Excellent Vid of Knowing and exercising your rights

[Motofixxer]

Knowledge and the application of it is power as clearly shown in this vid. Know your rights and freedoms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQUAu8QnKVs

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

"You are driving a vehicle matching the description that someone told us was being harassing, we have a right to investigate the situation."

True, to investigate. But does that authority to investigate extend to seizing a person that an officer has no reasonable suspicion has committed a crime?

If the person answers no questions and, (because multiple officers denied that he was being detained), refuses to provide any identification, then what purpose did the detention serve?

I'm sure the officers had better things to do, if the gentleman (who was no doubt making their lives harder) were performing any criminal act he would have been cited or arrested. But he wasn't, was he?

 

[skidmark]

Florida cops seem to be much braver that Va rent-a-cops. They appeared not to feel they were being threatened when the guy pointed his finger (multiple times, too!!!!).

Just to play devil's advocate -

1 - cops are not required to state their RAS on the street [and I wish people would get that fact firmly fixed in their heads]
2 - a Brownie Scout should have been able to make RAS of stalking. http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/784.048 That includes establishing "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose".

Of course as soon as the guy in the video then told them he was investigating the "legitimate purpose" would have been established and the RAS would collapse like a house of cards. But it is the officer's responsibility to know how to establish the suspicion of stalking properly, as opposed to the BS they kept rattling off.

Given the almost universal presence of computers in cop cars one might wonder why the criminal code has not been uploaded. Except that by doing that qualified immunity would be squashed like a bug because cops could no longer hide behind "I did not know what the law was".

stay safe.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Excellent job by the citizen... Know your rights and exercise them accordingly..

My .02

CCJ

 

[solus]

skid, et al., i am sure if the nice LEs had a license number from the complainant, then the conversation would/might have been a smidge different.

that stated, kudos and only criticism would have been he volunteered too much info about being prior LE! possibly to gain sympathy with his ex brother's in blue.

but great video and thanks for sharing...

query....anybody tell me why police do not walk up to the car after they have run the plate say hello Mr. XYZ how are you this evening? instead of who are you? or is it a tactic used by the nice LEs in their 'verbal' bag of tricks?

ipse

 

[skidmark]

...

query....anybody tell me why police do not walk up to the car after they have run the plate say hello Mr. XYZ how are you this evening? instead of who are you? or is it a tactic used by the nice LEs in their 'verbal' bag of tricks?

ipse

Running the tags will only tell who is the registered owner. Similarly running the tags may tell that the registered owner has a CHP. But that does nothing to resolve the question of who is actually piloting the vehicle - thus "May I see your license and registration, please". If the car is registered to your Great Aunt Pansy they may want to know if you have permission to be driving her car - and may take that to the level of calling her or sending a LEO out to ask her. Heavens! You might have stolen the car and it had the registration in it.

And yes, there is a high probability that while you and the LEO to get that information the LEO will attempt to engage you in polite conversation. ("Where you headed to?" "I hear that a pretty/quiet place." "Where are coming from?" "I heard there was a __ there - did you see/experience it?"

Which is why if the LEO asks you if it really is raining out with the sky so clear you might want to tell him you will be glad to answer that once you have met with your attorney and he has advised you about that.

stay safe.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

1 - cops are not required to state their RAS on the street [and I wish people would get that fact firmly fixed in their heads]

Absolutely true. They need to fix that firmly to the idea that without some sort of suspicion being articulated they aren't going to participate in some ad hoc fishing expedition to establish suspicion that wasn't there prompter hoc. The officers know very well why they don't want to say what crime they suspect,
a) if known, any answer will be framed to prove innocence, and
b) if fishing is allowed, who knows what is going to get a bite and provide suspicion of a previously unsuspected crime.

2 - a Brownie Scout should have been able to make RAS of stalking. http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/784.048 That includes establishing "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose".

I would disagree, evidence of a violation of at least one subsection of 785.045 would be required and based upon the words of the first responding officer.....

(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct [We have an allegation, not an observation of conduct.]
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, [The officer pulled over the subject as a result of the call, not as a result of him observing the subject. "I pulled you over because a young lady said you had been following her".]
(c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. [The officer in the video makes no reference to any threat to anyone's safety.]
(d) “Cyberstalk” means
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person [officer makes no statement supporting his observation of any such conduct.]
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat [officer makes no statement supporting his observation of any such conduct that includes a threat of violence.]
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection [no evidence of any protective injunction.]
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 [as the person the subject was driving, it's unlikely they were under 16, and no evidence of that age on the video.]
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. [As we don't even have RAS, then surely we do not have PC]
(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation [inapplicable]
(8) The punishment imposed [inapplicable]

 

[Citizen]

"You are driving a vehicle matching the description that someone told us was being harassing, we have a right to investigate the situation."

True, to investigate. But does that authority to investigate extend to seizing a person that an officer has no reasonable suspicion has committed a crime?

If the person answers no questions and, (because multiple officers denied that he was being detained), refuses to provide any identification, then what purpose did the detention serve?

I'm sure the officers had better things to do, if the gentleman (who was no doubt making their lives harder) were performing any criminal act he would have been cited or arrested. But he wasn't, was he?

A relaxing fishing expedition to relieve tedium for the costumed enforcement class?