Talking To The Police

[jackedco]

Something I found on another site, worth sharing. Video is long but quality information.

http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/

[7idl]

good video if you have the time to watch, I did last night.

summary: shut your pie hole!


remember the old 'read 'em their rights' thingy ? not even neccessary.

remember, any thing you say CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST you, nothing you say will be used on your behalf


let me say that again...


nothing you say will be used on your behalf

NOT even if you "have nothing to hide"

[theGinsue]

I learned the hard way 9 years ago:

You have a Right to remain silent; USE IT!

Yes, this is a long video, but I forwarded the link on to friends, my dad, wife, and (most importantly) to my two teenaged kids. I think the point made about making comments for a simple traffic stop should reach them!

[Delphi]

Great lecture sent to everyone i care about!

Thanks :)

[HunterCO]

I agree with 99% of what was said not to mention a professor in a law school and a veteran LEO know more than I ever will. However a deputy who still serves for jefferson county saved me from a butt load of attorney fees because I talked to him.

Notice the LEO mentioned more than once he does not want to see anybody innocent go to jail.;)

Nothing in life is written in stone.

[Richard K]

Well, that may be good advice if you're guilty but rarely the case if innocent. I spent 36 years in law enforcement and couldn't count the number of times I've had enough probable cause to arrest but after interviewing a suspect found that they had an alternate explanation for events or an alibi that I could corroborate. When someone immediatley refuses to talk it's a natural assumtion that they are guilty and have something to hide. When you interview someone as a witness and they immediately refuse to talk they become a suspect or at least are suspected of hiding something. In those cases where probable cause to arrest exists and they refuse to explain their actions or offer exculpatory evidence, there is no option other than to arrest, then attorney's and the large fees they get becomne involved. And no, it's not false arrest if probable cause exists. The Supreme court has ruled that "facts or apparent facts that lead a man of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed" is probable cause to detain/question. (Terry vs. Ohio) A blanket statement to never talk to police is neither wise or prudent.

[ssf467]

Well, that may be good advice if you're guilty but rarely the case if innocent. I spent 36 years in law enforcement and couldn't count the number of times I've had enough probable cause to arrest but after interviewing a suspect found that they had an alternate explanation for events or an alibi that I could corroborate. When someone immediatley refuses to talk it's a natural assumtion that they are guilty and have something to hide. When you interview someone as a witness and they immediately refuse to talk they become a suspect or at least are suspected of hiding something. In those cases where probable cause to arrest exists and they refuse to explain their actions or offer exculpatory evidence, there is no option other than to arrest, then attorney's and the large fees they get becomne involved. And no, it's not false arrest if probable cause exists. The Supreme court has ruled that "facts or apparent facts that lead a man of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed" is probable cause to detain/question. (Terry vs. Ohio) A blanket statement to never talk to police is neither wise or prudent.
If you already have PC arrest. If you don't & I don't talk, see you!
Terry Vs Ohio is PC for a stop and talk/search AKA terry stop

[7idl]

Well, that may be good advice if you're guilty but rarely the case if innocent. I spent 36 years in law enforcement and couldn't count the number of times I've had enough probable cause to arrest but after interviewing a suspect found that they had an alternate explanation for events or an alibi that I could corroborate. When someone immediatley refuses to talk it's a natural assumtion that they are guilty and have something to hide. When you interview someone as a witness and they immediately refuse to talk they become a suspect or at least are suspected of hiding something. In those cases where probable cause to arrest exists and they refuse to explain their actions or offer exculpatory evidence, there is no option other than to arrest, then attorney's and the large fees they get becomne involved. And no, it's not false arrest if probable cause exists. The Supreme court has ruled that "facts or apparent facts that lead a man of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed" is probable cause to detain/question. (Terry vs. Ohio) A blanket statement to never talk to police is neither wise or prudent.



THIS is the problem


We're all supposed to be innocent and the proof of quilt falls upon the prosecution.

leo's, like the media not doing any real "reporting", are (pardon the expression) doing a 'cop out' by not taking their job serious and doing their homework. wouldn't it be nice to see everyone afforded the same "luxuries" as our men (people) in blue?

[Richard K]

Think about it this way: Police go on a domestic violence call. Wife says "he hit me" and she has a split lip. That's probable cause for a mandatory arrest. Husband refuses to talk, he goes to jail, there's no option. Alternate scenario: husband says, "yes, I hit her when she came at me with a kitchen knife", opens his shirt and displays a cut. Wife then admits it and she goes to jail instead as the initial aggressor.
Luxuries of men/women in blue? If a cop is suspected of wrong doing then, yes, he has the right to refuse to answer questions. Guess what happens next, he/she is advised under a Garrity advisement and if they still refuse to answer they are usually fired and can still be prosecuted.

[stubbicatt]

The Supreme court has ruled that "facts or apparent facts that lead a man of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed" is probable cause to detain/question. (Terry vs. Ohio) A blanket statement to never talk to police is neither wise or prudent.

Actually, that is not probable cause. That is reasonable suspicion to detain someone briefly for questioning to ascertain why they are in the area. In Colorado it is Stone v. People, 485 P.2d 495 (Colo. 1971). The Colorado Supreme Court said in Stone:

"There is an area of proper police procedure in which an officer having less than probable cause to arrest nevertheless may detain an individual temporarily for certain purposes and not violate the unreasonable search and seizure limitation of the Fourth Amendment...

"In order lawfully to detain an individual for questioning, (1) the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose."

The Colorado Supreme Court goes on to say, "It would be impossible to visualize all potential situations which might fall within the Stone area, and guidelines involving different factual situations must come in future decisions as different events occur and are brought to our attention. We go to the following extent here: when an officer reasonably suspects that the person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime and the officer has not identified the person he legally may stop him to question him about his identity. If ascertainment on the part of an officer of a person's address is reasonably material to the duties being performed by that officer, and if there is the reasonable suspicion just mentioned, the officer may detain the individual for the purpose of questioning as to his address."

Not probable cause. Reasonable Suspicion. Also, the detention must be reasonable in light of the purpose. If you need to identify someone, once you have looked at their driving license or other identity papers, they are free to leave. And a "hunch" is not enough to justify the detention.

I choose my statements to the "authorities" wisely, and know that officers are always on intelligence gathering missions. The information they gather from me is 1) not confidential, 2) becomes transformed from the innocent statements of firearms enthusiasts in the "group think" of the organization into something suspicious, and is widely shared among other law enforcement personnel, and 3) will be morphed into a strange sort of substantiation that makes sense only to the organization, that I am a "bandit," or a member of a group of "bandits." If I am a stand on your rights type of guy, I cross over into an adversary relationship with law enforcement. The cops have a very much "us versus them" culture, and you and I are "them," especially if we insist on the cops respecting our rights. They like soft and compliant citizen contacts, and do not appreciate a legally justified "NO." "No" is a power word. Once law enforcement personnel are rebuffed they make the visceral determination that you are a "bandit" rather than a sheep. This determination triggers all sorts of mental processes leading to them setting out to "get you," which is weirdly justified by their inflated sense of authority and importance. It is a very primitive dominance instinct cultivated in people who become cops by the culture of law enforcement organizations.

The extension of the war on drugs in which contraband (an item which it is illegal to possess) is the focus, to firearms, is not a long step. The war on drugs has established the law enforcement tactics and the framework for enforcement of all sorts of potentially viable draconian measures aimed at disarming the people. (Always Think Forfeiture!) Firearms are only a breath away from becoming contraband in today's political climate. Firearms in the hands of private citizens are always greeted with alarm and suspicion by law enforcement personnel, and are largely viewed as contraband by police officers even now, despite laws to the contrary. The groundwork is in place.

Police officers generally believe that people should not be armed, and will disarm anybody before talking to them as SOP, while retaining their own weapons. I understand the rationale behind this, but I do not agree with it. It reveals a mindset which alarms me, as it betrays unreasoned suspicion. At a very basic level I find it impossible to trust someone with a gun who doesn't trust me to have a gun. I say this because unreasoned suspicion is the handmaiden of paranoia, and is a visceral rather than mental or rational faculty,and does not properly belong in a law enforcement context. It is inherently unstable and untrustworthy. It is the difference between, "here is the evidence which points to the suspect's guilt" and "I just know you are a bandit, and therefore guilty of something."

So, choose what you tell or show to cops with great discretion, as the institutional memory is long. Information given is frequently used for illegal and immoral purposes, by people for whom the ends justify the means, and whose truthfulness is often squelched by their desire for dominance. Once branded as "Bandit," that brand remains with you in the eyes of law enforcement in perpetuity.

[theGinsue]

"The information they gather from me is 1) not confidential, 2) becomes transformed from the innocent statements of firearms enthusiasts in the "group think" of the organization into something suspicious, and is widely shared among other law enforcement personnel, and 3) will be morphed into a strange sort of substantiation that makes sense only to the organization, that I am a "bandit," or a member of a group of "bandits." If I am a stand on your rights type of guy, I cross over into an adversary relationship with law enforcement. The cops have a very much "us versus them" culture, and you and I are "them," especially if we insist on the cops respecting our rights. They like soft and compliant citizen contacts, and do not appreciate a legally justified "NO." "No" is a power word. Once law enforcement personnel are rebuffed they make the visceral determination that you are a "bandit" rather than a sheep. This determination triggers all sorts of mental processes leading to them setting out to "get you," which is weirdly justified by their inflated sense of authority and importance. It is a very primitive dominance instinct cultivated in people who become cops by the culture of law enforcement organizations.

Police officers generally believe that people should not be armed, and will disarm anybody before talking to them as SOP, while retaining their own weapons. I understand the rationale behind this, but I do not agree with it. It reveals a mindset which alarms me, as it betrays unreasoned suspicion. At a very basic level I find it impossible to trust someone with a gun who doesn't trust me to have a gun. I say this because unreasoned suspicion is the handmaiden of paranoia, and is a visceral rather than mental or rational faculty,and does not properly belong in a law enforcement context. It is inherently unstable and untrustworthy. It is the difference between, "here is the evidence which points to the suspect's guilt" and "I just know you are a bandit, and therefore guilty of something."


I am a resident of Colorado Springs and a retired member of the US Air Force. During my time in the Air Force, I served as a Security Forces officer (translated: police officer) - here in C. Springs. From time to time I worked closely with CSPD - even serving with an activated USAF Reserve cop who was a CSPD officer who was a Colo Springs Police Academy instructor and a member of the anti-gang unit. I provide you with this information as a means of identifying my background as someone who understands the mentality of CSPD officers.

About 8 months ago my 15yo son was playing "airsoft wars" (playing "war" like we used to but with ORANGE TIPPED plastic bb TOY guns) with his friends in the park 2 blocks away. They have always been very careful to stop what they are doing if someone who is not a part of their group comes anywhere near them. One day my son returned from the home to tell me a CSPD officer stopped them and inspected all of their "guns". He let them go about their way when he realized their "guns" were all toys. Just over a week later the boys were back in the park at it again. I received a call from my son to come to the park - the police were there. I went to the park and looked for them - hoping to park closest to where they were - no luck. I found a place to park and hiked across the park. Because it had been almost 5 minutes since the call, I was walking briskly - but not running. The police were standing directly in front of my son on a small hill. I came up the hill and from about 30 feet away (and somewhat out of breath) asked what the boys had done. Yes, my voice was elevated so the officers could hear me from the distance I was at and lowered my voice as I got closer. I stopped about 10 feet from the officers and asked the questions again - clearly out of breath. BOTH officers took a step towards me and one grabbed his Tazer - preparing to draw it. I immediately stepped back and raised my hands (palms up) out from my sides - while saying WHOA guys, take it easy. One of the officers started yelling at me for "charging them" and "yelling offensively" at them (A charge I denied). The officer who wasn't speaking NEVER removed his hand from his Tazer. I asked again what the boys had done wrong. The speaking officer told me the boys were illegally discharging firearms within the city limits. I related the experience the boys had with the officer a week before and they informed me that the other officer must not know the law. When I asked what the law identified as a firearm I was told that ANY item that discharges a projectile from explosive, compressed air, or springs constitutes a firearm. LUCKILY, all of the boys were "released" to parents with a threat of not shooting those guns again or they'd be arrested.

What's my point? I have two, actually. First, knowing how these officers think I purposely made my behavior as unalarming as possible. It didn't matter - I was branded a "bandit" before I ever arrived. Secondly, by definition, within the city of Colorado Springs, a Super Soaker squirt gun - which ejects a projectile (water) with compressed air - would constitute a firearm. This, technically, makes most 5 year old kids into criminals. Is it just me, or have we as a society totally lost our common sense?

Thanks for listening.