Lying to a LEO?

[what2be]

Just had a question..i was originally trying to clarify some transporting of firearms laws on here, but the search engine turned up some interesting posts.

After reading some experiences of other users on here with regards to transporting firearms, I want to ask a question of something I recently experienced. One has to do with right to refuse, the other a firearm law.


Scenario #1, i was coming into the state from Nevada with my 5th wheel travel trailer. When going through the fruit checkpoint at the state line, they asked where we were coming from and If we had any fruit onboard. I said vegas, and no fruit onboard, (was telling the truth) but then he asked me to search the travel trailer to verify. I should have said no, but for some idiotic reason I said I dont care, so he boarded my trailer with my wife, (i stayed in my truck with my kids) while he looked in the fridge, then had my wife open a few cupboards above the kitchen. He then sent us on our way. My question is, I know you can always refuse a search if they ask during a traffic stop, but what about a mandatory stop such as this? Can I still refuse to let him in my trailer or vehicle? Ive probably gone through a hundred of those things, and 99% of the time I dont even stop, they just wave me through, but this time was different. It pisses me off he even asks to search to be honest.

Scenario #2, Last month, I was camping at a lake I go to frequently (trinity lake) and was on my way home with my family and our 5th wheel travel trailer
when I was suddenly suprised with a Fish&Game checkpoint. It was very strange...I came around a corner and it said Fish&game checkpoint ahead. About 100yards past the sign was a sherrifs 4x4 parked on the opposite side of the road. About 500 yards past that they had a checkpoint setup with fish&game officers stopping vehicles.
They approached me and asked if I had been hunting or fishing recently.(I hadnt, only target shooting) I said no, then she asked if I had any firearms in the vehicle or trailer. I said no again, but the truth is I had 2 rifles laying on my bed in the travel trailer, as well as some handguns in a drawer in the trailer. Now, I know some people on here recommend to say "I have nothing in the vehicle or on me that is illegal" but that sounds evasive to me. What happens if you use that line and they catch on and say "do you have any FIREARMS on you or in your vehicle?" If you say the same answer as before, they are going to think your sketchy and think that gives them reasonable suspicion to conduct a search. (and yea, i know that is not reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, but thats why we have the DA to file the charges, to make sure the cop was in the right and not wrong.)
Anyway, my question is, say she decided to search my vehicle anyway, and found nothing illegal in the way my firearms were being transported in the trailer. Can she arrest me for providing false information to a peace officer? If so, How likely is that? I think id rather chance that than admit I have a firearm in the vehicle and give them just cause to verify I have a legal gun in my possession.

[bubbagump]

Not sure about scenario 1.

Scenario 2...You cannot be arrested or ticketed for lying to an LEO.

[hoffmang]

1. Never consent to search unless you're sure its a TSA "agent" at an airport and there only your carry on.

2. You can not be arrested or ticketed for lying to a non Federal LEO.

-Gene

[leelaw]

Not sure about scenario 1.

Scenario 2...You cannot be arrested or ticketed for lying to an LEO.

..Unless you are giving false identification..

..or lying to a Fed

[Splinter]

Not sure about scenario 1.

Scenario 2...You cannot be arrested or ticketed for lying to an LEO.

Actually, i think it could be a problem if something turned out to be illegal.

[tombinghamthegreat]

The 5th amendment exists for a reason. If they ask if you have any firearms you can respond by saying i have nothing illegal or no comment. Also DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES and lock all doors ect. Needless to say the PD could harass you, threaten you or look for PC for search. Lying maybe not the best idea and could lead to legal problems if they did or think they did find something illegal. Lying maybe used against you in a court of law but this is something a lawyer can better answer.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

This brings to mind a similar question.
On TV shows, it is mentioned that an (undercover) cop MUST identify himself if asked. Is this so?

The Raisuli

[Fjold]

This brings to mind a similar question.
On TV shows, it is mentioned that an (undercover) cop MUST identify himself if asked. Is this so?

The Raisuli


No, they do not have to identify themselves until they arrest you.

[The SoCal Gunner]

This brings to mind a similar question.
On TV shows, it is mentioned that an (undercover) cop MUST identify himself if asked. Is this so?

The Raisuli

Heard that many times but it just doesn't seem reasonable. Would an undercover cop expose himself in the middle of some bust going down?

[savageevo]

The question I have then,

1. Are state line border guards federal agents,

2. Are border patrols agents federal agents.

So if they are federal and you lie to them and are caught to be lieing, are you in deep do-do?

[eltee]

There ARE circumstances where lying to an LEO = providing knowingly false information ... and that can be an arrestable offense. I've arrested people for that but it is usually considered a lesser and included crime in conjunction with another offense(s).

[MudCamper]

What's the difference between "lying" and "provinding false information"? Sounds like exactly the same thing to me...

[ilbob]

What's the difference between "lying" and "provinding false information"? Sounds like exactly the same thing to me...
Generally lying to anyone is not an offense, although there are some cases where it is. Lying under oath is a crime, as is submitting a false report to police.

As I understand it, the only time you can be charged for just lying to cops is if they are federal.

But anyone here should already know your best bet is not to talk to cops at all, or talk as little as possible. there is really no upside and the downside can be pretty far down.

[Publius]

This brings to mind a similar question.
On TV shows, it is mentioned that an (undercover) cop MUST identify himself if asked. Is this so?

If that were so, I imagine every Mafia meeting (or meeting of any other criminal conspirators) would start out with "alright, who here is an undercover cop?" Then Donnie Brasco has no choice but to sheepishly raise his hand: "Okay guys, you got me! But I had you going for a while there, didn't I?" :p

[haodoken]

So, this thread is actively recommending to people that it's ok to lie to LEOs whether or not anything illegal is going on since you can't get into trouble for that (i.e. "selective" following of the law). Not flaming anyone, just getting the answer being put out from this thread.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Too bad honesty is not something we value as a society anymore. :( If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. My $0.02.

[FEDUPWBS]

:( If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. My $0.02.

FAIL :TFH:

[FortCourageArmory]

So, this thread is actively recommending to people that it's ok to lie to LEOs whether or not anything illegal is going on since you can't get into trouble for that (i.e. "selective" following of the law). Not flaming anyone, just getting the answer being put out from this thread.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Too bad honesty is not something we value as a society anymore. :( If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. My $0.02.
I'm sorry, and not meaning to flame, but that is an extremely naive statement. When it is not illegal, immoral or unethical for a LEO to lie to bust a crook, why should I even think twice about lying to the same office if it avoids unnecessary harassment?

This statement, "If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear." is the true recepie for disaster.

[Glock22Fan]

So, this thread is actively recommending to people that it's ok to lie to LEOs whether or not anything illegal is going on since you can't get into trouble for that (i.e. "selective" following of the law). Not flaming anyone, just getting the answer being put out from this thread.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Too bad honesty is not something we value as a society anymore. :( If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. My $0.02.


I agree that it is unwise to lie to cops. OTOH, neither do you have to tell them anything.

"I have (done) nothing illegal. No, I do not give permission for a search." is all you have to say. Or just keep totally silent, but that tends to pi$$ people off more.

If they do get a warrent and search anyway, you will be in trouble for whatever illegality they might find, they are highly unlikely to add "And he lied about it, your Honor! The very idea!"

[sacshooter1]

If you give a false name of a person that actually exists (ie your cousin, brother, friend) in order to avoid possible charges or fines then you are in fact breaking the law and could be charged. If you just say no I don't have any guns on board, then guns are found you aren't really breaking the law, but cops are going to wonder why you're lying which will in turn lead to further investigation and possible seizure of your guns for "safe keeping". It's really not much different then telling a cop at a dui check point that you haven't been drinking, then they figure out you were drunk. If the cops have no reason to search your vehicle (probation, parole, susp driver license, search after arrest, consent, search warrant, exigent circumstances) then just be polite and don't let them search if you don't want them to.

[haodoken]

I'm sorry, and not meaning to flame, but that is an extremely naive statement. When it is not illegal, immoral or unethical for a LEO to lie to bust a crook, while should I even think twice about lying to the same office if it avoids unnecessary harassment?

This statement, "If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear." is the true recepie for disaster.

No offense taken. It was my purpose to show sarcasm in my statement. I Just wanted to show that honesty is something we as people don't care about if it is inconvenient. "I want you the cop to be honest, but I joe citizen don't have to".

I can't in good conscience, tell my children that "Sure, son whenever you see a cop, don't tell him the truth. If you do, you'll get into trouble." I grew up respecting the LE community and was taught they were around to help prevent crime and protect the average citizen.

Sure, there are some bad apples in LE, but that's all you hear. When was the last time you heard a feel good story about LE? It's been a while for me at least, most of the time you hear this bad cop did this, and that bad cop did that.

[haodoken]

I agree that it is unwise to lie to cops. OTOH, neither do you have to tell them anything.

"I have (done) nothing illegal. No, I do not give permission for a search." is all you have to say. Or just keep totally silent, but that tends to pi$$ people off more.

If they do get a warrent and search anyway, you will be in trouble for whatever illegality they might find, they are highly unlikely to add "And he lied about it, your Honor! The very idea!"

Yep, I totally agree. Nothing illegal (no need to lie if you really have nothing illegal), no consent to search, with a polite attitude and a smile. It also pays to have your DL/Vehicle Registration/Current Insurance in a easily accessable than the "oh crap, i should have cleaned my glove comparment" look when you go searching for that stuff.

[Ironchef]

SO basically the dialogue at the fruit checkpoint (which I've been questioned at at least a dozen times) should go something like this if you're carrying weapons...

"Good afternoon, where are you coming from?"
"Utah."
"Have any fruit, birds, or other prohibited content in your vehicle?"
"I have nothing illegal in my vehicle?"
"What kind of answer is that? I asked specifically if you had any fruit, birds, or prohbited content?"
"I have nothing illegal in my car. Am I free to go now, or are you detaining me?"
"If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, then you won't mind if I take a look?"
"I do not consent to any searches. Am I free to go, or are you detaining me?"
"Oh, so you've been watching youtube and think you're smart now? Please step out of the car..everyone."

"[gets out of car, rolls up windows and locks doors upon exiting]"
"Can you please open the door and let me take a look?"
"I do not consent to any searches. Am I free to go now or are you detaining me?"
"Alright...go on! Git!"


eh? If asked to show ID at a checkpoint, I don't believe I'd have to show it since there's no PC for it like there is a traffic stop.

[Glock22Fan]

I've been through this sort of thing with UK customs as skipper of a small cross-channel yacht (crew of about eight).

My take on his questioning was that he was fishing for me to give him verbal probable cause, as he asked this question:

"Do you think that Marijuana should be made legal?"

My reply was "As skipper of this boat, to the best of my knowledge there are no illegal substances on this boat."

We repeated this question/reply some six or eight times before he gave up.

He seemed to be really pissed that I wouldn't say "Sure, there should be nothing wrong with M.J. possession." I think then that he might have had P.C. to strip the boat to the bare planks.

This followed on from another incident a few years earlier, when I skippered a boat for a relative stranger from the Mediteranean to the UK. When we arrived in port, the customs guy had a trainee with him. He asked, very nicely and politely, and acknowledging that I didn't have to say "yes," if they could search the yacht, to give the trainee some practice. I said "No problem" and they didn't find anything other than some potatoes which we were told to eat on the boat and not import.

I was horrified a few months later when that boat and its owner were busted smuggling M.J. from Holland to the UK.

How did I know that there wasn't anything illegal tucked away in a rusty can in the bilges on my trip?

Since then it has been:

"Nothing illegal. No permission for a search."

And it works, whether they like it or not.

[nick]

So, this thread is actively recommending to people that it's ok to lie to LEOs whether or not anything illegal is going on since you can't get into trouble for that (i.e. "selective" following of the law). Not flaming anyone, just getting the answer being put out from this thread.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Too bad honesty is not something we value as a society anymore. :( If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. My $0.02.


Well, the problem is that the way the government operates on all levels these days is that being honest you only get yourself in trouble, even if you did nothing wrong. Sometimes it seems that the way they set things up is that they want you to lie, so that the entire population is easier controlled, since everyone would have some skeleton in the closet, be it lying to authorities or taxes. If you refuse to lie in either one of those, they punish you.

It could just be the result of unbridled abuse of power rather than a conscious effort of population control (although it was quite conscious in places like Russia or China, so I wouldn't preclude that option, either). So yes, I agree with you, it's a sad state of affairs. However, I disagree with you on that you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong. More and more I see the examples of a citizen being "guilty until proven innocent".

[nick]

No offense taken. It was my purpose to show sarcasm in my statement. I Just wanted to show that honesty is something we as people don't care about if it is inconvenient. "I want you the cop to be honest, but I joe citizen don't have to".

I can't in good conscience, tell my children that "Sure, son whenever you see a cop, don't tell him the truth. If you do, you'll get into trouble." I grew up respecting the LE community and was taught they were around to help prevent crime and protect the average citizen.

Sure, there are some bad apples in LE, but that's all you hear. When was the last time you heard a feel good story about LE? It's been a while for me at least, most of the time you hear this bad cop did this, and that bad cop did that.

Well, the cops on the ground aren't necessarily the ones who create the rules, and they have to follow whatever rules they get from the top, whether they like it or not.

[ilbob]

So, this thread is actively recommending to people that it's ok to lie to LEOs whether or not anything illegal is going on since you can't get into trouble for that (i.e. "selective" following of the law). Not flaming anyone, just getting the answer being put out from this thread.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Too bad honesty is not something we value as a society anymore. :( If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. My $0.02.
I for one did not suggest lying to anyone. Not talking is not the same thing as lying.

It is true that as a society we do not value honesty as much as we once did. That is plainly clear from the fact that courts routinely accept police lies and deceit as acceptable. What is even worse is that as a society we are not screaming at our legislators about it.

[ilbob]

Sure, there are some bad apples in LE, but that's all you hear. When was the last time you heard a feel good story about LE? It's been a while for me at least, most of the time you hear this bad cop did this, and that bad cop did that.
Perhaps there is a reason for it. For the most part, cops stopped being the good guys a long time ago when they accepted the idea that they are little more then revenue generators and enforcers of unconstitutional laws.

Now at best on the whole they are neither good nor bad. That does not mean there are not good guys who wear a badge these days, but IMO they are not the majority any more, especially in urban areas.

The situation can be changed, but it will require people to get fired up about it and force legislators to do something constructive about the situation.

[sorensen440]

No need to lie but you dont have to answer questions either

When pulled over =

1."Good afternoon officer"

If asked any questions regarding anything in your vehicle other then Id Registration and insurance.

2."There is nothing Illegal in my car"

If search is requested.

3."I do not consent to search"

[rivviepop]

This statement, "If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear." is the true recepie for disaster.

Somewhat tangential but 100% applicable, there is an excellent paper written about the "Nothing to Hide" argument in regards to privacy of your information. The general summary is that the premise underlying the statement is false - "nothing to hide" presumes that if you did indeed have something to hide then it must be illegal in nature.

The paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

Click "Choose a Download Location" near the top and some buttons will pop up with links to get the PDF file you can read. This is the best article I think I've ever read refuting this position. Lying to a LEO, as the OP did about the status of his firearms in the trailer, fits right in; he did not lie to cover something illegal, he lied to protect his right to privacy.

[clee2]

Don't lie to the police, please. Read 148 PC. I will tell you that if your lie is significant enough to show that you willfully obstructed, delayed, or resisted an officer in the course of his/her duties, you absolutely can be arrested.

Back to the original thread, in Scenario 2, as long as there was nothing illegal in the car, the "lie" would most likely NOt have resulted in arrest/cite.

[Meplat]

If you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear.

That is not only untrue; it is taking naivety to the danger point. The maker of such a statement is either a fool or a liar.

BTW, cops can and do lie all the time, does that make you sad also?

[Meplat]

Scenario #1, i was coming into the state from Nevada with my 5th wheel travel trailer.



You do not have to consent to a search, but they do not have to let you into California if you don't.

They (the ag inspectors) are not looking for criminal contraband. They will overlook just about anything short of a bleeding body in the hallway of your RV.

If there is a bleeding body they will tell you to have a nice day and send you on your way, while at the same time winking at the CHP who is sitting there locked cocked and loaded. He will make a radio call to a mob of his closest friends and they will be meeting you down the road.

California Plant Quarantine Inspectors are not feds. Border Patrol agents are federal officers. These days you might find a Border Patrol officer just about anywhere so it might be a good idea to have a look at his hat or shoulder patch before you lie to him/her.

[bwiese]

I don't think discussions of "lying to LEOs" puts this forum in a great light - in spite of not having anything to hide.

I think it's best to say that one has a right to refuse to say anything, and to refer questions to attorney (even if this results in short-term inconvenience).

(In *Federal* matters due to Sec 1001, one should never mention innocence or remain mute: the only appropriate response/commentary offered should be, "I need to speak to my attorney" -- any other silence can be used against you under Fed ROE.)

[pnkssbtz]

I don't think discussions of "lying to LEOs" puts this forum in a great light - in spite of not having anything to hide.
But it is ok for LEO's to lie to citizens?

Does this ability to lie to citizens put LEO's in a bad light?

What? No? A double standard you say? Shocking, I say!


Just like ignorance of the law is not an excuse... it works both ways.

[M. Sage]

The question I have then,

1. Are state line border guards federal agents,

2. Are border patrols agents federal agents.

So if they are federal and you lie to them and are caught to be lieing, are you in deep do-do?

1: No. I don't even think that they're actually cops. They're definitely not guards, border or otherwise, they're just fruit inspection stations.

2: Border Patrol agents are Federal agents. Lying to them is a crime in and of itself. Best not to answer rather than lie, but IMO that's always the best way.

You do not have to consent to a search, but they do not have to let you into California if you don't.

Really? Have any cites? I'd be pretty pissed if they tried denying me entry to California just because I told them they couldn't waste my time.

Not that it's hard to avoid those stations...

[cmaynes]

The question I have then,

1. Are state line border guards federal agents,

2. Are border patrols agents federal agents.

So if they are federal and you lie to them and are caught to be lieing, are you in deep do-do?

Border Patrol are federal agents- As are ICE.

dont know about state border guards-

[Gryff]

That is not only untrue; it is taking naivety to the danger point. The maker of such a statement is either a fool or a liar.

BTW, cops can and do lie all the time, does that make you sad also?


Wow...that was a pleasant little addition.

[Doheny]

Border Patrol are federal agents- As are ICE.

Actually, BP is not ICE; it's its own agency under Homeland Security.

ICE is a different agency, not connected with CBP.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/

[rivviepop]

I don't think discussions of "lying to LEOs" puts this forum in a great light - in spite of not having anything to hide.

Possibly, possibly not (depending on if it's kept a civil discourse, etc.). What's most interesting is the pervasive feeling that one must lie to the authorities in order to avoid further persecution for simply having a different viewpoint on life whilst having done nothing wrong.

The OP's second scenario obviously left him with moral and legal ambiguity, enough to seek out what other people felt; in his case he felt that telling a lie to avoid being hassled was the right course of action at the time. Many of the replies in this thread indeed show that many people feel the same way, for better or worse.

Anthropologically it tells a lot about the course our country has taken in the past 50 years.

[Theseus]

Actually, BP is not ICE; it's its own agency under Homeland Security.

ICE is a different agency, not connected with CBP.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/

He didn't say ICE was BP, he said both BP and ICE are federal agents.

[tankerman]

.

Back to the original thread, in Scenario 2, as long as there was nothing illegal in the car, the "lie" would most likely NOt have resulted in arrest/cite.

What the hell does that mean?

"Not likey", why not "could not have", or "would not have", sounds like you are leaving the door open for LEO to do something illegal to a US citizen without legal reason. Some LE prefer to use the word "discretion" when conducting illegal searches in order to obscure the line between legal and illegal

[joebrock]

Read section 31 of the California Vehicle Code:

False Information to Peace Officer
31. No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.

This is a Misd. Arrest. Take if for what it says. An officer does not have to arrest you, but he can.

Officers can lie while performing his duties. Otherwise there would be no undercover operations.

Crook - are you a police officer?

Officer - I am required to tell the truth... Yes I am

Crook - see ya!

[leelaw]

I'm sorry, and not meaning to flame, but that is an extremely naive statement. When it is not illegal, immoral or unethical for a LEO to lie to bust a crook, why should I even think twice about lying to the same office if it avoids unnecessary harassment?

...because the generalization that all officers lie is simply... a lie? Just a thought.

[leelaw]

Read section 31 of the California Vehicle Code:

False Information to Peace Officer
31. No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.

This is a Misd. Arrest. Take if for what it says. An officer does not have to arrest you, but he can.

Misdemeanors which are not specifically codified as requiring arrest (ie: domestic violence) must be cite released. You might have to explain yourself in court, but you're not getting a pair of bracelets and a free ride for being a liar.

[SOneThreeCoupe]

There is an undercurrent on here of "if you're not breaking the law, why worry?"

This kind of thinking brought us the USA PATRIOT act as well as its continuation, violations of our Fourth Amendment.

Our Fifth and Ninth Amendments protect us from having to answer questions we wish not to answer. To be forced to answer a question is to be forced to give up property. Your answer to a question is your property, property being "anything to which you attach a value and have a right," according to Madison. I attach value to my speech, as do you by either saying it or refusing to say it. You have a natural right to be secure in your property. However, asking the Circuit Courts and Supreme Court to believe the intent of our Founding Fathers as to the meaning of the Ninth and the property of which they speak in the Fifth is futile.

Do not lie, but do not tell the truth. Simply refuse to consent. If they regard failure to relinquish mental property as admission of guilt, let them relieve you of that property through due process, and if their process is not due, let them have it with both barrels (figuratively speaking, of course). Simple protection of one's rights is not cause for anything other than a slight resentment that their power is limited.

[clee2]

What the hell does that mean?

"Not likey", why not "could not have", or "would not have", sounds like you are leaving the door open for LEO to do something illegal to a US citizen without legal reason. Some LE prefer to use the word "discretion" when conducting illegal searches in order to obscure the line between legal and illegal

Slow your roll. The original poster presented as a "what if" scenario, and as such, there were too many variables. Based solely on the scenario, there was nothing illegal in the car, so a lie wouldn't amount to much. Ergo, my statement "would not likely, et al."

Why are making more out of a simple statement, saying that it leaves the door open for LEO to do something illegal to a US citizen without legal reason?

Somebody already discussed discretion...cops get lied to all the time. Do those people get arrested for it? No. But, if the lie was material enough to support the arrest for an illegal act, that lie will be documented and used in prosecution. If the lie is rises to the 148 sections of the Cal PC, the officer and/or DA may or may not decide to charge for that crime. Simple. It has nothing to do with a LEO using his or discretion to pounce on the chance to do something illegal against a member of the public.

[TKM]

Slightly OT, but.... I have occasionally refused to answer questions asked by partially clad women. This has resulted in the exact opposite of what happens when you do that with LEOs.

Just sayin'.

[what2be]

Don't lie to the police, please. Read 148 PC. I will tell you that if your lie is significant enough to show that you willfully obstructed, delayed, or resisted an officer in the course of his/her duties, you absolutely can be arrested.

Back to the original thread, in Scenario 2, as long as there was nothing illegal in the car, the "lie" would most likely NOt have resulted in arrest/cite.

I had nothing "illegal" in the trailer, afaik.
I did have 2 UNLOADED pistol's in a drawer in the trailer, but since the trailer was locked, doesent that count as "secure and locked" just like in a trunk?
Also, one of them is listed on my CCW permit.

I saw what they were after, people poaching, or using guns since it was the first weekend of bow season for deer.

Other than than, i was tired, id been camping for 2 weeks, and just wanted to get my 3 hour drive over with on my way home. Karma must have caught up with me later though, because of the fires in the area the highway closed 30 miles down the road from the checkpoint. I waited 2 hours for them to open the road, then they said it wouldnt be open until the next morning at 6am. I then spent 5 hours going on a alternate route home, and it was past midnight before I got home.

I was just curious hence the post i made. thanks for all the replies..

[FortCourageArmory]

...because the generalization that all officers lie is simply... a lie? Just a thought.
Apples and oranges. I never generalized and said that ALL LEOs lie. I know that's not the case. What I did ask was why, when any LEO is allowed to lie to arrest me, I should be compelled to tell them the truth when they are decide to go on a fishing expedition at my expense? There is a difference.

[tyrist]

This brings to mind a similar question.
On TV shows, it is mentioned that an (undercover) cop MUST identify himself if asked. Is this so?

The Raisuli

I have seen it as well and it is total hollywood bull...I still wonder where it came from.

[E Pluribus Unum]

In this case, the OP was given notice of a "Fish and Game Checkpoint" via a sign. Because he chose to drive through the checkpoint he gave implied consent to search. It is similar to a DUI checkpoint.

There are many rules to follow and many court cases to read through but if the DFG agents do it correctly, the mere fact that you drove up to the checkpoint could have given them reason to search.


The following is a motion to suppress testimony obtained by a DUI checkpoint in California. It lists many of the relevant cases and requirements set forth in order to make LEO checkpoints legal.


MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Eric Whitaker - Cheap DUI Lawyer The following is a sample of a motion to suppress. At least the meat and potatoes. I have lots of samples. Tell me your situation and I'll explain the motion.

FACTS

The officer ordered the defendant out of the vehicle (at a dui checkpoint) and requested he perform a series of field sobriety tests. Based upon the performance of these tests, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence.

ARGUMENT

In Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987), 43 Cal.3d 1321, the California Supreme Court considered whether sobriety checkpoints were constitutional. The Supreme Court held that sobriety checkpoint detentions are not governed by the standard set forth in In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, "requiring an individualized suspicion of wrongdoing", and thus there does not need to be a reasonable suspicion that the detained drivers have or may be involved in criminal activity. Instead, the reasonableness of the detention is determined by balancing the societal need against the intrusion involved. Thus, where the societal interest being protected is great and the intrusion is minimal, then the detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Ingersoll, supra, explained that the primary purpose of a sobriety checkpoint is not to detect evidence of crime or arrest drunk drivers but to "promote public safety by deterring intoxicated persons from driving on the public streets and highways." (Id. at p. 1328).
However, the power to randomly detain citizens is limited. A Court must weigh the gravity of the governmental interest or public concern served, and the degree to which the program advances that concern, against the intrusiveness of the interference with individual liberty. (Id. at p. 1321). When balancing the societal needs against the intrusion of a number of law abiding citizens, the Ingersoll court identified eight factors to "provide functional guidelines for minimizing the intrusiveness of the sobriety checkpoint stop." (supra, at p. 1341). These factors are: (1) decision making at the supervisory level; (2) limits on discretion of field officers as to who is to be stopped; (3) maintenance of safety conditions; (4) reasonable location of the checkpoint; (5) a reasonable time and duration of the checkpoint; (6) indicia of the official nature of the roadblock; (7) the length and nature of the detention; and (8) advance publicity regarding each checkpoint. (supra, at pp. 1341-47).

Subsequently, in People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, the California Supreme Court revisited the sobriety checkpoint issue. In Banks, the Supreme Court considered whether advance publicity, which is one of the Ingersoll guidelines, was a constitutional prerequisite to the operation of a sobriety checkpoint. In addressing the issue, the court again emphasized that " 'federal constitutional principles require a showing of either the officer's reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring or, as an alternative, that the seizure is "carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers." [Citations.]' " (Banks, supra, at p. 936 emphasis added). The Court concluded “that the operation of a sobriety checkpoint conducted in the absence of advance publicity, but otherwise in conformance with the guidelines we established in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1321, 241 Cal.Rptr. 42, 743 P.2d 1299, does not result in an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Banks, supra at p. 949). “As Ingersoll makes clear, sobriety checkpoints are constitutional so long as certain guidelines are followed. The eight factors identified in Ingersoll provide "functional guidelines" to assess the intrusiveness of a checkpoint”. (Roelfsema v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 871, 877, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 817, 820).

In the case at bench, pursuant to Ingersol and Banks, it is the People’s burden to justify
the sobriety checkpoint pursuant to neutral and explicit guidelines. For example, the People must show advance publicity. Assuming that cannot be proven, there are seven other guidelines that must still be proven to justify the detention in the case at bench, and specifically, there are four areas that prove problematic for the People.

Were there limits on discretion of field officers? “[M]otorists should not be subject to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field as to who is to be stopped. Instead, a neutral formula such as every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver should be employed.” (Ingersoll at 1342).
Second, whether the roadblock was in a reasonable location. “The location of checkpoints should be determined by policy-making officials rather than by officers in the field. The sites chosen should be those which will be most effective in achieving the governmental interest; i.e., on roads having a high incidence of alcohol related accidents and/or arrests.” (Ingersoll at p.1342).

Was there indicia of the official nature of the roadblock? “Those aspects of a sobriety roadblock which evidence its official nature are critical in minimizing its intrusiveness. The roadblock should be established with high visibility, including warning signs, flashing lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles and the presence of uniformed officers.
(Ingersoll at p. 1321).

Was the roadblock reasonable in time and duration? The Supreme Court observed that the average time each motorist was detained was "critical" to minimizing the intrusiveness of the stop and justifying it as a proper administrative detention. ( Ingersoll at p. 1346) “As a general proposition it seems to us entirely reasonable to require that a visitor not be kept waiting for search to commence more than 10 minutes from the time his or her vehicle is randomly selected to be searched.” Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 529).

In the case at bench, these specific areas will need to be proven reasonable to justify the initial detention of the defendant.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons and authority, it is respectfully requested that the defendant’s motion to suppress be granted.

[leelaw]

Apples and oranges. I never generalized and said that ALL LEOs lie. I know that's not the case. What I did ask was why, when any LEO is allowed to lie to arrest me, I should be compelled to tell them the truth when they are decide to go on a fishing expedition at my expense? There is a difference.


I'm sorry, and not meaning to flame, but that is an extremely naive statement. When it is not illegal, immoral or unethical for a LEO to lie to bust a crook, why should I even think twice about lying to the same office if it avoids unnecessary harassment?

So cops lie to bust crooks. Cops lie. (I'd love to expand upon just what you're accusing at that point, but let's stick to what's being discussed.)

Therefore, you don't feel the need to tell the truth to a cop, because he lies to bust crooks.

So just how, exactly, do you differentiate a "liar cop" from a "truthful cop" right off the bat, such that you will rest your conscious about lying to him? Do they have "I'm a liar" tacked under their badges, or something?

[E Pluribus Unum]

So cops lie to bust crooks. Cops lie. (I'd love to expand upon just what you're accusing at that point, but let's stick to what's being discussed.)

Therefore, you don't feel the need to tell the truth to a cop, because he lies to bust crooks.

So just how, exactly, do you differentiate a "liar cop" from a "truthful cop" right off the bat, such that you will rest your conscious about lying to him? Do they have "I'm a liar" tacked under their badges, or something?

Cops use lies all of the time to get people to confess. How many times has a cop arrested two perps, separated them, and lied about what the other one said.

"You know, your buddy squealed about the whole thing, he said you stole the car...."

I'm not saying its wrong... just saying it happens all of the time.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I have seen it as well and it is total hollywood bull...I still wonder where it came from.

When I was younger, someone I regarded as A Bright Guy said that it had something to do with America not tolerating "secret police." That made sense to me at the time. But, someone mentioned Donnie Brasco earlier, & of course undercover work in general would be impossible if this were true. Which also makes sense to me.
Anyway, I've never been in a situation where the answer mattered to me. I only asked because the subject of this discussion brought it to mind.

The Raisuli

[Riodog]

Getting back to the original post about the "fuzzy critter checkpoint".
It seems we're getting Federal and State regs mixed up togather and they are different.

Just about every state that I've hunted in has regs that empower Fish and Game wardens the right to search a vehicle for illegally taken game. No warrant is required. In the last few years, F&G wardens have been recognized as LEO as they are armed and have powers of arrest. I don't know how the F&G statutes are being intertwined with the criminal code statutes but it appears that there might be a conflict somewhere down the line. The F&G officers always had broader powers of search than reg LEO.

In the case of a RV I'd just answer truthfully and if they wanted my "cantalope" or whatever, I'd just tell them I'll get it for you and you are NOT invited into my HOME and do not have my consent to either enter or search my HOME. Any firearms should not be in plain sight anyway and should be secured.
I do not believe the AG INSPECTORS have LEO powers however there is always a CHP officer on duty there-abouts to assist. Yermo has one 99% of the time on duty.
Rio

[tankerman]

No need to "slow my roll". The poster chose his words and I responded; this is a forum.

You can form an opinion based on my response, yet I'm not supposed to form my own opinion [based on what was written]?

Does this touch a little too close to home for you?

I think folks that infringe on other's rights don't like to be reminded they are doing it to a "US citizen", makes them uncomfortable.
Slow your roll. The original poster presented as a "what if" scenario, and as such, there were too many variables. Based solely on the scenario, there was nothing illegal in the car, so a lie wouldn't amount to much. Ergo, my statement "would not likely, et al."

Why are making more out of a simple statement, saying that it leaves the door open for LEO to do something illegal to a US citizen without legal reason?

Somebody already discussed discretion...cops get lied to all the time. Do those people get arrested for it? No. But, if the lie was material enough to support the arrest for an illegal act, that lie will be documented and used in prosecution. If the lie is rises to the 148 sections of the Cal PC, the officer and/or DA may or may not decide to charge for that crime. Simple. It has nothing to do with a LEO using his or discretion to pounce on the chance to do something illegal against a member of the public.

[Gryff]

No need to "slow my roll". The poster chose his words and I responded; this is a forum.

Lighten up, Francis. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414G8GJ3SXL._SL110_.jpg

[xrMike]

Cops use lies all of the time to get people to confess. How many times has a cop arrested two perps, separated them, and lied about what the other one said.

"You know, your buddy squealed about the whole thing, he said you stole the car...."

I'm not saying its wrong... just saying it happens all of the time.Yes, you see less-than-honest strategies like this used all the time by LE on the TV show "Cops". And what's amazing is how effective they are at getting people to totally incriminate themselves!

[truthseeker]

Funny, because Fish and Wildife special agents ARE Federal LEO's. I don't think Fish and Game are, because they are state agents.

[Hunter158]

Just found this in the California Vehicle Code:
General Provisions: Section 31

False Information to Peace Officer

31. No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.

Added Ch. 1264, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965.

[mooster]

This brings to mind a similar question.
On TV shows, it is mentioned that an (undercover) cop MUST identify himself if asked. Is this so?

The Raisuli

I’m embarrassed to say that I wasted 30minutes of my life watching that “MANwers” program on SpikeTV the other day. One of their bits was how to tell if a woman was a prostitute or an undercover cop. As part of their how-to, they also mentioned that a LEO undercover does not have to ID themselves if asked.

From what I learned from the program's how-to, the next time a LEO asks if you have guns in the vehicle you are supposed to ask if they will do nude modeling…. They will probably wave you thru at that point – or at least change the subject from firearms…

[CCWFacts]

I haven't read this whole thread yet, but just responding to the subject line, "lying to a LEO", the answer is always DON'T DO IT.

Martha Stewart got a few months and a felony conviction for some very small misstatements. DON'T DO IT.

You can always say, "I'm not going to discuss with you until I have had advice from my attorney." You can always say, "Officer, there's nothing that you would be interested in in the vehicle." You can say, "I don't consent to search." You can say, "I don't understand, and I won't consent to anything or say anything until I've talked to my attorney." In fact, "I don't understand anything" is a safe and good thing to say in any situation where you're not sure what to do.

But lying to an LEO, even if it may be legal in some circumstances, is ALWAYS a mistake and will either add to any existing problems, or (even worse) create new problems when none existed before.

I don't know how this thread got to seven pages, because it's so obviously bad to lie to a LEO that it's beyond discussion.

Decline to answer questions: fine
Demand an attorney: fine
Lie: NO, don't do it

[CCWFacts]

This brings to mind a similar question.
On TV shows, it is mentioned that an (undercover) cop MUST identify himself if asked. Is this so?

THERE'S NO TRUTH TO THIS. It's an urban legend. And btw, cops ARE allowed to lie to people they are interviewing. And apparently lying is often used to get confessions or to get people to incriminate themselves or others. I don't know if it's "routine" or "something that happens occasionally" or whatever, but they're allowed to and they do sometimes. But the suspects they are interviewing are NOT allowed to lie. Is it fair? Whatever, it's reality, understand and accept.

[what2be]

In this case, the OP was given notice of a "Fish and Game Checkpoint" via a sign. Because he chose to drive through the checkpoint he gave implied consent to search. It is similar to a DUI checkpoint.

There are many rules to follow and many court cases to read through but if the DFG agents do it correctly, the mere fact that you drove up to the checkpoint could have given them reason to search.


The following is a motion to suppress testimony obtained by a DUI checkpoint in California. It lists many of the relevant cases and requirements set forth in order to make LEO checkpoints legal.

Small difference though, on DUI checkpoints, they HAVE to give you the option to take a alternate route.(a bit off topic, but interesting..one of my employees was dating a cop and went on a ride along. She hung out in the "alternate route" area and as soon as she saw someone take the detour she would follow them and when my employee asked how are you going to pull them over, she said "they always make some mistake and give me a reason". So much for a legal alternative..lol) In my case, it was a windy 2 lane road down a mountain. They were sitting in a turnout with orange cones out stopping traffic. There was no other way out, or around. (well, i guess if i wanted to backtrack 300 miles I could have gone to Yreka, then redding, then home, but thats not reasonable.

[KDOFisch]

I remember once going through one years ago near Manhattan Beach. Looked like they were pulling over every fifth car or so, but I didn't get stopped. Didn't see any alternate routes, but I think I remember seeing a guy in my rearview pulling out from the line and legally turning into a parking lot. A patrol car from the back of the line and stopped him. Don't know what they got him for (shopping at 7-11:confused:) because seconds later I was on the highway.

[tankerman]

Funny, because Fish and Wildife special agents ARE Federal LEO's. I don't think Fish and Game are, because they are state agents.
California Department of Fish and Game?

[Utha Schleigle]

I don't lie to LE. I pay professionals to do it - ATTORNIES. ATTORNIES are expensive - it is cheaper for me to tell the truth.

LE finds stolen pistol under my driver seat. LE "Is this your gun??" ME "No I it is my grand mother's" LE "I don't see you GRAND MOTHER in the car - How can I verify that stupid LIE" ME "If you want to talk to GRAND ma just open the trunk - she is still alive I hear her kicking in there."

LE "You are in a world of hurt - look ie here a meth pipe just fell out of your girlfriend's cigarette pack (VIGINIA SLIMMS box of coarse)" Me "thats her problem - I only pay for the drugs"

LE calls Fruit Inspector over. Fruit Inspector "You want to explain this basket of oranges from Florida in your trunk" Me " Not mine SARGENT FRIDAY - OJ gave them to me in VEGAS at the court house to take to his daughter in Belaire. I did not want take them, because they are covered in buggs." Fruit Inpsector " You are a dumb SOB why did you try to smuggle fruit into CA"
Me "OJ gave a $100.oo in conterfeit $$$$ so I could buy her druggs and some fresh daipers for GRAND ma - this has been a ruff trip MANN ever since I got out.

Come on guyz - search your own car before the LE's do. Plann for when you get pulled over - not if you get pulled over.

[retired]

No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information
to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the
provisions of this code when such person knows that the information
is false.

This is 31CVC and it is a misdemeanor. Just thought I'd give an example.

[fullrearview]

yes you can lie, but if caught doing something illegal, you will lose all credibility in court.

[DrunkSkunk]

That's why I ALWAYS tell the truth, even when I'm lying.

[Moonclip]

That's why I ALWAYS tell the truth, even when I'm lying.

Ok Scarface. I hate when a cop asks where are you going or where are you coming from, tempted to lie in that case.

[Utha Schleigle]

Ok Scarface. I hate when a cop asks where are you going or where are you coming from, tempted to lie in that case.

LE's always ask that, because the LE wants to see if you are nervous or show signs of lieing or deception. If the signs are there then there is something or some behavior to hide.

If the answers don't make sence to what a "normal" person would do or the answer is confusing to anyone that is not drunk-high-scared then there is probably deception going on.

Actual incident. If you don't think they are real better for me!!! No names or dates to protect the guilty and reduce my attorny's yearly retainer fee.

Insident 1 Somewhere "bad" neiborhood LA

Police are called at 22:00hrs to gas station/convience store by employee, because younge white man has been beaten and is saying his radically cool motorctcle has been vandalized - then stolen. When police get there in 10 minutes (slow night - short response times), yes there is a bleeding - bruized - young white man ( in motor cycle attire) saying that his bike was stolen and he was attacked. The police asked the standard questions for the bike and got the word out to see if the bike was still in the area or being joying ridin up the allies - cement washes - rail roads. Then the LE at the Gas Station asked for more standard question From the "victum".

LE - Do you need any medical assistance?
YM - No - just find my bike.
LE - Desciption of bike???
YM - Details
LE - CALLED in description and then - Where were you coming from?
LE - To YM - you look preety beaten up - are you sure you didn;t need a doctor to look at you.
YM - (young man) No doctor. I was coming from work in Torrance.
LE - Where were you going to?
YM - Home in Long Beach.
LE - When you get off from work?
YM - 17:00hrs - why????!!!! are you asking me that - ARE YOU GUYZ trying to find my custom bike ????? I just paid $$$$$$$$ for it.

(anger - agutation at a routine question - YM shows signs of being nervious and trys to hide nerviouses with anger and adrylin)

LE - Yes the PD's are. We have cars out around the area looking right now. (lets calm the YM down) But since I am the Officer that is going to write the report there are standard question that will help you get your bike back.
LE - How long does it take you to drive home from Torrance to Long Beach??? (It's better to remind the YM were he worked and lives in case he forgets or thinks the LE would not write it down.)
YM - (shows signs of deception and looks away) - 50 minutes ( calms upps - physically ) (20 secounds before another outburst of anger)
LE - (before outburst - let's calm YM down) Forget that for now - I can get that lator. Tell me about the attack - how many - and how did it happen.

This information did not make sence either and the YM was searched.

Any way = I could go on butt the net result was that the YM was in an area he had no saine reason to be in - propbably to buy drugs. He was luckly that he was not seriously hurt. He still had his money. There was no reason to arrest him - but giving false information was not going to help get his bike back. We told YM to call a friend or a cabb and get home to safety and call his insurance co. If he was in the area again with out a good reason - he would be detained for questioning by the detective or better trained personell.

Lator the incident - where if the teenagers were pulled over and asked the standard where are you coming from and to. Two of them would still be alive.

[aileron]

Perhaps there is a reason for it. For the most part, cops stopped being the good guys a long time ago when they accepted the idea that they are little more then revenue generators and enforcers of unconstitutional laws.

This would be coming from the top brass, not the guy on the street doing the dirty work. If anything, he might experience an epiphany at some point, but you cant blame him for what they decide to do with the force. If anything maybe he will become one of those that fixes things later. Or champions the cause like Liberty1 and others on this board. Its not all bad.

Remember it is OUR responsibility to push back (through proper processes), and slowly put things back how they should be. And I think everyone benefits from it.

[Moonclip]

LE's always ask that, because the LE wants to see if you are nervous or show signs of lieing or deception. If the signs are there then there is something or some behavior to hide.

.


May be the reasoning behind it but I still feel it is none of their business.