One Good Cop

[Robert Thomas]

TJR



You choose to impose a Strike. You right, its your baseball game.



I choose not to. The contact took close to three minutes. The first minute was spent by the individual by not immediately complying with the law, had he said "Officer, in compliance with the law the weapon is not loaded, check it if you like", the contact would have been over very quickly. After the weapon was checked and promptly returned to the individual. About 30 sec. The officer asked for identification, the individual said he didn't have any. The officer asked his name and the individual refused to give it. The officer had a right to ask, the individual had a right to refuse. Took about 30 sec. The last minute was spent with officer making sure the individual had his name right and pleasantries. They left with a handshake.



The officer left having done his duty by responding to the call and assured the firearm was not loaded. His duty. The individual could have asked to leave at anytime after the firearm was returned. He knew the law but did not ask. He stood and carried on a conversation because he wanted the contact.



At one point the officer told the individual he had to give the name information. This was a mistake on his part. I think he reverted back to a offense contact rather that a non-criminal contact. He quickly abandon this statement. But, you consider this a Strike. OK



30 days without pay because you choose to agree with a dissenting opinion and because you think T v O "doesn't seem" to apply. Just don't understand.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Right, the officer was incorrect in stating that the person had to provide his name. The officer was also stepping beyond his duties in asking for identification after finding the weapon was unloaded. These are essentially the two strikes I mentioned, and you seem to agree that there really was no reason for the officer to do these two things (and I agree that it is not illegal for the officer to do so, nor does the person stopped need to comply).



The 30 days without pay, or some type of reprimand for the officer should be carried out for this case, IMHO, to drive the message to the officer and drive it clearly that there was no legal reason for the officer to infringe on this person's right to privacy (the first strike), and then to make it clear in the future not to BS or misstate what a citizen must legally do (the second strike) when he said he must verbally identify. That's crap, and to me it makes it sounds like he either doesn't know the law or was trying to make up his own law...either way, big time strike.



I feel very strongly about this. Obviously you don't. You seem to have taken the attitude of "no harm, no foul", and downplay the incident by indicating how short the time was that the officer inconvenienced this person. To those things, the way I see it is, they don't matter. The questions should have never been asked, and again, the only reason to ask the questions (IMHO) are to troll; to try to find something else this person might have done; whatever. There is no other REASON for him to ask this person's name or to inquire for id. Whether there is malice or not, or whether the person was inconvenienced or not, to me, is not the issue.



When someone is doing know wrong they have a right to privacy, period. Every police officer should both understand that, and their actions should display that understanding. This officer's actions did not.



Again, you have given no reason as to why T v O applies to the first video. None.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR



You have made up your mind. No amount of reason or case law will change it. I am not your research department. If you use dissenting opinions on the law as justifications, why bother to provide you simple case law. You are capable of reading T v O and understanding how it applies if you wish. If in your esteem legal opinion it is not applicable, OK with me. Terry is taught in every basic law enforcement course throughout the land, its implications are easy to understand.



Ever wonder why the officer wasn't suspended?



Ever wonder why the individual didn't file harassment charges?



You were so quick to condemn the officer for violating individual rights for even stopping the individual and checking the weapon. You spoke without even knowing the law.



You violated the Officer's Constitutional Rights by false accusations and slander. I am appalled at your actions trampling this Officer's good name, a veteran at that.



God this has been a fun day.

 

[Robert Thomas]

Good Night. My wife says I have to take my meds and go to bed now.



:bwahaha:

 

[Kevin Lang]

You violated the Officer's Constitutional Rights by false accusations and slander.

The accusations aren't false, but even if they were, how would they violate his Constitutional rights?

Ever wonder why the officer wasn't suspended?



Ever wonder why the individual didn't file harassment charges?

Do we know that the officer wasn't suspended, or that the individual did not file harassment charges? If he truly was not suspended, then I know I would wonder why because he should have been. A private citizen breaking the law is heinous, but a law enforcement officer breaking the law and lying about the nature of laws is especially pernicious and is improper to let slide. A cynic would be lead to believe that if no disciplinary action were taken against this officer that the pop culture idea that the law enforcement sodality is so tight-knit that it protects its own members at the expense of the law. I'd like to think that this isn't the case, but my hope ebbs when I see things like this video.



Like TJR, I'd like to know how Terry v. Ohio applies. Since it has been asserted that California law allows open carry citizens to be interrogated & inspected, mentioning that case seems superfluous.

 

[Jacob Dryer]

I can't really comment on a lot of this as I'm not very well versed in law. (Or even google law for that matter) but I do know that Police can lie to you. So telling him that he has to tell the officer his name really isn't against the law as I understand it.



If the police coerced him into some kind of confession, then there would be an issue.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Your last post to me seems like a duck and cover, I am sorry to say.



I admitted I wasn't keyed into the CA law of being able to check if a gun is loaded. I admitted that my so-called strike 1 against the cop wasn't valid. I admitted that, I am man enough to admit I was off "half cocked" on that one item; but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.



You kept saying that T vs O applies. I've asked you to indicate WHY you think it does. I've asked several times. You have failed to indicate WHY you believe that it does.



I've indicated several times why I feel that T vs O does NOT apply. I'm not saying that T v O is a bad law. I'm not saying that at all. I have issues with it, but it is the law of the land, so I will stand by it.



What I was saying was that it doesn't apply to this case. The reason it does not apply is because FOR IT to apply the officer has to have a reasonable suspicion/belief that a crime was committed, is being committed, or will be committed.



So, I will ask you a specific question, or two, or three:



Q1: Explain to me what reasonable suspicion/belief the officer has that the person stopped was/is/will be associated with a past, current, or future crime?



Q2. If the police officer had such a suspicion/belief, don't you think he would be REQUIRED by his duties to get the person's identity?



Q3. Don't you think that the fact that the officer in fact DID NOT force the issue and did not get the person's identity signal that said officer, in fact, had no reasonable suspicion/belief of any crime on the part of the stopped person?



P.S. I never falsely accused the officer of anything. To falsely accuse is akin to lying. One has to accuse someone of something that they know NOT TO BE TRUE. That was not the case. I accused the officer of three things. One thing I was in error on. The other two, well, a spade is a spade.



As for me speaking without knowing the law, well, I'm posting on a public forum, so whoppity sh!t. The officer, on the other hand spoke, without knowing the law, or spoke by misleading/misstating the law when he told the person that they needed to verbally identify themselves. Which is the bigger issue here? Really! I'm not a LOE, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just an angry guy on the Internet. The cop should know and enforce the laws better than I, I would submit. In this case, got one of the three points wrong. He got two out of three wrong (IMHO).



T v O may or may not be good case law. That's not my point. My point, and you seem to not want to touch it so I guess it is valid, is that T v O doesn't seem to apply here.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JD,



I didn't say that lying was against the law. However, compelling someone to identify themselves when they are not suspected of any wrong-doing is, in fact, unconstitutional.



People who have broken no laws and who are not suspected of breaking a law (or believed about to break a law) have a right to privacy. They cannot be forced to identify themselves, and (IMHO) it is harassment for a LEO to try to make them... via whatever means.



TJR

 

[Jacob Dryer]

What I'm saying is it was lawful (apparently) for the officer to stop him and verify that his weapon was indeed empty. And at that point he was lying as much as he wanted to get whatever info he could out of the guy, trolling.. (legally, again I think...)



I'm not saying that it's right, and I for sure don't agree with it, if it was me I'd be pissed at the cop for wasting my time. Unfortunately, any time the law gets involved, you give up all expectation of anything being done in a timely manner. It's another thing that I wish wasn't the case but I'm not sure it's any kind of violation of my rights.. it just sucks.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JD,



Agreed. It was lawful for the officer to stop and assure the weapon wasn't loaded. I've not been attempting to contradict that since I have been educated on the CA law.



However, from that point on (once it was determined the gun was empty), if lying to get an ID, or if telling the truth to get the ID, it doesn't make a difference. The LEO is arguably harassing the person at that point, and attempting to infringe on their constitutional rights.



The rights in question in this situation is right to privacy.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Good Morning - What a beautiful day in Florida.



Terry v Ohio

Justice White - Supreme Court Judge - "There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets."

This is a previous post you choose not to accept. Your right. No doubt, I will be accused of "troddening again":



Q1

The reasonable belief statement came from US Legal.com, it is not mine. It was used to help TJR with this statement. Quote:a police officer can't enforce laws based on a "belief" that someone is doing something legal.



I never said it had anything to do with this case.

This is a previous post you choose not to accept. Your right. No doubt ,I will be accused of "troddening again":



Q2

This question has nothing to do with the case since no belief existed. To use you question. He is not required to get a name. If it is a detainable offense and the individual would not give a name then he could arrest for the offense and let the court sort it out.



Q3

Can you show me where I said a belief existed. Once again. The report presented just in response to you "Belief" statement. It had nothing to do with the case. You and others chose to induce it.

As for me speaking without knowing the law, well, I'm posting on a public forum, so whoppity sh!t.

I'm just an angry guy on the Internet.

That's good enough for me. We finally agree.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Okay, now I see you seem to be cherry picking things which is not necessarily a bad thing. What Justice White says above, is true, and a common understanding and something I agree with... a LEO can ask anyone anything as part of a normal stop. However, in this case there was no legal basis for the person stopped to comply with answers, and because of that and because the questions verged on harassment and rights violations I feel they had no reason to be asked. The cop had no purpose in asking them, IMHO. That, to me, makes him a bad cop in that situation. I'm not debating that the policeman can't ask the questions. Surely, he can ask anything he wants, and that ability isn't provided by T v O, in this case, or any case. The White was simply commenting on a matter of fact, not opinion, that applies to any legal stop. More on why T v O doesn't apply below...



You answered Q2 by indicating that no "belief" of a crime existed by the cop within the video. If that is the case, then T v O doesn't apply in that first video, and the opinions of the judges that weighed in on that case seem rather moot to me.



Regarding Q3 answer, again, I submit to you that the cornerstone of T v O is that "belief." Without that belief their is not legal basis for the LEO to seek identification. So, since that belief is not an element of the first video as you now so clearly agree, T v O, though interesting case law, has no bearing on the first video. Stray opinion comments picked from judges commenting on the case are rather inpertinent.



The fact that you pulled a judges opinion quote from T v O and it seems to apply for questioning a stopped person isn't really pertinent, IMHO. The case law as documented clearly establishes a pre-condition for the stop and the questioning - - the belief clause, and without that as an element of the stop T v O does not apply. I don't see how it could. I think this is what KL is saying, too.



The right of the citizen to privacy trumps that of a LEO trolling for information. If The LEO had a belief of a crime, well that wouldn't be trolling and T v O would apply.



In the first video, once the gun was seen to be empty the cops work was done. Everything else was, IMHO, harassment, and not protected or sanctioned by T v O.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Dupe

 

[Robert Thomas]

T v O



"The Fourth Amendment does not restrict police from intervening until after a crime has been committed. Crime prevention is a bona fide goal of law enforcement, the Court said, and the Fourth Amendment places only reasonable restrictions upon pursuit of that goal."



I think T v O supports the ability of a officer to ask someone their name and some other questions. Justice White in the courts majority opinion expanded this explanation. The above quote is a law review of the case. I can find no law, case, or legal instance that any court has ever question the ability of a officer to ask someone their name. Or that any officer has ever been disciplined for asking someone there name. Case law even supports limited falsehood to individuals being questioned, (I don't like this, but it is case law). If I can find this law or case,or you can provide the law, that it is illegal to for a officer to ask questions (disregarding discrimination and immigration cases), I may change my thoughts on this. I very simply can't support action against this officer based on what I know.



I searched the ACLU website on this and can find no writings at all on their site that says or implies that a officer cannot ask someone their name. They do give a long list of recommendation on what to do if asked and when to walk away. Had the individual followed ACLU recommendation it would have been over as soon as the firearm was returned.





You don't think T v O applies . That the officer violated the individuals rights by asking his name and some other questions. You think the officer should be disciplined because of this action.



I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. What is the problem with this. I provided laws and cases for you to review. You provided what you think. We each have the right to evaluate the law and cases to make a judgments based on the facts as we see them.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



I agree and recognize what you quote, and yes, to me, the essence of T v O is that it allows a LEO to stop and question someone that they believe has, is, or will be committing a crime and is armed and dangerous. What you posted directly above is in that vein.



So, yes, I would agree that T v O paves the way for not only an officer to ask, but for an officer to REQUIRE that someone identify themselves when stopped...but does so under clearly defined preconditions.



I do not think you are wrong about what you are saying about T v O. Where I believe your error is in your seeming inability to consider the precondition clause of T v O.



So, to restate what I have said again, most clearly, T v O does not seem to apply for the video in question. The reason that it doesn't apply is because of the following highlighted and bolded portion of T v O:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, **IF** the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime **AND** has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)

Again, in the video presented, you agreed that the LEO communicated no suspicion that the person stopped had committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit a crime.



Therefore, as a logical assertion, T v O does not apply.



It does not apply because of the **IF** and **AND** portions of the case law as presented above (bold, italics) were simply not met.



Yes, T v O presents case law for when someone can be stopped and asked to identify themselves. But it does so with clearly stated preconditions. You agreed those preconditions were not met for the video in question, thus... (connect the dots).



Seems black and white to me.



Now, tell me, WHY do you think I am wrong in this way of looking at this video and this case law, please?



P.S. As a computer engineer, one of my strengths and essentially part of my innate hard-wiring is my ability to pattern match and to apply logic. When I say logic, I mean arithmetic logic and logical assertions (aka boolean logic). For me, something applies (matches) if it meets the all the logical conditions stated. I know that law doesn't always work that way. I know that case law and its application to real world scenarios often requires interpretation and for that reason there will likely often be disagreement and controversy. However, because of my wiring and how the T v O case law is presented, I don't see a match...an application, to the video in question. I just don't see it based on how I am looking at it, which is logically. I don't look at what I am saying as "my opinion", but instead, as the logical application of the case law as defined. Therefore, to me, it isn't really open to debate as I'm not providing an opinion, just pointing out that the logical conditions aren't met.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

I will try to answer your question as always. But given

Therefore, to me, it isn't really open to debate as I'm not providing an opinion, just pointing out that the logical conditions aren't met.

it seems that your mind is made up.



"Now tell me why"



You still think T v O doesn't apply. (I do and my support was in the last post.) But, given what you are dealing with "T v O doesn't apply" You determined the officer did not have the right to question and that he should suffer administrative action because of this. You think he violated the individuals civil rights.



You demand case law that allows this officer to question and and when presented you deemed that it did not apply. You ignore a Chief Justice opinion. You ignore a law review of the decision. Hence, in your judgment no right to question exist. You have not taken into consideration that no written law, case law, or civil suits support your premise that a officer is prohibited from asking questions. You fail to understand that the individual knew his right and knew he could have asked at any time after his firearm was returned if he could leave. He did not.



You view the video solely from placing yourself in the individuals shoes. You care not what the officer was trying to accomplish and what his directives were in cases like this. You care not what the individual's motives were. You care not what problems the stupid CA law presented for all involved. You care not what the citizens who complained expected the police to do. You care not what the officer's, department's, or city.s liabilities were had this individual done something after the contact. In recommending punishment you ignore reality, union representation, and the officers rights.



I try to avoid projecting what individuals on this forum think or believe, (some I don't even respond to), and just answer questions and present information. But, you asked. Your welcome. I sincerely hope I have not offended by doing so. If I am wrong I'm sure you will tell me. However, not necessary.



Life would be easy if it was Black and White, 100% or absolute. It is not, but I do believe it's more fun because it is not.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



My mind isn't made up. I simply connected A, to B, to C. That's it. No opinion. No beliefs. Just an application of the case law to the situation, and a recognition that the case law does not fit.



Let me reply to specifics you have said:

You determined the officer did not have the right to question.

Actually, not exactly what I have been saying. What I said was that the officer had a right to stop the person and check if the gun was loaded. He also has the right to ask whatever question he wants. However, I believe that all LEO have the duty and responsibility to carry out their tasks without infringing on individuals rights. It is that "do not infringe" that he did a very poor job of.

and that he should suffer administrative action because of this.

Yes, I do think he should because of his actions. I will clarify those actions below.

You think he violated the individuals civil rights.

Actually, I think he ATTEMPTED to violate that person's civil rights. Those are the actions in question that I am concerned with. The pedestrian didn't allow him to.



It is the attempt to violate, without any legal cause, that is what I think he should be sanctioned for.



I didn't demand case law. T v O was offered. I didn't "deem" that it does not apply. The case law as written makes it clear that it does not apply. I've said why that is. You haven't said why I am wrong. I've said it at least 5 times, each time you ignore it and try to say that I am biased, or unreasonable, etc. I'm simply looking at it as black and white.



As far as placing myself in the individuals shoes, or the officers shoes, well, you assume too much. I can see both sides of this. You tell me what I care and don't care about. You can't possibly know that and it is insulting for you to assume otherwise.



I have no real problem that the policeman asked for ID. Even that second strike wasn't a that big a deal. I probably over reacted a little. But I do feel that the policeman talked out of his ass when saying that the citizen had to verbally identify himself in absence of having ID. That is either him not knowing his job, or him simply trying, again, for no real reason (legal or otherwise) to get that id. T v O would give the officer that reason ****IF**** there was a suspicion of a crime, but in this video, there was none at the time of the questioning.



BTW, I have been "trolled" by LEO, stopped while driving, given a bogus reason for the stop, and then it was made clear that the LEO was really only trolling for a bigger crime. I was told at 1am, while driving, that I crossed the center line on a tight curve. I am sure I did not, but because that was the so-called "crime" committed the officer used the opportunity to ask me a series of questions, to get my ID, etc. He admitted he was looking for drunk drivers. I gave no indication I was drunk from my driving, but his invasion of my privacy (that's the way I see it) allowed him to better ascertain if I was. Now, granted, driving is a privilege so this is not exactly the same thing, but you get my drift. He let me go, not even with a warning, just with the acknowledgement that he was looking for drunk drivers, and that stretch of road pretty much only has people leaving bars at that time of the morning. I even recognize that this experience may have biased me, but at the same time, I am pretty confident my feelings in this matter are not that new. That particular stop was this past Spring.



The way I see it is that police should be allowed and are allowed to question anyone, for anything, but the questions should be related to the stop, and certain questions such as "who are you?", or "can you show me id?" really should be limited to those people actually stopped for wrong-doing. Am I wrong in thinking this way? Seriously, is that essential belief so very wrong?



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

****IF**** there was a suspicion of a crime, but in this video, there was none at the time of the questioning.

I totaly agree. As I watch the vid again. The cop knew he was close to crossing the line. He had his tongue in cheek. When he changed to subject about the guys dog.



I also get the impression, the deputy was defusing the issue, cause. He agreed the locals wouldnt be so nice. The locals saw this and still infringed, IMO. I beleive the local cop would have harrased him, if he had been the first. As I said before after the deputy. There was no reason for 3 local cop cars. That is a show of harrasment in itself.



Was his civil rights tread on. IMO, yes. By the law, might be iffy. Overall the incident by all LEO's was uncalled for.



As Thomas has stated. With out suspicous actions. The PD has no right to project. If they did the holding cells would be overwhelmed daily.



Too many times. I would bet all of us has judged a book by its cover. Only to find out, we should be ashamed.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie,



You seem to understand what I am trying to say. Thanks!



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Eddie - Just for information we have just been talking about the first case. You mentioned the second one. TJR is happy so all is good.

BTW, I have been "trolled" by LEO

Hello



So we are down to strike three only? I just got into this thing because of the strikes. I'll give you that one, I have said that before. It's not illegal, but it wasn't called for.



Never been trolled or trolled, or ever used the term. It is anything like the rednecks on TV in the 60's who were abducted and probed. I have prostate doctors that do that now, but I have to pay them a lots of money. I'll leave the trolling thing to you since you have experience. If the officer was trolling he should pick someone without a gun to do it to. In the first video he could have be shot 5 times over.