Providing LE With Identification

[Samuelx]

Having a hard time understanding consensual contact.

Try Googling "Consensual, Detention, Arrest" or something like that.

If a resident calls LE to report a car parked across the street,

And/So what? I've got probably 4-5 cars "parked across the street" from me right now...

and I happen to be the one sitting in that car, when LE makes intitial contact, is the contact consensual,

Depends.

or am I to assume that I am being immediately detained and questioned based on the fact that the contact was initiated by a call?

You, being in the car and Not being up to no good, will probably NOT know the reason for the initial contact.

If the contact is in fact consensual, at what point does a civilian know that they are being temporarily detained?

Can be from a variety of reasons/factors. Try Googling "When does a consensual encouter become a detention" or something like that.

If the initial contact equates to being immediately detained, should the civilian expect that LE immediately articulate why they are being detained?

NO.

embedded

btw, as you're reading this thread, keep in mind that any non-LE yahoo can post in this section of the forum (and a few already have in this thread)...

[retiredAFcop]

Believe me, I understand the importance of Communication Skills! Tactical Communications is part of my instructional curricula - from recruits to veterans, sworn and non-sworn.

The reason I counterpointed your post is because you were basically telling everyone that it is perfectly ok to question and challenge LEOs and then, if you don't get a reply or a reply that you're happy with, it's also ok to not cooperate or comply - no matter what kind of contact it is.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - and thank you for sharing some really good info in your response.

I'm not talking about what a cop can get away with, I'm talking about how a cop should want to do it.

Every citizen in a free society has the right to question any government agent, as long as they are not actively interfering with the performance of the agent's duties. In a consent encounter, this works both ways. You can ask questions, but can't demand answers (not while still in "consent" mode), but they can also ask questions of you. They do not have the right to defy an LEO, but asking a reasonable question is neither a challenge, nor defiance, and should not be treated as such.

If the subject doesn't accept the reason you give them, you may still have to go up the ladder to get them to comply, but you haven't skipped any steps along the way.
For example, if the subject asks why the LEO wants their ID, the LEO might say "I can tell you in a minute, but right now I need your ID", because they don't want to give a warning to the subject that there is a BOLO for someone meeting their description named "Adam Baker" until they find out if the subject is or isn't Adam Baker. The subject may not feel that is a good enough reason, but in any dissection of the encounter afterwards, the LEO can explain their response, and why it was reasonable. Simply saying "I don't have to tell you why, just give me your ID" leaves you much more vulnerable, as well as alienating the subject.

By refusing to give the subject a reason, the LEO has escalated the encounter when there was no need to. The LEO has also introduced a reasonable suspicion (some would argue that they have already proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, since they were clearly incapable of articulating it when given the opportunity) that they do not actually have a reasonable suspicion requiring that they ask the question, so if they now escalate to a higher level, they are entering dangerous territory, because you have now just detained someone without any legal justification, and both you and the subject know it. You may still have legal authority to pursue your line of questioning, and even to move up the force ladder, but you have lost your moral authority with this subject (and any witnesses) at this point.

How far up the force ladder are you willing to go in order to get the person to give you their ID, when you can't even articulate a reasonable suspicion for wanting the ID? My answer is simple: no articulable suspicion, no escalation. Give them the best reason you can think of, or try something else.

What do we call it when an officer escalates up the force ladder without need and uses force in excess of that required? I think we all know that answer.

My point is that if an officer is unable/unwilling to articulate their suspicion, things can go badly, including moving from a consent encounter to an encounter where they have to gain compliance through moving up the force ladder and placing their self at risk.

And there's really no need to even go there, because in a consent encounter, it's usually pretty simple to explain why you want something.

Some Situations When Words Can Fail
Person is a big time “Adam Henry”
> Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Maybe they'll calm down if you are able to be reasonable. What does it cost you to try?
Person is extremely under the influence of drugs / alcohol or combination of
> They may not understand or remember your reason, but bystanders might, so what does it cost you to say it?
Person is emotionally distressed / disturbed
> They may not understand or remember your reason, but bystanders might, so what does it cost you to say it?
Person is mentally disabled
> They may not understand or remember your reason, but bystanders might, so what does it cost you to say it?
Person is developmentally challenged
> They may not understand or remember your reason, but bystanders might, so what does it cost you to say it?
Person doesn’t speak the same language as you
> Then they probably won't be asking you questions that you can understand. Even though they probably won't understand or remember your reason, but bystanders might, so what does it cost you to say it?

With the situation in the OP, it shouldn't be hard to give the guy a reason that you want his ID if he asks you for a reason.

I often had my guys talk through their thought processes as they approached the subject, keying their mike for dispatch to pick up the key elements on the recorder - but we didn't often have multiple things going on, and usually had the radio bandwidth for this. In cars with recorders, it seems that verbalizing their decisions like this would be a good practice to implement.

If the encounter moves along and leads to an arrest (apprehension in my world), the fact that you were or were not able to articulate a suspicion could be important in the trial. When a jury hears that they asked you a perfectly reasonable question "Why do you need me to do that?" and you were UNABLE to articulate a suspicion (because that's the most logical conclusion to draw from your inability to do so), you lose jurors.

Even if the encounter turns out to be nothing, it could still come back to haunt you, either directly or indirectly.
Sure, most people don't have the time, money, or inclination to take you to court for refusing to articulate your suspicion - but why risk it.
And why play into the stereotype of bullying cop when you don't have to? For all you know, this guys golfs with the mayor, or your chief. Even if he's Joe Average, do you really want him going away feeling angry and disrespected from what should have been a simple consensual encounter, so he can complain to his friends about you?

There's a lot of griping by LEOs on this site about people having negative views of LEOs (there's even a stickied thread about it in this forum). Part of the reason for that negative stereotype rests on LEOs who choose to treat people with the minimum amount of respect that they can get away with, rather than in a professional manner that will reflect well on the LEO, their agency, and the profession. It's often little things that feed into a negative stereotype, and it's pretty sad that more cops can't do something simple like answer a reasonable question from a citizen without treating it like a personal attack. Thick skin comes with the job, and while officer safety is important, we all know that a cop's first duty is public safety - that's one reason people should respect cops, because like military members and firefighters, they voluntarily place themselves into danger in order to keep the public safe.

[retiredAFcop]

I don't think there are many cops out there that just start every contact with people by being confrontational and rude.

I don't think there are many of them either, but it is an unfortunate fact that the few that are out there sure make a lasting impression on people, and get talked about a lot - so we hear a lot more about them than the guys and gals who are being professionals.

Which creates a vicious cycle, as people have less respect for cops, more cops start showing less respect for people, causing people to have less respect for cops, which leads to more cops being less respectful of people...

How do we break that cycle?

[Notorious]

I don't think there are many of them either, but it is an unfortunate fact that the few that are out there sure make a lasting impression on people, and get talked about a lot - so we hear a lot more about them than the guys and gals who are being professionals.

Which creates a vicious cycle, as people have less respect for cops, more cops start showing less respect for people, causing people to have less respect for cops, which leads to more cops being less respectful of people...

How do we break that cycle?

Yeah, well, first step. Be honest. Realize it's a small small small percentage of cops out there who are jerks, just as with any other segment of society. Don't put that on the rest of the good cops. Everyone start with the same clean slate and act normally until there is a reason not to.

Just because you had a bad experience with one cop doesn't mean you have to be confrontational and rude to every cop. Same as how I am not rude to everyone I contact just because I contacted a few turds in my career. Everyone gets the same amount of courtesy and professionalism until there is a reason to change the dynamic.

Fair enough? Sheesh... sounds like I am preaching to 3rd graders....

[55chevypost]

retiredafcop, im going to respectfully agree to disagree with the majority of your last response. I think you can quote case law, and in many senses share war stories of yours or your pals. But sir I dont believe you know how to/or have actually used the tools given to coppers to protect and serve. Also, I urge you to read your posts and truly ask yourself how you view law enforcement. I dought very seriously, based on what I have read from you, it is positive, regardless of who you are pals with or your previous service. I pray I am wrong sir.

[SVT-40]

Having a hard time understanding consensual contact.

If a resident calls LE to report a car parked across the street, and I happen to be the one sitting in that car, when LE makes intitial contact, is the contact consensual, or am I to assume that I am being immediately detained and questioned based on the fact that the contact was initiated by a call?

On a traffic stop the officer uses a red light to stop you. It's against the law to not stop. That is a detention.

If your parked in your car and the LEO stops behind you and just shines his white spot light and NO red light, that is NOT a detention. So you are not detained, and could just drive off....However the officer may use his red light depending on the TOTALITY of the circumstance to detain you as you drove away.

Basically if a officer just walks up to you without using a red light or words which require you to stop(such as "Police STOP"), it's not a detention it's a "consensual contact".

Same for an officer who knocks on your door. No detention and perfectly legal, just a consensual contact known as a "knock and talk".

If the contact is in fact consensual, at what point does a civilian know that they are being temporarily detained? If the initial contact equates to being immediately detained, should the civilian expect that LE immediately articulate why they are being detained?

The "detainee" may not know the exact second when a consensual contact becomes a "detention", and it not required that the officer tell a detainee the exact second a consensual contact becomes a detention.

During a consensual contact a officer can request identifying information as well as paper ID, and ask any questions he wants, however due to the lack of PC or RS the officer may not demand ID.

Many times a officer may have PC or RS to make a detention, however the officer may try to obtain the information he needs via a request as opposed to a demand.

Just like a officer is not required to advise a suspect of his Miranda rights unless the questioning is during a custodial interrogation.

[Eikbyrnir]

As for the rest of the posts... sometimes I have to ask myself:



and... don't cringe... but remember how many hours you had to sit through this guy's raspy videos?

http://youtu.be/k6ZljpXrb8E

I find it hilarious that the first suggested video down was thishttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t9LKUhX3qew&feature=fvwrel

[Press Check]

On a traffic stop the officer uses a red light to stop you. It's against the law to not stop. That is a detention.

If your parked in your car and the LEO stops behind you and just shines his white spot light and NO red light, that is NOT a detention. So you are not detained, and could just drive off....However the officer may use his red light depending on the TOTALITY of the circumstance to detain you as you drove away.

Basically if a officer just walks up to you without using a red light or words which require you to stop(such as "Police STOP"), it's not a detention it's a "consensual contact".

Same for an officer who knocks on your door. No detention and perfectly legal, just a consensual contact known as a "knock and talk".



The "detainee" may not know the exact second when a consensual contact becomes a "detention", and it not required that the officer tell a detainee the exact second a consensual contact becomes a detention.

During a consensual contact a officer can request identifying information as well as paper ID, and ask any questions he wants, however due to the lack of PC or RS the officer may not demand ID.

Many times a officer may have PC or RS to make a detention, however the officer may try to obtain the information he needs via a request as opposed to a demand.

Just like a officer is not required to advise a suspect of his Miranda rights unless the questioning is during a custodial interrogation.

Thanks. Makes perfect sense.

[SVT-40]

No problem...

If your really curious about search and seizure In the "real world". ( I.E.) What police officers are confronted with every day buy the book:

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
Constitutional Principals for Searches, Seizures, Interrogation and Identification.

The author is Devallius Rutledge. It's put out by "Law Tech" It may seem a bit expensive at $80, but it well worth it as it explains in easily understood terms and examples most questions related to search and seizure. Many cites to up to date case law too.

Great bathroom reading material.

Devallis is a great guy and I had the pleasure of attending many of his workshops. He's a very very funny guy too!!

go to the link below and check out the "sample chapter". Once you read that you will want to get the book!!

http://www.lawtechcustompublishing.com/criminal_evidence.html

[Bobby Ricigliano]

The same people that complain about police harassment are the same ones who will call right away when a suspicious vehicle is sitting on THEIR street.

"I expect the Police to proactively and aggressively fight crime in my community...but they better not stop and talk to anybody..that is harassment!"

[retiredAFcop]

retiredafcop, im going to respectfully agree to disagree with the majority of your last response. I think you can quote case law, and in many senses share war stories of yours or your pals. But sir I dont believe you know how to/or have actually used the tools given to coppers to protect and serve. Also, I urge you to read your posts and truly ask yourself how you view law enforcement. I dought very seriously, based on what I have read from you, it is positive, regardless of who you are pals with or your previous service. I pray I am wrong sir.

You are clearly wrong.

Just because I am not on a bandwagon, and don't pretend that problems don't exist, does not mean I am not supportive of other LEOs. I view LE as a collection of individual LEOs and LEAs, who run a gamut from extremely professional, to (sadly) not very professional.

While most are on the more professional side, too many (and I hope you would agree that even one is too many) are on the other side, making the whole profession look bad. Unfortunately, these are often the ones we hear the most about.

I think I see LE in a pretty realistic manner - good, bad, ugly, and wonderful.

This allows me to not be dismissed by people on this site who are wary of LEOs, and think that they will get stonewalled by any LEO or retired LEO here if they bring up a concern. Because I am willing to admit that some LEOs do things that they probably shouldn't, I have been able to engage several such people in discussions that resulted in them stating that they are revising their viewpoints about LEOs, and will start looking at them as individuals, and not basing their treatment of all LEOs on that bad experience their buddy once had. That's a start to breaking the cycle of distrust. Sure, it's a small step, but we have to take small steps sometimes, and each one moves us closer to our goal.

As to your assertion that I, as a military cop, have never "used the tools given to coppers to protect and serve", that's a pure insult, and was clearly intended as such - making it clear that you are not "respectfully" doing anything in your comment.

BTW, who uses the term "coppers" - what is this, some B&W 30s gangster movie?

[retiredAFcop]

YRealize it's a small small small percentage of cops out there who are jerks, just as with any other segment of society. Don't put that on the rest of the good cops.

People will tend to judge all members of a group by their experiences with other members of that same group.

That's not my doing, that's reality. And there's no need to call me names for pointing out simple facts of life, facts that even some third graders understand.

As a gun owner, I am judged by the behavior of people who misuse guns. It's not fair, but that's life.

That means that I go out of my way to compensate for those clowns, so people I come into contact with will realize that not all gun owners are bad people.

Am I "bashing" or insulting gun owners when I say this? No. I am not.

As a teacher, I am judged by the behavior of teachers who do a lousy job. It's not fair, but that's life.

That means that I go out of my way to compensate for those clowns, so people I come into contact with will realize that not all teachers are bad people.

Am I "bashing" or insulting teachers when I say this? No. I am not.

As a cop, I was judged by the behavior of cops who misused the authority granted them. It's not fair, but that's life.

That means that I often had to go out of my way to compensate for those clowns, so people I came into contact with would realize that not all cops are bad people.

Does this somehow magically become "bashing" or insulting because it is about my experiences as a cop? No. It does not.

[55chevypost]

Evidently I use the term. My comment regarding your use of tools was meant more as an eye opener for you, but i have no apologies coming to a man who says he has walked a mile in the shoes of the men and woman who do the job and then post the types of things you do. I would never post or pretend I knew a thing regarding being an MP. I read some of your other post/rants regarding the lack of professional leos. I take exception. Until the day I am eow, these are my brothers and sisters, and when I read the negativity from you I cant sit quietly. Especially when you give some of the non leos on here the false sense that your ideas/logic falls in line with the majority of leos/COPPERS. You posted on another thread you are a school teacher, I just wish you would stick to that and leave the job for the ones doing it.

[fullrearview]

I have not left out ANY information. After he explained what transpired, I played 50-questions with him, and he was simply sitting there, eating a burger and making phone calls. He was not playing loud music, having an argument on the phone, pitching trash onto the street, or doing anything that would draw attention.

This was residential street, lined with nice homes, not crack-houses. As far as burglaries, I cannot answer that, but is that enough to demand ID, demand that someone identify themself, or harrass someone who happens to be parked on a street where a home was burglarized in the past? Regardless, wouldn't LE need to have reasonable suspicion that he just commited a crime, was about to commit a crime, or was involved in some sort of criminal activity?

Unless something has changed, unless you are in fact driving, there is no law that says you are required to have an ID or DL on your person, nor is there a statute that requires you to identify yourself when approcahed by LE.

Unless there is something I am missing, I ask again, are you required to provide LE with ID, or even give them your name under those circumstances?

So wait... You come asking a question, answer your own question, then ask it again???

Welcome to Calguns I suppose.

[fullrearview]

Thanks for the great response, but people pull over all the time to make a call, respond to a text message, or as noted above, grab a quick bite to eat on a break, so if someone happens to pull over on a street where a home has been burglarized, does that mean that non-residents of that street are subject to being temporarily detained until LE concludes that the person is not casing a home, watching residents come and go, etc?

I know that my Mother routinely leaves work, grabs lunch, and finds a shady spot to park and eat lunch. On occasion, I have done that myself in the past.

I don't know where you live, work, or what kind of streets you randomly park on, but I get at least three calls like these a night... So do my beat partners.

People care about their neighborhoods where I work. If there is a car that is unfamiliar or suspicious, they call us and we investigate. Sounds like your buddy handled the situation better than you would have.