of the truck. My truck came with a locking bed cover which has to be unlocked.
I can't tell what is said as they move to the back of the truck.

One of the officers says:
What is that?
Wife: It is a radio controlled monster truck for my nephew.

They peer over the back of the truck without even opening the smoker or the sealed tote that I filled with wood chips.
I can't hear their last comments and then they drive off.
They both leave and she and I talk while she tries to collect herself.
I tell her that we will try to do something about this but that she needs to eat a little something and get a cold drink out of the cooler and get down the road and away from there.

Imagine her having a wrong skin color.

 

[Psypher1000]

Can you get in trouble for not answering their questions? Obviously there’s a middle ground but I don’t have a clue what it is lol

You are not required to discuss your day or goings-on with authorities. Even if arrested, Miranda tells us we have the right to remain silent.

Edit: While Miranda applies throughout the union, the rest may vary by state. Apparently some states may compell you to answer at least basic, initial questions.

 

[Beakertwang]

In my state (Delaware), the law specifically states that if a police officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person out in public has committed a crime or is about to, the officer may stop the person and ask them their name, their destination and their "business about," or reason for being in the area.

If the person answers the officer's questions and resolves the suspicion, the officer may end the encounter. If the person's answers do not resolve the officer's suspicions, the officer may further detain the person in order to investigate further. The detention may only last "for a reasonable time," before the person stopped must be released or charged with the commission of a crime. The courts have held that the "reasonable time" is up to two hours.

Refusing to answer by "remaining silent" would arouse more suspicioin from even the most sympathetic officer, and would accomplish nothing other than lengthening the time you are detained before the police eventually figure out that you were not involved in any crime.

The "right to remain silent" is a protection against self-incrimination during custody and interrogation by police. You have the right not to answer specific questions regarding your involvement in a crime. Your right to remain silent does not extend to identifying yourself to an officer when stopped in public.

The police may have received intelligence that a vehicle similar to this woman's truck was being used to transport drugs. Her innocent nervous reaction may have heightened the officer's suspicion, and his request to sit in the police car is a sure sign he was going to request a search and did not want her in the truck or out on the highway where she could be hit, especially if he were alone and could not watch her the entire time.

If a person is stopped and has a real fear that something about the stop or the officer is amiss, their first call should be to 911, not to a relative 1,000 miles away.

I LOVED the post suggesting the police might plant evidence. Throughout a 25-year police career, it never occurred to me or my colleagues to "plant" evidence. We would have to move and dispose of all the real evidence first, which would have been just too much trouble, and some really heavy lifting in some cases.

Thanks for your perspective, Dennis.

I didn’t mean to suggest that police regularly plant evidence, but some have (Gwinnett County, GA and Baltimore come to mind immediately), which means others will.
The Georgia case was interesting, as he was the friendliest Officer Friendly you’d ever encounter, but he pulled a lady over for bad taillights, got her permission to search, and planted meth, arrested her, and basically ruined her life. Plus, he won awards for his work arresting drug offenders, until he got caught, and they had to throw out dozens of convictions.

If they don’t have access to my vehicle, they can’t “find” anything.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

You are not required to discuss your day or goings-on with authorities. Even if arrested, Miranda tells us we have the right to remain silent.

Edit: While Miranda applies throughout the union, the rest may vary by state. Apparently some states may compell you to answer at least basic, initial questions.

Thanks yeah just thinking there must be some repercussions to not answering questions, obviously probably detaining you until they figure out the basics, maybe a fine?

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

2 things.
Never volunteer information.
Never consent to a search.

I don’t care how innocent you are. Never consent.

 

[chicubs1988]

Thanks yeah just thinking there must be some repercussions to not answering questions, obviously probably detaining you until they figure out the basics, maybe a fine?

So, this all depends on the jurisdiction you're in. Most require that you answer basic biographical questions and provide identification when requested. Additionally, in most states by accepting a driver's license and operating a vehicle on roadways you have given tacit consent to be subjected to a sobriety test in the event law enforcement have a reasonable suspicion you might be under the influence. Refusal to comply can result in legal or administrative consequences (such as losing your license, etc....)

There is no magical response. There's a lot of less than accurate "google lawyering" going on in this thread. Generally speaking, when asked by law enforcement to provide ID you should do it. When asked basic questions you should answer. Staring at the officer blankly or refusing to answer basic questions isn't going to result in the cop exclaiming "Damn, you've uncovered the secret!!!! I guess we'll just have to let you go." Instead you're just going to prolong the ordeal while he calls for backup or they wait for a drug dog to sniff around your car (which isn't a "search" constitutionally in a lot of jurisdictions).

In summary, politely answer the officer's basic questions. If they ask permission to search, politely respond, "If i have the option, I respectfully decline." If they continue to ask deeper questions seemingly for no reason, then ask what crime they suspect you of committing. The reality is you're not going to win a staring contest with the cop or settle a matter of constitutional law on the shoulder of the highway. Be polite, comply within reason, and if given the option to say "no" feel free to exercise that option.

 

[cpiaaq]

I’m late but will echo this is SOP BS fishing expedition. Been on the receiving end too many times

There is a Supreme Court case that concluded that its legal for the cop to ask you to exit your vehicle. Or forcibly remove you if you refuse.

 

[dennis63]

Thanks for your perspective, Dennis.

I didn’t mean to suggest that police regularly plant evidence, but some have (Gwinnett County, GA and Baltimore come to mind immediately), which means others will.
The Georgia case was interesting, as he was the friendliest Officer Friendly you’d ever encounter, but he pulled a lady over for bad taillights, got her permission to search, and planted meth, arrested her, and basically ruined her life. Plus, he won awards for his work arresting drug offenders, until he got caught, and they had to throw out dozens of convictions.

If they don’t have access to my vehicle, they can’t “find” anything.

I do not doubt the story. We must also keep in mind that everyone who is caught transporting drugs always says "the cops planted the drugs on me."

Mandatory, universal body camera use is coming very soon. It should have happened 10 years ago. After that, we'll see autonompus drones and robots that launch at police encounters to record everything at all angles. Sooner or later, all traffic tickets will be issued automatically by devices installed along or in the roadway. Later, self-driving vehicles will make it impossible to drive, or to commit a driving offense of any kind, and 90 percent of police encounters with the public will not even happen.

For the record, at the police academy I was taught that police officers have a sacred duty to protect the innocent from being falsely or mistakenly charged with a crime. As an instructor at the academy, I stressed this to over 1,000 officers.

 

[SixSpeedFury]

Oops I misunderstood the situation as this happened to my wife 1,000 miles from our home on her way to visit family. It was a city police officer not a highway patrol officer who pulled her over on I-80 for "following too closely". She was by herself. The officer asked her to get out and sit in his car several times but when she said no each time he took her license and papers back to the car and then she called me. She was upset by this and wanted me on the line. The officer returned and gave her a warning and then started asking her questions:

Officer: Where are you going?
Wife: To visit my sister in law and her family in Iowa

Officer: What do you do for a living?
Wife: Describes job.

Officer: Where do you work?
Wife: Tells him where she works.

Officer: Where did you stay last night?
Wife: At a camp ground.

Officer: Was the camp ground busy?
Wife: Kind of???

Office: Do you have other vehicles?
Wife: Yes I have a 4-runner

Office: Why would you be driving this truck? Big trucks like this get terrible mileage.
Wife: I have a smoker in the back for the brother in law and some skis.

Officer: It doesn't make sense for you to be driving this truck so far.

Office: How long have you had the skis?
Wife: I don't know maybe a year. Why

Officer: You are behaving suspiciously and we need to search your truck.

She is crying by now and asks me what to do. I tell her that if I were there with her I would say no to the search but as she is alone and far from home so I don't know.

A second officer joins and asks if she is ok. She tells him that the first office wanted her to get into his car. The first officer thrn says that he only asked once as a courtesy so that they did not have to yell over the road noise and denies pressing the issue.

I hear one of them then ask:
Do you have meth in the truck?
Wife: No

Officer: Do you have cocaine in the truck?
Wife: No

Officero you have anything illegal in the truck?
Wife:No-I don't know why this is happening. As she is sobbing.

The second officer then says that they need to inspect the back of the truck. My truck came with a locking bed cover which has to be unlocked.
I can't tell what is said as they move to the back of the truck.

One of the officers says:
What is that?
Wife: It is a radio controlled monster truck for my nephew.

They peer over the back of the truck without even opening the smoker or the sealed tote that I filled with wood chips.
I can't hear their last comments and then they drive off.
They both leave and she and I talk while she tries to collect herself.
I tell her that we will try to do something about this but that she needs to eat a little something and get a cold drink out of the cooler and get down the road and away from there.

That is 100% harassment and abuse of power. No probable cause and no search warrant? Those officers can fuck off.

 

[trigs]

Mandatory, universal body camera use is coming very soon.

I was discussing police using body cameras the other day and had some thoughts. First off, there has clearly been examples where police have a body camera and it was somehow coincidentally turned off when the alleged violence occurred. I really don't get how the police can just switch it on and off whenever they feel like it. Basically defeats the purpose of having one in the first place.

Second, let's consider an off-duty police officer who is out shopping one day and sees a crime being committed. This officer, despite being off-duty and obviously not wearing a body cam, can still use his/her authority and arrest the person committing a crime, correct? Therefore, if this is the case, I think it needs to go even further in transparency. Maybe it should be that police must always be wearing a body cam or something similar even while off-duty, or they should be stripped of their authority while off-duty and only have the same rights and powers of a regular citizen.

 

[dennis63]

I was discussing police using body cameras the other day and had some thoughts. First off, there has clearly been examples where police have a body camera and it was somehow coincidentally turned off when the alleged violence occurred. I really don't get how the police can just switch it on and off whenever they feel like it. Basically defeats the purpose of having one in the first place.

Second, let's consider an off-duty police officer who is out shopping one day and sees a crime being committed. This officer, despite being off-duty and obviously not wearing a body cam, can still use his/her authority and arrest the person committing a crime, correct? Therefore, if this is the case, I think it needs to go even further in transparency. Maybe it should be that police must always be wearing a body cam or something similar even while off-duty, or they should be stripped of their authority while off-duty and only have the same rights and powers of a regular citizen.

Both very good points. Two quick things:

1. You can't assume the equipment always works, or that the officer purposely did not turn the camera on because they were planning something sinister. Things explode quickly, and there may not be time or a free hand to turn the camera on. The best cameras are always on and can't be shut off during the shift

Most police equipment (portable radios, radar units, body cameras) are priced right around $5,000 for reasons having to do with legal bidding process requirements. So it's expensive stuff, and agencies get these things through federal grants. "Hey, a free $5,000 body camera! Sure, we'll take it," they say.

When it inevitably breaks or (as you say) starts acting finicky and doesn't work every time, the agency can't afford to fix it and really can't afford to replace it End result: it works like shit, but the officer will still be forced to use it. Anyone who has ever been in the military will know what I am talking about.

2. Any off-duty cop with two brain cells does not get into anything off-duty. That's a rookie mistake. Unless someone tries to murder the off-duty cop, no one should ever know who he or she is.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

1. You can't assume the equipment always works, or that the officer purposely did not turn the camera on because they were planning something sinister. Most police equipment (portable radios, radar units, body cameras) are priced right around $5,000 each because at $5,000, you don't need to put it out for bid. The agency can just buy it. Over $5,000, it has to go through a bidding process. So it's expensive stuff, and when it inevitably breaks (or as you say) starts acting finicky and doesn't work every time, the agency can't afford to fix it and really can't afford to replace it End result: it works like shit, but the officer will still be forced to use it. Anyone who has ever been in the military will know what I am talki g about.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but are you saying PDs would rather pay $5,000 for a video camera (yes I know there's more to it than just a video camera) and end up with no money leftover to fix or replace the broken equipment than not have to do a bid process? How difficult is this bid process???

 

[dennis63]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but are you saying PDs would rather pay $5,000 for a video camera (yes I know there's more to it than just a video camera) and end up with no money leftover to fix or replace the broken equipment than not have to do a bid process? How difficult is this bid process???

No. I'm saying the equipment manufacturer sets the price at $5,000 so the agency does not have to get three bids -- a requirement if the price is $5,001 or higher. That way, the agency can buy the one they want, and not the cheapest of 3 bids, and the manufacturer doesn't have to worry about being out-bid by two other companies. I did lots of grants. All the good equipment would always cost $5,000 a unit.

There's no money to fix or replace it, whatever "it" happens to be, because it was bought with a grant and did not cost the agency anything. But all the grant money was used to buy the equipment, and is now used up. There's never any money to fix or replace anything, ever.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

No. I'm saying the equipment manufacturer sets the price at $5,000 so the agency does not have to get three bids -- a requirement if the price is $5,001 or higher. That way, the agency can buy the one they want, and not the cheapest of 3 bids, and the manufacturer doesn't have to worry about being out-bid by two other companies. I did lots of grants. All the good equipment would always cost $5,000 a unit.

There's no money to fix or replace it, whatever "it" happens to be, because it was free anyway, ans there's no money ever.

Mmmm still have the same quandary but i'll chalk it up to bureaucracy. It seems like working body cams would be one of the easier items to get a budget increase for though. Will say I've seen plenty, though I'm sure it's overall a small %, of the instances @trigs mentioned where it was manually turned off/not recording. Seems like anytime they're on duty it should be recording if it's actually working.

 

[Beakertwang]

No. I'm saying the equipment manufacturer sets the price at $5,000 so the agency does not have to get three bids -- a requirement if the price is $5,001 or higher. That way, the agency can buy the one they want, and not the cheapest of 3 bids, and the manufacturer doesn't have to worry about being out-bid by two other companies. I did lots of grants. All the good equipment would always cost $5,000 a unit.

There's no money to fix or replace it, whatever "it" happens to be, because it was free anyway, ans there's never any money to fix or replace anything, ever.

Wow, that seems like a great deal for everyone involved. Except of course, for the taxpayers.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Have a buddy whose dad was a police chief of a pretty big town so maybe I'll pick his brain. Would be interesting though likely depressing to learn how the sausage is made.

 

[ekricket]

Do you have to ask if you are free to go? I would assume just driving off would lead to possible consequences.

yeah I’m not saying go silent and drive off, I’m saying that once the traffic stop is over the only thing I’m saying is “am I free to go?” Or “is this traffic stop finished?” Especially if he’s wearing a body cam. I want the response recorded.

per “following too close” ask the police on camera how fast you were going. Then ask them what the proper following distance is for that speed. Get the answers on camera, because odds are one of those answers is going to be “I don’t know”. It may not get you off, but it may help.

 

[cpiaaq]

Following too close could be an “excuse” to initiate the stop/fishing expedition. Was watching a “cops” style show and one officer was pulling everyone over for “driving a little left of center”. Of course each stop escalated to a search and found drugs, guns, etc. (the ones that didn’t wouldn’t make the shiow)

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Not sure if its "legal" but got waved over by a state trooper once who was waiting on the side of the road past a toll booth and it was because my "sticker was about to expire next week". Might have well been a stop and frisk.

 

[WedgeRock]

Not sure if its "legal" but got waved over by a state trooper once who was waiting on the side of the road past a toll booth and it was because my "sticker was about to expire next week". Might have well been a stop and frisk.

Well, that, and you looked like you might steal something next month.

 

[aaronroch]

I can’t believe so many of you guys think anything unusual happened in this traffic stop. For my family members who sport brown skin this sounds like a pretty routine interaction, not really even worth mentioning.

 

[Beakertwang]

I can’t believe so many of you guys think anything unusual happened in this traffic stop. For my family members who sport brown skin this sounds like a pretty routine interaction, not really even worth mentioning.

And it needs to change.

 

[aaronroch]

Meh, I think they would be happy with a lot less. Like, (as one example among too many to relate), not having the whole family, 3 young cute kids included, pulled out of the car (a bmw) and questioned individually while on their way from church to a park on a Sunday morning. This particular example was in Fresno, CA.

 

[aaronroch]

I apologize. I’m derailing this thread with politics.
But I agree with the posters who are saying there is nothing at all you can complain about here in any way that would be effective at alll.

 

[Beakertwang]

Meh, I think they would be happy with a lot less. Like, (as one example among too many to relate), not having the whole family, 3 young cute kids included, pulled out of the car (a bmw) and questioned individually while on their way from church to a park on a Sunday morning. This particular example was in Fresno, CA.

You almost make it sound like nothing can be done, so we should just capitulate.

 

[aaronroch]

Just tired, I guess.

I’m happy to talk about it but this isn’t the right place. OP is understandably upset and came here asking for advice, and commentary on police treatment of minorities isn’t what he is looking for, I’m sure: I shouldn’t have brought it up.

@Lars , fwiw the commentary from the one lawyer who replied sounds 100% on the mark to me.

 

[Frogzilla]

Just finished Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Talking to Strangers” (thanks for the rental @CraigT78 ). He devoted a good bit of it to analyzing the merits of this style of policing, which he referred to as “going beyond the ticket.” Using trivial offenses as means to proactively patrol and investigate otherwise innocent seeming civilians. It was effective in a high crime area KC in the 90s, and since then has become widespread. His conclusion is the resulting crime prevention may well be worth the intrusion to liberty in high crime area, and the civilians in such areas more tolerant as they readily see the benefits. However, in the vast majority of areas (like, undoubtedly, where OP’s wife was) it does next to nothing for crime prevention and just angers/frustrates the multitudes who were subjected to unwarranted investigations

Good book.

 

[Coyote]

Justice-led and Intelligence-led policing are a lot more effective. This is acknowledged internationally, including in international police cooperation schemes where the US does participate (on the federal level, though).
If you want to cut down on burglaries or car thefts (e.g.), make sure the thieves won't find the criminal networks to sell their booty.