I felt that a short continuation was okay at that point. I am aware that the police's job is to dig and weasel out if there is a crime being committed (apologies to LEOs on the board, but that's what it is) I felt that a VERY small amount of cooperation would lead to a less combative outcome with my children present... (also considering that my wife would most assuredly have backed me up in any verbal sparing.) In such a situation, I felt that it was more prudent to provide a minimum amount of information to possibly avoid my wife and I being arrested.
Reasons that I didn't 100% stand my ground?
*The fact that my son is exclusively breastfed
*The fact that, should my wife and I BOTH be placed under arrest, my son would be exposed to bottles and formula from a stranger at CPS at 3 weeks of age.
*The fact that my 2 year old would be placed, at least temporarily, with CPS,
*The fact that an interruption in feeding could lead my wife to extreme discomfort due to overfilled breasts.
*The fact that a couple of days without breastfeeding could seriously impair my wife's milk producing ability.
Believe me, had the officers traveled just a little bit further down the road of investigation, my wife and I's end of the conversation would have come to an end. (At least until our lawyer was present.)
I do believe that there are times when a small amount of courtesy, even when not required, prevents a messy situation.
On another note, at one point i moved sideways with regards to the officer's location to grab my daughter... he kept his eyes on me, but never gave out any worried vibe, didn't restrain me from doing so.
Readers should carefully note--the OP cooperated a bit because of the possibility of a negative outcome.
That is to say, the OPer knows enough about police to be concerned that sticking to his rights might have a negative outcome.
The naysayers can mince words all they like, but if a citizen feels he has to hang around and answer even one question in order to avoid trouble because his wife and kids are present, and he's doing it because he knows a thing or two about police, then he's being pressured.
An eminent defense attorney, scholar, and host of the blog FourthAmendmentdotcom recognizes that people can feel pressured by the mere presence of a cop asking questions or consent to a search, so I'm not alone in this. It is the courts who make the artificial distinctions about consent, not I. Police know these things full well, use them, and even dream up new ways to take advantage of it.
The proof is in the alternative. Instead of lying to the OPers first refusal, the cops could have just respected his right to refuse and walked away.
In fact, given the scenario, they could have just observed from a distance without ever contacting the OPer. So, we immediately know this cop was willing to contact the OPer unnecesarily, was willing to ignore his right to refuse consent, and was willing to continue a fishing expedition against an obvious
family (felony possession question.)
When a father has to waive his rights out of concern his children might be kidnapped by so-called Child Protective Services, we've gone way past the point things need to change.
