danbus
Regular Member
imported post
Are LEOs able to bring up laws by accessing their computers?
Are LEOs able to bring up laws by accessing their computers?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Ask LEO a question
- Thread starter LEO 229
- Start date
cato
Newbie
imported post
danbus wrote:
Sounds like begging for a long detention!
Me: "...please officer, I'll just take the cite and the court date, thank you I'm getting hungry." LOL
Good question though. I can't on mine. But we do have solitaire and car to car e-mail that can get us in trouble!
I try to get away from the computer during stops or calls for safety reasons (lack of situational awareness) and I never use the e-mail (my training officer taught me that one). Having all the up to date codes would be great.
danbus wrote:
Sounds like begging for a long detention!
Me: "...please officer, I'll just take the cite and the court date, thank you I'm getting hungry." LOL
Good question though. I can't on mine. But we do have solitaire and car to car e-mail that can get us in trouble!
I try to get away from the computer during stops or calls for safety reasons (lack of situational awareness) and I never use the e-mail (my training officer taught me that one). Having all the up to date codes would be great.
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I would agree that the police cannot just stop anyone if there no reasonable suspicion of any kind.
Well, that's progress in this discussion!
If you are stopped under Terry, the LEO shouldearly in the contact advise why the person is being stopped.
(The following comments refer to on-foot, not in a vehicle). Oh, come on. Doyou tell people "early in the contact" the reason for the stop? Do you ever tell them whether or not they are "free to go"? Of course not. This is a standard police technique. Engage a person (for some reason) in a consensual encounter with the hopes of developing RS. That is why I recommend that a stopped person immediately determine the nature of the stop. If consensual, terminate at once and depart (with rare exception). The LEO is not your friend. There is nothing good and much bad that can come from talking to a LEO. It does not matter that you are a good guy. It does not matter that you have done nothing wrong. Most of us of a certain age were brought up with a positive attitude towards police. Unfortunately the friendly, honest, well-known cop on the beat is the stuff of nostalgia. He doesn't know you and doesn't care about you. He has a reason for stopping you (and it ain't friendly banter). LEO's lie, LEO's cheat, LEO's play fast and loose with the rules. Collecting a scalp is much more important and prestige-enhancing than not. I think that philosophy (and LEO arrogance) is at the root of the Manassas 7 story. Sorry LEOxxx, I know that sounds cold and uncivic but it's the reality of the day. That you and the vast majority of police offices may be different doesn't change what I say. As I'm sure you say when you arrest somebody: It's not personal.
LEO 229 wrote:
I would agree that the police cannot just stop anyone if there no reasonable suspicion of any kind.
Well, that's progress in this discussion!
If you are stopped under Terry, the LEO shouldearly in the contact advise why the person is being stopped.
(The following comments refer to on-foot, not in a vehicle). Oh, come on. Doyou tell people "early in the contact" the reason for the stop? Do you ever tell them whether or not they are "free to go"? Of course not. This is a standard police technique. Engage a person (for some reason) in a consensual encounter with the hopes of developing RS. That is why I recommend that a stopped person immediately determine the nature of the stop. If consensual, terminate at once and depart (with rare exception). The LEO is not your friend. There is nothing good and much bad that can come from talking to a LEO. It does not matter that you are a good guy. It does not matter that you have done nothing wrong. Most of us of a certain age were brought up with a positive attitude towards police. Unfortunately the friendly, honest, well-known cop on the beat is the stuff of nostalgia. He doesn't know you and doesn't care about you. He has a reason for stopping you (and it ain't friendly banter). LEO's lie, LEO's cheat, LEO's play fast and loose with the rules. Collecting a scalp is much more important and prestige-enhancing than not. I think that philosophy (and LEO arrogance) is at the root of the Manassas 7 story. Sorry LEOxxx, I know that sounds cold and uncivic but it's the reality of the day. That you and the vast majority of police offices may be different doesn't change what I say. As I'm sure you say when you arrest somebody: It's not personal.
Mayday
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote
Son, I hope for your own good that all your assests are in someone else's name. Sounds like you wont be holding on to them for too long if this type of response mirrors your actions on the street. Sounds like you'll be looking at a few serious suits before your carreer is over....so good luck with that. Trust me, you'll need it.
LEO 229 wrote
I would find it very suspicious for an ADULT to not provide their name when asked. We exchange names all the time when we meet people for the first time so it is not a secret.Not providing yours would make me tobelievethat youprobably have outstanding warrants or youare doing something wrong you do not want discovered.
The point being... the police have a job to do. Somecitizens have the belief that they can just turn and walk away to avoid contact or they do not need to provide their identity because they are protected by the constitution. This is simply not the case and often times creates more problems for them.
I hope this helps.
Son, I hope for your own good that all your assests are in someone else's name. Sounds like you wont be holding on to them for too long if this type of response mirrors your actions on the street. Sounds like you'll be looking at a few serious suits before your carreer is over....so good luck with that. Trust me, you'll need it.
imported post
I think some people are still merging different situations and that is why there is so much controversy. Let me give you my "rules of thumb" and then everybody can comment.
1. If a LEO with no RS walks up to a citizen and attempts to engage him in conversation. The citizen is under no obligation to do so. He may and, in fact, I encourage him to terminate the encounter and walk away. A LEO may not infer RS from this action. It is generally useful to confirm the nature of the encounter by asking the LEO.
2. If a LEO has RS then he may conduct a brief investigatory detention. The famous "Terry Stop." A citizen in some states (NV, WI,...) is required to identify himself by state statute. This is what the Hiibel decision said. It seems that an oral statement is sufficient. To refuse to do so may result in prosecution for that act alone. Elsewhere the citizen is not required to say or do anything although he may do so to allay the LEO's suspicions. The LEO must arrest, cite or turn the citizen loose. There is no set time or condition, it is dependent of the facts of the encounter. Even if you are not required to identify, a LEO may detain (for a reasonable period) to determine your identity if that is relevant to the reason for the stop.
3. If a LEO has "probable cause" (PC > RS) then he may arrest, cite, warn as the situation dictates.
4. In a consensual counter (#1) the LEO may not pat down (without consent - which of course you never give because you have walked away, right?).
5. In a Terry Stop a LEO may pat down ONLY if he reasonably believes that the citizen is armed. This is a separate determination from RS of criminal activity. Remember the guy in swimming trunks?
6. In a arrest scenario (meaning custodial - a detention is technically an "arrest") then the rules of search incident to arrest come into play which I will not enumerate.
7. In jurisdictions where open carry of a pistol is permitted, that act (alone) cannot form the basis of RS to justify a Terry stop. Now if appears that the carrier is under age, intoxicated, known to be a prohibited person that is an RS situation.
I think some people are still merging different situations and that is why there is so much controversy. Let me give you my "rules of thumb" and then everybody can comment.
1. If a LEO with no RS walks up to a citizen and attempts to engage him in conversation. The citizen is under no obligation to do so. He may and, in fact, I encourage him to terminate the encounter and walk away. A LEO may not infer RS from this action. It is generally useful to confirm the nature of the encounter by asking the LEO.
2. If a LEO has RS then he may conduct a brief investigatory detention. The famous "Terry Stop." A citizen in some states (NV, WI,...) is required to identify himself by state statute. This is what the Hiibel decision said. It seems that an oral statement is sufficient. To refuse to do so may result in prosecution for that act alone. Elsewhere the citizen is not required to say or do anything although he may do so to allay the LEO's suspicions. The LEO must arrest, cite or turn the citizen loose. There is no set time or condition, it is dependent of the facts of the encounter. Even if you are not required to identify, a LEO may detain (for a reasonable period) to determine your identity if that is relevant to the reason for the stop.
3. If a LEO has "probable cause" (PC > RS) then he may arrest, cite, warn as the situation dictates.
4. In a consensual counter (#1) the LEO may not pat down (without consent - which of course you never give because you have walked away, right?).
5. In a Terry Stop a LEO may pat down ONLY if he reasonably believes that the citizen is armed. This is a separate determination from RS of criminal activity. Remember the guy in swimming trunks?
6. In a arrest scenario (meaning custodial - a detention is technically an "arrest") then the rules of search incident to arrest come into play which I will not enumerate.
7. In jurisdictions where open carry of a pistol is permitted, that act (alone) cannot form the basis of RS to justify a Terry stop. Now if appears that the carrier is under age, intoxicated, known to be a prohibited person that is an RS situation.
imported post
danbus wrote:
All agencies are different in what their equipment can do in the car. Some have access to your DMV photos and some are still using a radio for everything.
Many departments only provide the thick code book to the officer and some get the previous year hand-me-downs.
I do not know of any department that offers the code on CD or access to the Internet from their car.
danbus wrote:
All agencies are different in what their equipment can do in the car. Some have access to your DMV photos and some are still using a radio for everything.
Many departments only provide the thick code book to the officer and some get the previous year hand-me-downs.
I do not know of any department that offers the code on CD or access to the Internet from their car.
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
A friend of mine was handcuffed in the back of a Florida cruiser for 1.5 hours while a LEO thumbed through his book trying to find some reason to charge him. Meanwhile, his wife and sister sat alone in their car, waiting.
My friend's offense? His gun flashed for about one-half second while he took off his coat in a movie theater.
The LEO interrogated him about why he wanted to carry, then eventually gave him a patronizing lecture and allowed him to leave. Mighta helped if the LEO either knew the law or his manual a little better.
A friend of mine was handcuffed in the back of a Florida cruiser for 1.5 hours while a LEO thumbed through his book trying to find some reason to charge him. Meanwhile, his wife and sister sat alone in their car, waiting.
My friend's offense? His gun flashed for about one-half second while he took off his coat in a movie theater.
The LEO interrogated him about why he wanted to carry, then eventually gave him a patronizing lecture and allowed him to leave. Mighta helped if the LEO either knew the law or his manual a little better.
imported post
apjonas wrote:
It appears you are frustrated with the police and this is probably due to a few prior negative encounters. I can appreciate your position on LEOs but you are lumping them all into one negative category when you cannot possibly have met all of them. Instead of generalizing... how about giving all of us a story about why you feel the way you do?
There are times when you do not wish to tell a citizen "You look like a rapist we are looking for." You can start out with a voluntary contact and if necessary... bump it up to an investigative stop. It is then that can advise them so they understand.
I have the only job where some people will hate you and not trust but at the same time will call 911 for help. As a LEO... It really does not matter to me it you like me. I will do the job the same way for your or anyone else. It is also a job where some people do not want you to have the ability to take any action and then complain that you did not do anything. If our hand are tied... how can we protect the community we serve?
Do we lie? We sure do!! Criminals lie to us during interviews and we are allowed to lie to them too. I am not sure how we cheat. Fast and loose with the rules?? Which ones? Scalps?? I'll Pass... We are always happy to arrest the bad guy. Should we not be? Catching a guy with 20 pounds of pot in his trunk or 5 rocks of crack.. Oh Ya! Why is that bad?
I do not take anything personal on the job and off. Just like here... I am adult enough to "let it go." I know we will not see eye to eye on everything but that is OK. We have our own opinions and I can respect that.
apjonas wrote:
It appears you are frustrated with the police and this is probably due to a few prior negative encounters. I can appreciate your position on LEOs but you are lumping them all into one negative category when you cannot possibly have met all of them. Instead of generalizing... how about giving all of us a story about why you feel the way you do?
There are times when you do not wish to tell a citizen "You look like a rapist we are looking for." You can start out with a voluntary contact and if necessary... bump it up to an investigative stop. It is then that can advise them so they understand.
I have the only job where some people will hate you and not trust but at the same time will call 911 for help. As a LEO... It really does not matter to me it you like me. I will do the job the same way for your or anyone else. It is also a job where some people do not want you to have the ability to take any action and then complain that you did not do anything. If our hand are tied... how can we protect the community we serve?
Do we lie? We sure do!! Criminals lie to us during interviews and we are allowed to lie to them too. I am not sure how we cheat. Fast and loose with the rules?? Which ones? Scalps?? I'll Pass... We are always happy to arrest the bad guy. Should we not be? Catching a guy with 20 pounds of pot in his trunk or 5 rocks of crack.. Oh Ya! Why is that bad?
I do not take anything personal on the job and off. Just like here... I am adult enough to "let it go." I know we will not see eye to eye on everything but that is OK. We have our own opinions and I can respect that.
imported post
Mayday wrote:
Mayday wrote:
Been doing this job for 15 years..... Have not been sued yet and don't see it happening any time soon. I know where the line in the sand is and do not cross it. I also know that I have the power to hold someone as long as I can articulate why.
imported post
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
Sorry to hear about your friend.... that was waytooooo long. If you cannot find the correctcode right away... Take his name down and let him go. You can always get a warrant later on if you feel that strongly about it. I am not even sure why he worried about the quick flash... It could happen and it was most likely unintentional.
I have stopped people for what I knew was a violation but when I tried to find it in the book I could not. I just issue a warning ticket and let them go. Internet searches are easy but try the book index.... !! It takes time.
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
Sorry to hear about your friend.... that was waytooooo long. If you cannot find the correctcode right away... Take his name down and let him go. You can always get a warrant later on if you feel that strongly about it. I am not even sure why he worried about the quick flash... It could happen and it was most likely unintentional.
I have stopped people for what I knew was a violation but when I tried to find it in the book I could not. I just issue a warning ticket and let them go. Internet searches are easy but try the book index.... !! It takes time.
SIGarmed229
Regular Member
imported post
Is there any chance that I could be arrested for "disturbing the peace" if i was open carrying and doing absolutly nothing wrong?
Is there any chance that I could be arrested for "disturbing the peace" if i was open carrying and doing absolutly nothing wrong?
imported post
apjonas wrote:
Nicely done.
But there is no reason to just walk away when an officer approaches you. He may want to ask if have seen a missing child in the neighborhood. Not all contact with LEO is for something criminal. We do ask questions that or of a police service in nature.
I suggest you let the officer speak before you start in the other direction.
apjonas wrote:
Nicely done.
But there is no reason to just walk away when an officer approaches you. He may want to ask if have seen a missing child in the neighborhood. Not all contact with LEO is for something criminal. We do ask questions that or of a police service in nature.
I suggest you let the officer speak before you start in the other direction.
imported post
SIGarmed229 wrote:
No.
Just because you are legally armed in public has no impact on that charge. Seeing someone wearing a gun may be disturbing to the public but that is just too bad for them.
You would need to start a fight or challenge someone to fight in a public place.
Maliciously and willfully disturb another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
Use offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. However... A person's freedom of speech has to be consideredtoo.
SIGarmed229 wrote:
No.
Just because you are legally armed in public has no impact on that charge. Seeing someone wearing a gun may be disturbing to the public but that is just too bad for them.
You would need to start a fight or challenge someone to fight in a public place.
Maliciously and willfully disturb another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
Use offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. However... A person's freedom of speech has to be consideredtoo.
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
You say "I am not even sure why he worried about the quick flash... It could happen and it was most likely unintentional," and I completely agree. But this goes to the rationale for his detention in the first place, and my concern is as to the length and manner of his detention -- which you do address next.
I find LEOs to be like people in general -- some a great guys, and some are jerks -- with the exception that they have power, and citizens like me don't. So when a jerk has power I can't resist, it stirs up a sense of injustice that doesn't flare when it's just a regular jerk.
It's hard for me to describe how frustrated I feel, how much indignation stirs up when I hear my friend relate this story.
Just some common human decency would keep a cop from treating citizens like that, but if he doesn't have it, what can we do? There's a dangerous imbalance of power between cops and citizens, and so long as cops do not have common decency, nor any appreciation for their oaths, we're at risk.
Nor is talk of a lawsuit very satisfying. Our judicial system is not very good at compensating this kind of wrong. How do you compensate a man for the humiliation and frustration he endured, sitting in the back of that car, handcuffed, his wife and sister alone in their car, waiting, waiting, while the LEO made him sit there?
I'd much rather have a sincere apology from the officer.
LEO 229 wrote:
You say "I am not even sure why he worried about the quick flash... It could happen and it was most likely unintentional," and I completely agree. But this goes to the rationale for his detention in the first place, and my concern is as to the length and manner of his detention -- which you do address next.
I find LEOs to be like people in general -- some a great guys, and some are jerks -- with the exception that they have power, and citizens like me don't. So when a jerk has power I can't resist, it stirs up a sense of injustice that doesn't flare when it's just a regular jerk.
It's hard for me to describe how frustrated I feel, how much indignation stirs up when I hear my friend relate this story.
Just some common human decency would keep a cop from treating citizens like that, but if he doesn't have it, what can we do? There's a dangerous imbalance of power between cops and citizens, and so long as cops do not have common decency, nor any appreciation for their oaths, we're at risk.
Nor is talk of a lawsuit very satisfying. Our judicial system is not very good at compensating this kind of wrong. How do you compensate a man for the humiliation and frustration he endured, sitting in the back of that car, handcuffed, his wife and sister alone in their car, waiting, waiting, while the LEO made him sit there?
I'd much rather have a sincere apology from the officer.
SIGarmed229
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification
imported post
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
Good point!! I like what you said about LEOs and people... in each there are good and bad. I have seen some LEOs on the job that were jerks and some that would do all they could for you. when I was a kid... I learned first hand what it is like to be mistreated by a LEO. I am now in the LEO position and treat everyone with respect... Good guys and bad guys. I am getting paid to do a job and my personal feeling are set aside.
My policy is "Treat others as you would want to be treated." And in 15 years I have not had many bad contacts. I have found myself having to "clean up" after other officers that treated the citizen poorly. On several occasions I have taken a bad guy to jail and when they were released on their signature I gave them a ride back. I could have easily walked them to the front door and told them to get a cab.
I also agree about receiving an apology. It really does go a long way. We are not perfect.
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
Good point!! I like what you said about LEOs and people... in each there are good and bad. I have seen some LEOs on the job that were jerks and some that would do all they could for you. when I was a kid... I learned first hand what it is like to be mistreated by a LEO. I am now in the LEO position and treat everyone with respect... Good guys and bad guys. I am getting paid to do a job and my personal feeling are set aside.
My policy is "Treat others as you would want to be treated." And in 15 years I have not had many bad contacts. I have found myself having to "clean up" after other officers that treated the citizen poorly. On several occasions I have taken a bad guy to jail and when they were released on their signature I gave them a ride back. I could have easily walked them to the front door and told them to get a cab.
I also agree about receiving an apology. It really does go a long way. We are not perfect.
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I clerked for a federal judge straight out of law school, and this is a job that had an astounding amount of power. I wish I had done better, but I do appreciate the apprenticeship provided by the judge.
But there again, what I learned depended to a great extent on what I was taught. Federal judges are the most powerful individuals in our society. I can tell you not just from observation, but also from personal experience, that power is infectious.
You citizens, you need to guard your rights with vigilance. Liberty isfragile. Power is enduring.
LEO 229 wrote:
I clerked for a federal judge straight out of law school, and this is a job that had an astounding amount of power. I wish I had done better, but I do appreciate the apprenticeship provided by the judge.
But there again, what I learned depended to a great extent on what I was taught. Federal judges are the most powerful individuals in our society. I can tell you not just from observation, but also from personal experience, that power is infectious.
You citizens, you need to guard your rights with vigilance. Liberty isfragile. Power is enduring.
swatpro911
Regular Member
imported post
I agree with the LEP229 that cops are not your freinds and if you treat them with respect same you will get out of them. Cops are out there to write tickets especially end of each month so guys beware. Rookie cops get even more excitedabout catching people doing something bad. But again good things come to those who wait and see. LEO229 do you carry Sig P229? just curious
I agree with the LEP229 that cops are not your freinds and if you treat them with respect same you will get out of them. Cops are out there to write tickets especially end of each month so guys beware. Rookie cops get even more excitedabout catching people doing something bad. But again good things come to those who wait and see. LEO229 do you carry Sig P229? just curious
swatpro911
Regular Member
imported post
when cops chek my license plate and I have CWP permit what information shows up in their screen? Any outstanding traffic tickets? Lawsuits?Non payment record etc?
when cops chek my license plate and I have CWP permit what information shows up in their screen? Any outstanding traffic tickets? Lawsuits?Non payment record etc?
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
LEO229, regarding the recent Tony's 7 incident, the MCPD is doing an internal vestigation of the event but however that turns out, I'm interested in this general question: Do you think that Officer Clodfelter (the aggressive hothead) and Officer Pannell (his supervisor) will "get it" now? Will they understand in the future when encountering law abidingcitizenswho are open carrying that these citizensare fully within their rights to do so?
What I'm asking is, essentially, will these two learn the correct view of things? And accept it? Or will they, perhaps, just continue operating with theirmisfounded beliefs and attitudes about the law and simply stifle their impulses?
These two proved that they did not find the applicable law acceptable to theirvalues--both before and afterr the incident. That means they still feel (felt) in the right.Is it possible that they could be adaptable enough to change their minds--with or without serious penalties that may result from the internal investigation?
What do you think, LEO229?
LEO229, regarding the recent Tony's 7 incident, the MCPD is doing an internal vestigation of the event but however that turns out, I'm interested in this general question: Do you think that Officer Clodfelter (the aggressive hothead) and Officer Pannell (his supervisor) will "get it" now? Will they understand in the future when encountering law abidingcitizenswho are open carrying that these citizensare fully within their rights to do so?
What I'm asking is, essentially, will these two learn the correct view of things? And accept it? Or will they, perhaps, just continue operating with theirmisfounded beliefs and attitudes about the law and simply stifle their impulses?
These two proved that they did not find the applicable law acceptable to theirvalues--both before and afterr the incident. That means they still feel (felt) in the right.Is it possible that they could be adaptable enough to change their minds--with or without serious penalties that may result from the internal investigation?
What do you think, LEO229?