it may not. it's arguable. kind of depends on the circumstances. is this colorado in january or alabama in july? one could argue that if it's alabama in july, there's no legitimate reason to have a ski mask so the cops could detain them briefly to see if there was actual evidence of criminal activity. but again, if the brief detention did not result in actual evidence, the cop has to move on. the cop can be suspicious all day but suspicion is not a constitutional basis to start ordering people around any longer or make an arrest.
nothing prevents the cop from setting up right next to them and waiting or taking their names down or getting the license tag or anything else non-intrusive.
Would they be obligated to provide their names- since they are doing nothing illegal?
Not arguing- just trying to see where the line gets drawn-
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
it may not. it's arguable. kind of depends on the circumstances. is this colorado in january or alabama in july? one could argue that if it's alabama in july, there's no legitimate reason to have a ski mask so the cops could detain them briefly to see if there was actual evidence of criminal activity. but again, if the brief detention did not result in actual evidence, the cop has to move on. the cop can be suspicious all day but suspicion is not a constitutional basis to start ordering people around any longer or make an arrest.
nothing prevents the cop from setting up right next to them and waiting or taking their names down or getting the license tag or anything else non-intrusive.
Would they be obligated to provide their names- since they are doing nothing illegal?
Not arguing- just trying to see where the line gets drawn-
you're missing the point. our constitution, which people think is important at least when it applies to their own rights (perhaps not so much when it applies to other people's rights), requires specific indications that a crime is being committed before the police can arrest someone, which they did in this case.
i'll ask one more time, someone tell me what crime this guy committed that justifies an arrest under our constitution? if you can't answer that question, you either don't understand basic constitutional principles and/or you just don't care about constitutional protections as they apply to other people (only when you are the victim).
now, what you've said in your last email is more rational. sure, the cops can knock on the window and ask questions to check it out. the constitution allows this. no one is saying it doesn't. but upon doing this, if there is no specific indication that the guy is committing a crime, the cops cannot arrest him.
our constitution differentiates between a cop asking questions if they think something is suspicious, which they can almost always do, and a cop arresting a person, which they can only do if there is specific evidence of a crime.
Who needs the Constitution?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
you're missing the point. our constitution, which people think is important at least when it applies to their own rights (perhaps not so much when it applies to other people's rights), requires specific indications that a crime is being committed before the police can arrest someone, which they did in this case.
i'll ask one more time, someone tell me what crime this guy committed that justifies an arrest under our constitution? if you can't answer that question, you either don't understand basic constitutional principles and/or you just don't care about constitutional protections as they apply to other people (only when you are the victim).
now, what you've said in your last email is more rational. sure, the cops can knock on the window and ask questions to check it out. the constitution allows this. no one is saying it doesn't. but upon doing this, if there is no specific indication that the guy is committing a crime, the cops cannot arrest him.
our constitution differentiates between a cop asking questions if they think something is suspicious, which they can almost always do, and a cop arresting a person, which they can only do if there is specific evidence of a crime.
Would they be obligated to provide their names- since they are doing nothing illegal?
Not arguing- just trying to see where the line gets drawn-
I am pretty sure you do not. Comes down to probable cause again. But the tough part is, cops can make up probably cause in just about any circumstance. For example, you could pull up to a DWI checkpoint....they ask you if you have been drinking....you say no....they say, "please pull over ahead." You say, "what is your probable cause?" They say, "I think I smell alcohol." It's that simple for them.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
Would they be obligated to provide their names- since they are doing nothing illegal?
Not arguing- just trying to see where the line gets drawn-
I am pretty sure you do not. Comes down to probable cause again. But the tough part is, cops can make up probably cause in just about any circumstance. For example, you could pull up to a DWI checkpoint....they ask you if you have been drinking....you say no....they say, "please pull over ahead." You say, "what is your probable cause?" They say, "I think I smell alcohol." It's that simple for them.
Would they be obligated to provide their names- since they are doing nothing illegal?
Not arguing- just trying to see where the line gets drawn-
i think there have been some recent cases on this. dj may know better since he pays more attention to recent cases. i think the answer is no, they don't have to say garbage to the cops. they can't lie and give a false name or DOB or they can be arrested right then but they have a right to remain silent.
there may be a somewhat recent law that says you need to provide your name but if that is case, you don't need to say any more than that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
Would they be obligated to provide their names- since they are doing nothing illegal?
Not arguing- just trying to see where the line gets drawn-
i think there have been some recent cases on this. dj may know better since he pays more attention to recent cases. i think the answer is no, they don't have to say garbage to the cops. they can't lie and give a false name or DOB or they can be arrested right then but they have a right to remain silent.
there may be a somewhat recent law that says you need to provide your name but if that is case, you don't need to say any more than that.
So why would one suspicious activity trump another?
Or, maybe they are equally innocuous-
I don't know- but it seems that "probable cause" is quite subjective-and I guess depends on which side you're on-
it's all subjective but the law is pretty clear that you need specific evidence of criminal activity for an arrest. in other words, the cop needs to be able to answer the question i've asked in this thread several times to justify an arrest: what specific evidence can you list that indicated person x was committing a crime?
if we are just talking about a brief detention to investigate further, the cop still needs to answer that question but there is more leeway because obviously a brief detention is less intrusive to people than an arrest.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
True- but none of the above are illegal-
So why would one suspicious activity trump another?
Or, maybe they are equally innocuous-
I don't know- but it seems that "probable cause" is quite subjective-and I guess depends on which side you're on-
it's all subjective but the law is pretty clear that you need specific evidence of criminal activity for an arrest. in other words, the cop needs to be able to answer the question i've asked in this thread several times to justify an arrest: what specific evidence can you list that indicated person x was committing a crime?
if we are just talking about a brief detention to investigate further, the cop still needs to answer that question but there is more leeway because obviously a brief detention is less intrusive to people than an arrest.
But, isn't that a completely different discussion- that is worth having but not specific to this case?
You had a Matthew McConaughey "A Time to Kill" moment there, huh?
Its reasonable suspicion to question, probable cause to arrest.
Reasonable suspicion is always the compilation of the facts before the governmental agent. As said in the other thread, a failure to answer or speak to the officer when asked (or fleeing, etc.) are always part of the equation of facts. Kind of cyclical huh (officer can create reasonable suspicion by asking questions)?
But lets use the scenarios...
Yours: Gun, ski mask, near bank. It certainly would appear to allow for some further investigating.
This: Black, sleeping in car, white youg girl
I'm not trying to make it a racial thing but I just cannot imagine anything happens if the dudes were white
(in my southern drawl...now imagine she's wiiiiite....)
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
I would hope so-
But, isn't that a completely different discussion- that is worth having but not specific to this case?
You had a Matthew McConaughey "A Time to Kill" moment there, huh?
Its reasonable suspicion to question, probable cause to arrest.
Reasonable suspicion is always the compilation of the facts before the governmental agent. As said in the other thread, a failure to answer or speak to the officer when asked (or fleeing, etc.) are always part of the equation of facts. Kind of cyclical huh (officer can create reasonable suspicion by asking questions)?
But lets use the scenarios...
Yours: Gun, ski mask, near bank. It certainly would appear to allow for some further investigating.
This: Black, sleeping in car, white youg girl
I'm not trying to make it a racial thing but I just cannot imagine anything happens if the dudes were white
(in my southern drawl...now imagine she's wiiiiite....)
Its reasonable suspicion to question, probable cause to arrest.
Reasonable suspicion is always the compilation of the facts before the governmental agent. As said in the other thread, a failure to answer or speak to the officer when asked (or fleeing, etc.) are always part of the equation of facts. Kind of cyclical huh (officer can create reasonable suspicion by asking questions)?
But lets use the scenarios...
Yours: Gun, ski mask, near bank. It certainly would appear to allow for some further investigating.
This: Black, sleeping in car, white youg girl
I'm not trying to make it a racial thing but I just cannot imagine anything happens if the dudes were white
(in my southern drawl...now imagine she's wiiiiite....)
I guess that's what I'm trying to sort out-
So, I have the right to remain silent-answer nothing- but by doing so create "suspicion"- which leads to further investigation and further questions that I refuse to answer-
I'm not sure about the "2 white guys sleeping in a parking lot with a black teen" scenario- I find that equally suspicious- but maybe it wouldn't have gone this way-
Also- the reason I ask about the difference between arrest without charges vs detained and released is- there seems to be that question on almost every application / form related to employment nowadays- and it's not vague- specifically says "have you ever been arrested OR charged"-
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Its reasonable suspicion to question, probable cause to arrest.
Reasonable suspicion is always the compilation of the facts before the governmental agent. As said in the other thread, a failure to answer or speak to the officer when asked (or fleeing, etc.) are always part of the equation of facts. Kind of cyclical huh (officer can create reasonable suspicion by asking questions)?
But lets use the scenarios...
Yours: Gun, ski mask, near bank. It certainly would appear to allow for some further investigating.
This: Black, sleeping in car, white youg girl
I'm not trying to make it a racial thing but I just cannot imagine anything happens if the dudes were white
(in my southern drawl...now imagine she's wiiiiite....)
I guess that's what I'm trying to sort out-
So, I have the right to remain silent-answer nothing- but by doing so create "suspicion"- which leads to further investigation and further questions that I refuse to answer-
I'm not sure about the "2 white guys sleeping in a parking lot with a black teen" scenario- I find that equally suspicious- but maybe it wouldn't have gone this way-
Also- the reason I ask about the difference between arrest without charges vs detained and released is- there seems to be that question on almost every application / form related to employment nowadays- and it's not vague- specifically says "have you ever been arrested OR charged"-
Haitian guy ( or white guy for that matter) better have a withdrawl slip on him. He's not driving off with this bundles and i wish him luck getting it back
0
Haitian guy ( or white guy for that matter) better have a withdrawl slip on him. He's not driving off with this bundles and i wish him luck getting it back
So, I have the right to remain silent-answer nothing- but by doing so create "suspicion"- which leads to further investigation and further questions that I refuse to answer-
I'm not sure about the "2 white guys sleeping in a parking lot with a black teen" scenario- I find that equally suspicious- but maybe it wouldn't have gone this way-
Also- the reason I ask about the difference between arrest without charges vs detained and released is- there seems to be that question on almost every application / form related to employment nowadays- and it's not vague- specifically says "have you ever been arrested OR charged"-
Yep. And the real only remedy you have to overreach is to have any statements or evidence suppressed if you are charged with a crime.
Perhaps that is equally suspicious, but again, statistically, it is unlikely there is any reason for suspicion and also statistically, it is unlikely they would be questioned.
I always tell people that such questions are meant for formal arrests and answers should be based solely on that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
I guess that's what I'm trying to sort out-
So, I have the right to remain silent-answer nothing- but by doing so create "suspicion"- which leads to further investigation and further questions that I refuse to answer-
I'm not sure about the "2 white guys sleeping in a parking lot with a black teen" scenario- I find that equally suspicious- but maybe it wouldn't have gone this way-
Also- the reason I ask about the difference between arrest without charges vs detained and released is- there seems to be that question on almost every application / form related to employment nowadays- and it's not vague- specifically says "have you ever been arrested OR charged"-
Yep. And the real only remedy you have to overreach is to have any statements or evidence suppressed if you are charged with a crime.
Perhaps that is equally suspicious, but again, statistically, it is unlikely there is any reason for suspicion and also statistically, it is unlikely they would be questioned.
I always tell people that such questions are meant for formal arrests and answers should be based solely on that.
So, I have the right to remain silent-answer nothing- but by doing so create "suspicion"- which leads to further investigation and further questions that I refuse to answer-
I'm not sure about the "2 white guys sleeping in a parking lot with a black teen" scenario- I find that equally suspicious- but maybe it wouldn't have gone this way-
Also- the reason I ask about the difference between arrest without charges vs detained and released is- there seems to be that question on almost every application / form related to employment nowadays- and it's not vague- specifically says "have you ever been arrested OR charged"-
as to your last question, they are asking about an official arrest. an arrest in constitutional terms can be vague and can apply even if the person is never taken to the police station. an official arrest that would require "yes" on an application is probably better referred t as being booked into the jail.
for instance, if the cops think you committed a crime and take you down to the station against your will for questioning or so they can investigate further and then they let you go that night or the next day, that's an arrest but there may not be an official record of it as an actual arrest. but if you get taken to the station, booked and fingerprinted, that's an arrrest that will show up on your record that you have to answer yes to even if they never file charges against you.
"charged" is simple. to be charged, some document with your name and the actual charges need to be filed (although the process differes depending on whether it's a felony or misdmeanor and among different states). if that happens, you've been charged.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
I guess that's what I'm trying to sort out-
So, I have the right to remain silent-answer nothing- but by doing so create "suspicion"- which leads to further investigation and further questions that I refuse to answer-
I'm not sure about the "2 white guys sleeping in a parking lot with a black teen" scenario- I find that equally suspicious- but maybe it wouldn't have gone this way-
Also- the reason I ask about the difference between arrest without charges vs detained and released is- there seems to be that question on almost every application / form related to employment nowadays- and it's not vague- specifically says "have you ever been arrested OR charged"-
as to your last question, they are asking about an official arrest. an arrest in constitutional terms can be vague and can apply even if the person is never taken to the police station. an official arrest that would require "yes" on an application is probably better referred t as being booked into the jail.
for instance, if the cops think you committed a crime and take you down to the station against your will for questioning or so they can investigate further and then they let you go that night or the next day, that's an arrest but there may not be an official record of it as an actual arrest. but if you get taken to the station, booked and fingerprinted, that's an arrrest that will show up on your record that you have to answer yes to even if they never file charges against you.
"charged" is simple. to be charged, some document with your name and the actual charges need to be filed (although the process differes depending on whether it's a felony or misdmeanor and among different states). if that happens, you've been charged.
Haitian guy ( or white guy for that matter) better have a withdrawl slip on him. He's not driving off with this bundles and i wish him luck getting it back
Prolly had Auburn moneyline.
0
Quote Originally Posted by captjohn67:
Haitian guy ( or white guy for that matter) better have a withdrawl slip on him. He's not driving off with this bundles and i wish him luck getting it back
Haitian guy ( or white guy for that matter) better have a withdrawl slip on him. He's not driving off with this bundles and i wish him luck getting it back
haitian guy has nothing of the sort. while i think this scenario is bullshit (although not as bad as the original kidnapping example), hatiain guy has a serious problem, especially because this happened in rural county that may have preconceived notions as to what haitians with a lot of cash might be up to.
0
Quote Originally Posted by captjohn67:
Haitian guy ( or white guy for that matter) better have a withdrawl slip on him. He's not driving off with this bundles and i wish him luck getting it back
haitian guy has nothing of the sort. while i think this scenario is bullshit (although not as bad as the original kidnapping example), hatiain guy has a serious problem, especially because this happened in rural county that may have preconceived notions as to what haitians with a lot of cash might be up to.
haitian guy has nothing of the sort. while i think this scenario is bullshit (although not as bad as the original kidnapping example), hatiain guy has a serious problem, especially because this happened in rural county that may have preconceived notions as to what haitians with a lot of cash might be up to.
let me get pulled over with 5 grand on me coming back from a poker game in hokes bluff at 2 am...they'll be taking my money as well
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
haitian guy has nothing of the sort. while i think this scenario is bullshit (although not as bad as the original kidnapping example), hatiain guy has a serious problem, especially because this happened in rural county that may have preconceived notions as to what haitians with a lot of cash might be up to.
let me get pulled over with 5 grand on me coming back from a poker game in hokes bluff at 2 am...they'll be taking my money as well
let me get pulled over with 5 grand on me coming back from a poker game in hokes bluff at 2 am...they'll be taking my money as well
i had another one where a 20 year old kid was flying home to michigan with a backpack and got stopped by whatever fuckin federal agency. they took him in a room, asked him if they could search his bag and found about $200,000 inside. the kid told them he just came from a poker tournament that he won (that was televised) but they didn't buy it and took all of his cash. perhaps unlike the haitian situation, this was 100% legitimate cash. feds hung onto it for about 9 months.
0
Quote Originally Posted by captjohn67:
let me get pulled over with 5 grand on me coming back from a poker game in hokes bluff at 2 am...they'll be taking my money as well
i had another one where a 20 year old kid was flying home to michigan with a backpack and got stopped by whatever fuckin federal agency. they took him in a room, asked him if they could search his bag and found about $200,000 inside. the kid told them he just came from a poker tournament that he won (that was televised) but they didn't buy it and took all of his cash. perhaps unlike the haitian situation, this was 100% legitimate cash. feds hung onto it for about 9 months.
they absolutely got arrested. there's no question about this. being handcuffed and taken to some location is 100% without a doubt an arrest. any lawyer with any idea of criminal law will tell you this.
you are right that usually, although certainly not always, an arrest is followed by criminal charges but an arrest and criminal charges are two distinct processes. an arrest is when a police officer does what he does here. criminal charges are when a prosecutor files actual charges against a person.
beyond that, we don't know there was suspicious activity. that's an opinion. but if we assume the cop thought it was suspicious, he does have a right to knock on the window and ask questions. i'm not sure what you mean by reasonable doubt but that is not a legal concept that applies in this context.
if they were kidnapping the kid, then yes, the police could arrest them. but the police cannot arrest someone based on ifs and what might happen. if this was the standard, then the constitutional protection would be meaningless. the police can only arrest based on specific facts indicating a crime is taking place.
but you have to differentiate between a cop asking questions to see if there may be evidence of a crime, which a cop can do, and an arrest which again this was without any doubt whatsoever. a cop can ask questions based on ifs and what might be. a cop can only arrest based on specific evidence, not ifs and maybes. your constitution protects you from such government intrusions based on pure speculation of a crime.
And how do you expect the cop to know if the child has been kidnapped without further investigation of the facts?
Should they just detain them and leave them in the back seat of the cruiser until everything is sorted out? Obviously this situation is much more complicated than it seems. It always is.
Do you expect the cops to ask the guys for their cellphone numbers and when they get everything situated they will call them back?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
they absolutely got arrested. there's no question about this. being handcuffed and taken to some location is 100% without a doubt an arrest. any lawyer with any idea of criminal law will tell you this.
you are right that usually, although certainly not always, an arrest is followed by criminal charges but an arrest and criminal charges are two distinct processes. an arrest is when a police officer does what he does here. criminal charges are when a prosecutor files actual charges against a person.
beyond that, we don't know there was suspicious activity. that's an opinion. but if we assume the cop thought it was suspicious, he does have a right to knock on the window and ask questions. i'm not sure what you mean by reasonable doubt but that is not a legal concept that applies in this context.
if they were kidnapping the kid, then yes, the police could arrest them. but the police cannot arrest someone based on ifs and what might happen. if this was the standard, then the constitutional protection would be meaningless. the police can only arrest based on specific facts indicating a crime is taking place.
but you have to differentiate between a cop asking questions to see if there may be evidence of a crime, which a cop can do, and an arrest which again this was without any doubt whatsoever. a cop can ask questions based on ifs and what might be. a cop can only arrest based on specific evidence, not ifs and maybes. your constitution protects you from such government intrusions based on pure speculation of a crime.
And how do you expect the cop to know if the child has been kidnapped without further investigation of the facts?
Should they just detain them and leave them in the back seat of the cruiser until everything is sorted out? Obviously this situation is much more complicated than it seems. It always is.
Do you expect the cops to ask the guys for their cellphone numbers and when they get everything situated they will call them back?
Club said this pretty well, but let's change the scenario.
Friday night, you go out with friends. You are the designated driver and you bring people home. You drop everyone off and are headed home yourself. You commit no driving infractions but see blue lights behind you. You pull over and the officer comes to your window and asks you what you are doing. You tell him you were the DD and he asks you to get out of the car saying that "people driving in this area are usually drunk." Despite you doing nothing wrong, he hancuffs you, puts you in his cruiser, and takes you to the station. There, you wait for an hour, blow into a machine which shows 0.0 and you are released.
If you say you weren't arrested, you are lying.
It's a horrible example because that would never happen. They would test me on the spot and let me go on my merry way.
If the cops had no ill intent and are only out to serve public safetly then I'm fine with that.
Is there really any difference if I got caught up in a sobriety checkpoint?
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Club said this pretty well, but let's change the scenario.
Friday night, you go out with friends. You are the designated driver and you bring people home. You drop everyone off and are headed home yourself. You commit no driving infractions but see blue lights behind you. You pull over and the officer comes to your window and asks you what you are doing. You tell him you were the DD and he asks you to get out of the car saying that "people driving in this area are usually drunk." Despite you doing nothing wrong, he hancuffs you, puts you in his cruiser, and takes you to the station. There, you wait for an hour, blow into a machine which shows 0.0 and you are released.
If you say you weren't arrested, you are lying.
It's a horrible example because that would never happen. They would test me on the spot and let me go on my merry way.
If the cops had no ill intent and are only out to serve public safetly then I'm fine with that.
Is there really any difference if I got caught up in a sobriety checkpoint?
And how do you expect the cop to know if the child has been kidnapped without further investigation of the facts?
Should they just detain them and leave them in the back seat of the cruiser until everything is sorted out? Obviously this situation is much more complicated than it seems. It always is.
Do you expect the cops to ask the guys for their cellphone numbers and when they get everything situated they will call them back?
we aren't understanding each other. i said the cops can always ask questions if they want to and investigate that way. that is a far, far cry from the kind of arrest that happened here.
in this case, they can ask the girl if she's in any harm. presumably, if she was being kidnapped and a cop is there to help her, that would be a good time to tell the cop she's being kidnapped. that's one way. they can ask the black guy what's going on. that's another way.
sure, we could have a system where the cops do whatever they want and take people away to a government building for interrogation whenever they want to explore any suspicions they have but we have a constitution that does not allow the government to intrude upon people's freedoms whenever they want or to satisfy any suspicions they have. some countries, such as north korea and somalia, don't have such consttitutional protections. in those countries, the government is unrestricted and people's rights don't matter.
now, are there situations where crimes occur because a cop isn't free to do whatever he wants without regard to constitutional freedoms? sure, but that's the tradeoff we accept when we enact a constitution that forces the government to articulate actual evidence of criminal activity before they arrest people. every right we have comes with a cost. but i think a constitutiuonal system that places restrictions on our government to allow for certain freedoms for the people is a good system, even if it's not designed to catch every crime before it happens.
0
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:
And how do you expect the cop to know if the child has been kidnapped without further investigation of the facts?
Should they just detain them and leave them in the back seat of the cruiser until everything is sorted out? Obviously this situation is much more complicated than it seems. It always is.
Do you expect the cops to ask the guys for their cellphone numbers and when they get everything situated they will call them back?
we aren't understanding each other. i said the cops can always ask questions if they want to and investigate that way. that is a far, far cry from the kind of arrest that happened here.
in this case, they can ask the girl if she's in any harm. presumably, if she was being kidnapped and a cop is there to help her, that would be a good time to tell the cop she's being kidnapped. that's one way. they can ask the black guy what's going on. that's another way.
sure, we could have a system where the cops do whatever they want and take people away to a government building for interrogation whenever they want to explore any suspicions they have but we have a constitution that does not allow the government to intrude upon people's freedoms whenever they want or to satisfy any suspicions they have. some countries, such as north korea and somalia, don't have such consttitutional protections. in those countries, the government is unrestricted and people's rights don't matter.
now, are there situations where crimes occur because a cop isn't free to do whatever he wants without regard to constitutional freedoms? sure, but that's the tradeoff we accept when we enact a constitution that forces the government to articulate actual evidence of criminal activity before they arrest people. every right we have comes with a cost. but i think a constitutiuonal system that places restrictions on our government to allow for certain freedoms for the people is a good system, even if it's not designed to catch every crime before it happens.
Hot Forum Topics
