+1 to fishers pd

[revance]

I guess it might be no different than them asking "were you at X on the night of Y", which obviously you don't have to (nor should you) answer.

However you ARE required to answer their questions if they are not interrogating you as a suspect... I wonder if asking if you have weapons could possibly be construed as just a safety question and not being questioned as a suspect.

 

[Joe Williams]

However you ARE required to answer their questions if they are not interrogating you as a suspect snip

No, you are not. Ever. Not if you do not wish to. You may stand there still and silent as stone, and be perfectly within your rights to do so.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I guess it might be no different than them asking "were you at X on the night of Y", which obviously you don't have to (nor should you) answer.

However you ARE required to answer their questions if they are not interrogating you as a suspect... I wonder if asking if you have weapons could possibly be construed as just a safety question and not being questioned as a suspect.

However you ARE required to answer their questions if they are not interrogating you as a suspect.

Where did you come up with this?
All you have to do is provide ID, either verbally or your DL, then you can just sit there and say nothing, or I always answer their question with a question.

 

[Booya]

Nope. You are required to identify yourself (name, DOB, address) and nothing else.

If the officer insists on going further, and you do not wish to answer his/her questions, you can (and should) simply ask if you are being detained. If so, why are you being detained? And state that you are not willing to answer any further questions without a lawyer, that you do not consent to a search of your person or property, and that you do not waive any rights. By doing so, you have actively asserted your rights, and if the officer chooses to proceed, you will have firm grounds for a lawsuit if he/she cannot lay out firm reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed, and that you were the person who committed or was about to commit a crime.

"Looking suspicious" is not RAS.

Now Joe...Now I just feel like you don't like me. I was wrong about the law and being "detained" (when in-fact I wasn't attempting to state the letter of the law) and I got all this, I'm ignorant and everything.

"2) You clearly are utterly ignorant of what being detained is. If you cannot comprehend basic aspects of the law, you should educate yourself. Further, since you have no idea what being "detained" is, you obviously lack the knowledge to comment on whether the detention was legal or illegal.

3) You can "hazard" whatever guesses you wish. You haven't done well with facts, so far, so your guesses can't be any worse."

That seems like unfair treatment towards me, that I'm just stupid, yet someone else that is wrong gets a nice little explanation. I'm kidding, I just had to get one more jab in there. No hard feelings, I like a good argument, I just don't view a small inconvenience like a massive rights violation as some due. All good and we're all entitled to our own opinion. Let's not get out of hand though with all the "oblivious anti-Constitution persons" and
"Some of us value and revere freedom and our Constitution. And then... there are those that do not." comments.

People have disagreed with you guys before and certainly will do it again. If not, be advised there other opinions out there.

Have a good night gents.
Ryan
Pro-constitution
Card carrying
Gun Toting
Marine

 

[revance]

No, you are not. Ever. Not if you do not wish to. You may stand there still and silent as stone, and be perfectly within your rights to do so.

You cannot refuse to answer questions that are not covered by the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment only covers questions that can be self incriminating. If they ask you for information as a witness, and you refuse, they can detain you for it.

Check out the "don't talk to cops" video on youtube, he talks about that.

 

[sj kahr k40]

You cannot refuse to answer questions that are not covered by the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment only covers questions that can be self incriminating. If they ask you for information as a witness, and you refuse, they can detain you for it.

Check out the "don't talk to cops" video on youtube, he talks about that.

I think Joe and I are talking about someone that got stopped not a witness.

 

[revance]

I do agree that the "do you have any weapons" could definitely be incriminating and thus, you can refuse to answer.

Back on topic... perhaps cops will stop bothering to pull people over for doing nothing and just setup a road block where they can ask each person if they have a weapon.

 

[revance]

I think Joe and I are talking about someone that got stopped not a witness.

Understood.

My first comment about having to answer was stupid. Obviously they can't MAKE you answer that... but I bet they would sure TRY to make your life miserable if you refused.

Either way, this was a nasty case of unwarranted search.

 

[PatriotPride]

You cannot refuse to answer questions that are not covered by the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment only covers questions that can be self incriminating. If they ask you for information as a witness, and you refuse, they can detain you for it.

Check out the "don't talk to cops" video on youtube, he talks about that.

Many questions that an officer asks can and will fall under the 5th Amendment. If you think about it, most questions that will be asked by a cop can be determined to be self-incriminating.

 

[Pocketman]

Most officers are just trying to do their jobs. We may occasionally have our rights "violated," but the OP feels his was a good experience. Let's lighten up a bit. There are bigger fish to fry.

 

[serpicostraight]

ive had 2 encounters with isp so far this week. both times they were courteous and never asked any questions that did not pertain to what was going on. they never asked about an ltch or having a weapon. so they can actually do thier job without violating peoples rights if they chose to. apparently fishers pd gets thier orders from the milwaukee chief.

 

[revance]

Most officers are just trying to do their jobs. We may occasionally have our rights "violated," but the OP feels his was a good experience. Let's lighten up a bit. There are bigger fish to fry.

Agreed.

This "discussion" definitely isn't worth people getting rude over or getting their feelings hurt. However nobody is demanding the officers resignation or anything. Some just think its silly to commend them for doing what they did. Being polite is nice, but I would rather they just stick to what is necessary for the situation. For this one, I think a simple "what is your business here?" was all that was called for.

I think we should also accept that perhaps we don't have all the information.

With that, I wish you all a good night... even those I disagree with :-D

 

[E5RANGER375]

Why would you give a +1 to police officers who, after having been provided your LTCH, illegally detained you, illegally seized your property, and ran your gun to see if it was stolen despite having no RAS, much less PC, to believe it was?

They broke the law and figuratively spit on you... and you gave 'em a +1? And we wonder why we lose more and more of our rights.

this!!!

next time tell them to get bent. thugs with badges is all i read from this story.

 

[LEaSH]

The big picture to me is that there is panic in Fishers. It doesn't take much more than the news reporting a 'serial armed robber' to get people into hysterics.
It's also a great way to give authority more power to end the madness as quickly as possible so that the good people can get on with their lives.

On a side note, the FPD spokesman advises if confronted by a bad guy: don't resist, comply, yadda yadda, sleep tight.

 

[jdgatliff]

Screw that, if I get robbed by someone driving a blue s10, I want every blue s10 in a 30 mile radius pulled over on sight!

A friend of mine went through that. They said her car matched the "description". Then took her out of the car asked her about any weapons and she said she didn't have any. Then without her permission they searched her entire car and yelled at her for not telling them about a screw driver in the rear floor board. Told her this could be used as a weapon and she should have told them about it. That's not even the worst part, her car sorta kinda only partially matched the description that we found in the newspaper. Green 2 dr Pontiac with a male driver, she notice "she" drove a metallic green 2 dr ford escort.

I guess chances are all makes models and colors have been used in crimes at some point in time so they can pull us all over anytime they want.

 

[Brandon]

i was actually not bashing the cop that pulled up to my accident.
i think its funny how people want the cops to act and do things the way the law is written then the people who complain about the cops doing "illegal" checks complain because they pull people over for going one over the speed limit.

is it really that hard to comprehend that if the speedlimit is 55, if you go 56, you are not doing as the law says?? its a 2 way street, some people need to open their eyes. heaven forbid the police want to keep the public safe... give me a break and let them do their job.

 

[Hammerhead]

What you're speaking of, following the exact letter of the law would lead to a police state. There is such a thing as officer discretion when it comes to infractions (speeding is an infraction, not a crime) and a detainment because of some gut feeling, or fishing expedition.

The OP was put through a fishing expedition. They did not have any cause to ask about weapons, nor did he have any reason to inform them he was carrying. There also have been many many threads recently discussing the tactics that the police employ trying to gig anyone on a charge.

In this instance, as with the discussion in those threads, case law has been laid out by the courts that has defined that producing a valid LTCH is not probable cause to continue a stop, or to continue to fish. If the questions came as the OP stated 1) "Do you have any weapons?" then 2) "Do you have a LTCH?" then the police were fishing. You (general) do not have to answer the first. You do have to answer the second, if they're asking to see it. After getting his answer about going to work, then being given a valid LTCH, their business was done. End of story. They do not have a right to detain him anymore, nor do they have a right to disarm him and "run the numbers."

Several times in this thread people have given the "you can still be a criminal and have a LTCH" excuse. True. But the problem is that they did not have any RAS or PC to believe the OP was a criminal, or committing or about to commit a crime. As soon as they disarmed him, the illegal detainment was immediately turned into an illegal search and seizure.

So he was inconvenienced for ten minutes. Sure, I have no problem talking to the police, unless they're now violating my rights not only by fishing for something to charge me with, but then breaking the fourth amendment. They can't, even for "officer safety" take your weapon. And if they wanted to see if he was somehow going to commit a crime, they can, as stated, leave the guy alone and observe from their vehicles.

Carrying a weapon and producing a valid LTCH is not enough PC to detain a person further. This also has been laid out clearly by the courts.

Any discussion about cooperating and how the police are trying to do their jobs by asking law abiding citizens questions are moot when the police cross the line. I don't believe people, Joe included, cares when police ask questions. It's what they're asking or how they're asking them that turns them against the Constitution they're sworn to uphold.

 

[PatriotPride]

Yes it would still be OK, it would then be a D#@#d boss thread. There are casualties in a war. War on crime = a few innocent people get inconvenienced every now and then.



Original OP did say he or his vehicle matched the description of someone committing burglaries in the area. If I robbed you and I carry a LTCH and mind the speed limit will you be happy to know that I just cruise your neighborhood in a grey silverado "not being harassed" because I didn't speed? Screw that, if I get robbed by someone driving a blue s10, I want every blue s10 in a 30 mile radius pulled over on sight!

Do you actually believe this stuff that you write? You advocate, condone, and embrace the wholesale violation of my rights so you can embrace a false illusion of safety. Your post disgusts me. You're on the wrong side of the bridge.

 

[03mustgt]

A man posts as to how he found some police officers to be polite and professional and how he appreciated it. Then as predicted follows the pointless and very tiresome bashing: How dare this man say something nice about the police who stopped him? Doesn't he know how he is causing all of us to lose our rights?

It is tiresome and boring. Oh, and I forgot ridiculous.

I will probably stop visiting this site due to being sick of this crap.

Terry

I agree, but I wouldnt stop visiting this site, lots of good info on here. You just need to learn to stay out of certain threads and to ignore certain types of posts.

Just for your guys information how do you know this was not a voluntary contact? Maybe the LEO just parked behind the OP and walked up and started talking to him?

How do you know the OP didnt match the description of the armed robber they have been dealing with?

Only the OP was there and knows what happened, and frankly there is a lot of assumming going on here, and honestly its making a lot of ass's out of people. If the OP was satisfied with their experience then please lighten up on the tin foil hat talk. thanks.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The OP was asked if he had a gun. He answered. No illegal search. He was asked for that firearm so it could be run. More shaky here because there was no reason to ask that we can see, but still sounds voluntary to this point. He cannot be detained beyond showing a valid LTCH. How do we determine it is valid? That's right. The officer has to run it against the state database. Also, the LTCH states (not grants you) the right to carry any handgun lawfully possessed. How do we know it's lawfully possessed? That's right. We determine it's not reported stolen.

The OP was *possibly* detained for ten minutes. I say "possibly" because had he said, "Officer, I need to go clock in so I'm not late to work. Would you please come in and give me back my stuff when you're done with my IDs so I can put everything away?", he might have been told, "Sure, go ahead, you're not being detained." I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying it's possible. I'm also not advocating leaving your property, especially your firearms, out of your control, I'm just showing that the detention is not the foregone conclusion some make it out to be.

Lastly, yes, he was inconvenienced for ten minutes. While I think that "I work here." should have been the end of it and verified by watching him go inside, maybe even by walking in and watching him clock in (because we all know no criminal would ever tell a cop a lie like, "I work here." or walk into a business to make it look like he was going to work there when he did not ), I also have to note that we do not have a right to never be inconvenienced. Was he profiling? Probably, and good for him for doing it.

(By the way, I found that doing a google image search for "gang banger", and it was fairly easy to locate: I just had to look for someone wearing clothing. )

Which one looks more like he belongs at a place of business, claiming to work there?

Blessings,
Bill