Providing LE With Identification

[retiredAFcop]

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?

SVT-40 does a great job of explaining this, but you may have missed this point:

If you are not sure if you are being detained, just ask.

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.

There's nothing wrong with you asking for clarification. You can do this politely, or be a jerk and ask rudely (hint: people frequently will treat you the way you treat them).

Which do you think is the better choice, if the response you want is "Okay, thanks for your help. Have a safe trip."?

"I really do want to help you with your investigation, but I really need to get to work, so could you let me know if I'm being detained, or if I can go now."

"Unless I'm being detained, you're wasting my time. I'm outta here copper."

[retiredAFcop]

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.

Yes, I am a retired LEO (USA and USAF) who currently teaches in the public schools. I'm sorry if the idea of a second career after a disability is difficult for you to grasp.

And here I am, donating my time to try to teach you how to improve your image with the public. Unfortunately, I seem to be failing to get you thinking about this. Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Personally, I don't let my siblings do things that make the family look bad and smear the family name. If they do, I get with my other siblings and correct the one who did wrong. We are a family with honor, not some kind of gang, with a code of silence and loyalty.

I doubt if anybody on here thinks that my views fall into line with a majority of the LEOs who post here. And that is what is important to some people about my posts, because they want to have LEOs (or retired LEOs) who share their concerns about problematic incidents, rather than attempting to pretend that nothing bad ever happens. My philosophy is to get problems out in the open, and deal with them - not circle the wagons and hide them, so they can fester and rot, and grow in people's imaginations. If the emperor is naked, how does it help your credibility to claim he isn't?

If you're tired of hearing about it, fix the problem, don't blame the messenger.

In this thread, I've had a nice, respectful, discussion with another professional about some of the finer points of using communications skills in consent encounters vs. escalating. I've seen other professionals do a good job of patiently explaining things and answering questions. And I've had you making snide remarks about my background and work history.

What exactly do you do for a living? I get the impression you want me to believe that you are some kind of "copper", but your surly disposition, your dismissal of basic public relations techniques, your inability to accept that there may be opportunities for constructive criticism or professional development in a conversation about topics related to LE, and your apparent inability to conceive that others may have valid viewpoints different from your own would seem to indicate that any profession that requires contact with the public would be a bad fit for you. Are you perhaps a corrections worker?

Oh, and I am sorry that you take exception to my "negativity" towards those few LEOs whose lack of professionalism makes all LEOs look bad. There's only one reason that I could see you taking exception to that... does it strike a little too close to home?

[55chevypost]

My definition of respectful is obviously way different than yours.

[Press Check]

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

Welcome to Calguns I suppose.

Um, before I posed the question again, I did start with, "unless something has changed." Laws are constantly changing, constantly evolving, and I don't keep track.

Thanks for the welcome.

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.

Live in Woodland Hills, work in Tarzana, and randomly park on local streets in the West Valley.

Yes, he probably handled it better than I would have.

[RedVines]

@retiredAFcop.

Explaining your reasonable suspicion to a reasonable person would definitely make the encounter a lot easier for both parties. however most people I Terry stop after forming reasonable suspicion are NOT reasonable people. They are usually scum bags, criminals, predators.

From my own experiences, the reason I don't articulate my reasonable suspicion on the spot is because the detainee would, more often than not, view it as an invitation to get into a legal debate with me. Getting into a debate with a detainee on the street detracts from the purpose of the detention and it also compromises officer safety. If i have reasonable suspicion to detain, i'm going to come at him at that level with the appropriate level of command presence. The purpose of my Terry stop is to investigate a suspicious person, not to convince him that i have reasonable suspicion to stop him. I think a lot of LEOs here would agree with me on that.

I believe that when 55chevypost said "you don't know how to/or have actually used the tools given to coppers to protect and serve" he wasn't saying that because you were a military cop. I think it originates from your implication that all police-public contact should be at the level of friendly and civil conversation; it almost sounds like you are unwilling to approach a Terry stop at a detention level of command presence because you are reluctant to risk the possibility of leaving a sour taste in a detainee's mouth.

I find your views on law enforcement very philosophical, not to say they are invalid, but they read like something written by lawyers or public relation consultants in POST training material. I guess i hear a lot of the school teacher in you in your writing. For one thing, you seem really focused on public relations in a thread discussing reasonable suspicion, emphasizing repeatedly that communication with citizens as being key to police work. I think the problem that some LEOs here, myself included, have with your statements is that you oversimplify the dynamics of any given officer/citizen contact, boiling it down to "basic public relations techniques" as you put it. You imply that any time an officer approaches a citizen with the command presence appropriate with a detention he is being rude and unprofessional.

Let me be blunt. I dont think any LEO here is trying to "circle the wagons" around the fact that there are cops out there that are bad, i'm pretty sure every LEO here has had a personal experience with one from a citizen's perspective. No one here is defending or condoning their behavior. I think all LEOs here advocate the highest level of professionalism when dealing with the public. So that comment about donating your time to teach us how to improve our image with the public and leading a horse to water etc? Yeahhhh....that came across just a tad presumptuous.

[9mmepiphany]

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

I gather your aren't familiar with the current television series by that title

[retiredAFcop]

@retiredAFcop.

Explaining your reasonable suspicion to a reasonable person would definitely make the encounter a lot easier for both parties. however most people I Terry stop after forming reasonable suspicion are NOT reasonable people. They are usually scum bags, criminals, predators.

From my own experiences, the reason I don't articulate my reasonable suspicion on the spot is because the detainee would, more often than not, view it as an invitation to get into a legal debate with me. Getting into a debate with a detainee on the street detracts from the purpose of the detention and it also compromises officer safety. If i have reasonable suspicion to detain, i'm going to come at him at that level with the appropriate level of command presence.

Let's get back to the start, we were discussing a consent encounter where an officer has asked for ID, and the subject has asked why the officer wants to ID him/her. There's a thresh-hold area there, where an officer can explain why they are asking for ID and possibly gain cooperation and keep it a consent encounter. There are a lot of reasons why the officer could choose to take it to the next level (detention), but that requires an articulable suspicion. My point is, if the subject has simply asked the question "Why?", it is easier to just articulate your suspicion - instead of saying something like "I don't have to give you a reason" that makes it look like you actually can't articulate a suspicion at that time. So there's really no reason for you not to tell the subject what your articulable suspicion is if they ask, and a lot of good reasons for you t tell them.

Whether or not the subject agrees that your articulable suspicion is reasonable, once you've put it out there, you're ready to go to a detention situation, if that's what you want, and you're covered.

If you refuse to give your articulable suspicion, and haven't shared it in some other way (call to dispatcher, recording in car, etc.) it is pretty safe for everyone to assume that you didn't actually have on eat the time, even if you come up with one later.

The purpose of my Terry stop is to investigate a suspicious person, not to convince him that i have reasonable suspicion to stop him. I think a lot of LEOs here would agree with me on that.

Now you're talking about taking things to a detention level. And again, you say you already have a reasonable suspicion - if the subject asks - politely - there's no reason that you shouldn't answer, is there?
In fact, if you don't answer, it implies that you can't answer - meaning you never had a reasonable suspicion in the first place.

I believe that when 55chevypost said "you don't know how to/or have actually used the tools given to coppers to protect and serve" he wasn't saying that because you were a military cop. I think it originates from your implication that all police-public contact should be at the level of friendly and civil conversation;

My implication is that all consent encounters should be at as professional, friendly, and civil a level as possible. If that is truly what 55chevypost meant, he is not a very effective communicator.

it almost sounds like you are unwilling to approach a Terry stop at a detention level of command presence because you are reluctant to risk the possibility of leaving a sour taste in a detainee's mouth.

Again, referencing consent encounters and encounters that can either stay consent encounters, or move to detentions. Unless there's some serious background to the scenario which would lead me to a reasonable suspicion that he was likely to be doing something wrong, approaching a guy who is eating a sandwich in a car does not strike me as requiring more than a consent encounter - unless some additional elements are added that give me a reasonable suspicion to believe he is likely to be doing something wrong.

I find your views on law enforcement very philosophical, not to say they are invalid, but they read like something written by lawyers or public relation consultants in POST training material. I guess i hear a lot of the school teacher in you in your writing. For one thing, you seem really focused on public relations in a thread discussing reasonable suspicion, emphasizing repeatedly that communication with citizens as being key to police work. I think the problem that some LEOs here, myself included, have with your statements is that you oversimplify the dynamics of any given officer/citizen contact, boiling it down to "basic public relations techniques" as you put it.

On a site where LEOs regularly complain about the fact that non-LEO site members are "anti-LEO", or ready to believe bad things about LEOs, doesn't it make sense to keep PR in mind?

I spend time trying to explain law, the constitution, and law enforcement to the students I work with - some of whom have been brainwashed to see cops as the enemy from a very young age. Much like some of the people here on CG, they are often resistant to the idea that any cop cares about them enough to treat them fairly and professionally. I try to explain to them how they can courteously ask an LEO why something is happening, and explain the rules (don't drop the F bomb, don't make threats, don't say anything stupid, don;t escalate...) so that they might start having encounters with the police that are, if not positive, at least not negative. I talk to friends who are still working in the field, I read a little - mostly online forums and blogs - to keep from getting totally out of date. I liked being a cop, liked being a cop in the military, but that ended over nine years ago for me. I am still interested in the law and how it is applied, the constitution, etc. (hey, I have to teach students about it, so I should know more than just what the textbooks say). So I may be a quite a bit more philosophical than hands on at this point. But I think it wouldn't hurt for more LEOs to be a bit more philosophical/thoughtful about the profession.


I spent my last few years as a cop doing a lot of remediation and training of patrolmen who had got themselves into a bit of trouble and were making the unit look bad. Part of my job was getting them to deal with people in a manner that made our unit look professional. Most military bases are like small towns - as a cop, everyone knows who you are, and what you do. This means that, unless it's gotten to the point where you are ready to apprehend them and send them away, you are very courteous and professional - much like small town cops often are. One of the things that came up again and again in professional development material was how much more voluntary compliance you could get by being professional, courteous, and using proper communications strategies. I would have to say that well over 95% of my patrol contacts at my last duty station never went beyond consent encounters in the perception of the subjects I was dealing with (checkpoint searches were always detentions, but we were able to get most people to undergo them without any complaint). I know that is very different than what some officers experience, but that other officers have similar experiences.

When discussing a general scenario, you want to keep things simple. Complexity and nuance comes in with every new wrinkle.

You imply that any time an officer approaches a citizen with the command presence appropriate with a detention he is being rude and unprofessional.

That may be what you infer, but what I was trying to say is that there is no reason to be rude and unprofessional, even in a simple detention, and especially not in a consent encounter.

Let me be blunt. I dont think any LEO here is trying to "circle the wagons" around the fact that there are cops out there that are ***holes, i'm pretty sure every LEO here has had a personal experience with one from a citizen's perspective. No one here is defending or condoning their behavior. I think all LEOs here advocate the highest level of professionalism when dealing with the public.

You must not have seen some of the posts I've seen in other threads. There are some LEOs who post on this site that seem to be deliberately trying to pick fights with other people, blatantly lie, and are exceptionally cavalier about how they talk about civil rights. I would be just as happy not to have seen them, either.

I've had several snarky comments from other LEOs here who have made it quite clear that they don't want someone here who doesn't toe the party line - generally the same guys who continually alienate the non LEO CG members.

So that comment about donating your time to teach us how to improve our image with the public and leading a horse to water etc? Yeahhhh....that came across just a tad presumptuous.

The leading a horse to water was clearly aimed at a specific person who seems to need to learn some basic interpersonal skills. He's still getting a bit more respect from me than he has given me.

The other - I see a problem, I try to help fix it. LEOs here at CG feel abused, yet many post in ways that simply reinforce the negative views that others have about LEOs, or post about doing things in ways that reinforce negative stereotypes. Why shouldn't I try to help them see what they are doing, and how counterproductive it is? I'm not doing anything else right now but waiting to be be ready to sleep.

[retiredAFcop]

I gather your aren't familiar with the current television series by that title

Nope.

Don't watch much TV.

Is it modern or historical?

[CBR_rider]

Well, after all these exciting posts I have to say that:

- The OP seems to have his questions answered.

- We seem to agree about what constitutes a detention vs consensual contact

- We can't seem to agree to be always be nice to one another

- There are 1,000 ways to contact and potentially detain someone in the field, and we don't all agree on the best way to do so. I agree with what seem to be both sides of the camp here: I am NOT going to get in a curbside debate on reasonable suspicion with some knucklehead until things are more secure FOR ME but the flipside is once things have calmed down I can and do work on explaining the reasons for my conduct to said knucklehead. 99/100 times, they understand and the show goes on. Those 1/100 are generally LEO haters and it doesn't matter what I do/say they won't like it because I am a LEO.

As a side note, I do occasionally approach someone whom I'm going to potentially detain with a consensual contact because if I can get all the information I need in a more informal setting without compromising my safety I can sometimes get more information out of them. This type of setting often leaves both of us a little happier.

[Notorious]

IBTL~!

[RedVines]

Let's get back to the start, we were discussing a consent encounter where an officer has asked for ID, and the subject has asked why the officer wants to ID him/her. There's a thresh-hold area there, where an officer can explain why they are asking for ID and possibly gain cooperation and keep it a consent encounter. There are a lot of reasons why the officer could choose to take it to the next level (detention), but that requires an articulable suspicion. My point is, if the subject has simply asked the question "Why?", it is easier to just articulate your suspicion - instead of saying something like "I don't have to give you a reason" that makes it look like you actually can't articulate a suspicion at that time. So there's really no reason for you not to tell the subject what your articulable suspicion is if they ask, and a lot of good reasons for you t tell them.

Whether or not the subject agrees that your articulable suspicion is reasonable, once you've put it out there, you're ready to go to a detention situation, if that's what you want, and you're covered.

If you refuse to give your articulable suspicion, and haven't shared it in some other way (call to dispatcher, recording in car, etc.) it is pretty safe for everyone to assume that you didn't actually have on eat the time, even if you come up with one later.


Now you're talking about taking things to a detention level. And again, you say you already have a reasonable suspicion - if the subject asks - politely - there's no reason that you shouldn't answer, is there?
In fact, if you don't answer, it implies that you can't answer - meaning you never had a reasonable suspicion in the first place.



My implication is that all consent encounters should be at as professional, friendly, and civil a level as possible. If that is truly what 55chevypost meant, he is not a very effective communicator.

Again, referencing consent encounters and encounters that can either stay consent encounters, or move to detentions. Unless there's some serious background to the scenario which would lead me to a reasonable suspicion that he was likely to be doing something wrong, approaching a guy who is eating a sandwich in a car does not strike me as requiring more than a consent encounter - unless some additional elements are added that give me a reasonable suspicion to believe he is likely to be doing something wrong.

On a site where LEOs regularly complain about the fact that non-LEO site members are "anti-LEO", or ready to believe bad things about LEOs, doesn't it make sense to keep PR in mind?

I spend time trying to explain law, the constitution, and law enforcement to the students I work with - some of whom have been brainwashed to see cops as the enemy from a very young age. Much like some of the people here on CG, they are often resistant to the idea that any cop cares about them enough to treat them fairly and professionally. I try to explain to them how they can courteously ask an LEO why something is happening, and explain the rules (don't drop the F bomb, don't make threats, don't say anything stupid, don;t escalate...) so that they might start having encounters with the police that are, if not positive, at least not negative. I talk to friends who are still working in the field, I read a little - mostly online forums and blogs - to keep from getting totally out of date. I liked being a cop, liked being a cop in the military, but that ended over nine years ago for me. I am still interested in the law and how it is applied, the constitution, etc. (hey, I have to teach students about it, so I should know more than just what the textbooks say). So I may be a quite a bit more philosophical than hands on at this point. But I think it wouldn't hurt for more LEOs to be a bit more philosophical/thoughtful about the profession.


I spent my last few years as a cop doing a lot of remediation and training of patrolmen who had got themselves into a bit of trouble and were making the unit look bad. Part of my job was getting them to deal with people in a manner that made our unit look professional. Most military bases are like small towns - as a cop, everyone knows who you are, and what you do. This means that, unless it's gotten to the point where you are ready to apprehend them and send them away, you are very courteous and professional - much like small town cops often are. One of the things that came up again and again in professional development material was how much more voluntary compliance you could get by being professional, courteous, and using proper communications strategies. I would have to say that well over 95% of my patrol contacts at my last duty station never went beyond consent encounters in the perception of the subjects I was dealing with (checkpoint searches were always detentions, but we were able to get most people to undergo them without any complaint). I know that is very different than what some officers experience, but that other officers have similar experiences.

When discussing a general scenario, you want to keep things simple. Complexity and nuance comes in with every new wrinkle.

That may be what you infer, but what I was trying to say is that there is no reason to be rude and unprofessional, even in a simple detention, and especially not in a consent encounter.

You must not have seen some of the posts I've seen in other threads. There are some LEOs who post on this site that seem to be deliberately trying to pick fights with other people, blatantly lie, and are exceptionally cavalier about how they talk about civil rights. I would be just as happy not to have seen them, either.

I've had several snarky comments from other LEOs here who have made it quite clear that they don't want someone here who doesn't toe the party line - generally the same guys who continually alienate the non LEO CG members.


The leading a horse to water was clearly aimed at a specific person who seems to need to learn some basic interpersonal skills. He's still getting a bit more respect from me than he has given me.

The other - I see a problem, I try to help fix it. LEOs here at CG feel abused, yet many post in ways that simply reinforce the negative views that others have about LEOs, or post about doing things in ways that reinforce negative stereotypes. Why shouldn't I try to help them see what they are doing, and how counterproductive it is? I'm not doing anything else right now but waiting to be be ready to sleep.

We obviously disagree about explaining reasonable suspicion to a detainee. It's been in your experience that 95% of your contacts stay at level of interaction consistent with a consensual encounter even though it is technically detention. 95% has not been my experience and if you worked in my locale and dealt with its population that wouldn't be your experience either. Given the difference in our jobs, i think it's safe to say that what has worked for you in job won't work for mine. I think it has worked for you because you've worked as an MP on military base that is, in your own words, similar to a small town. You are also dealing with a population that is for most part disciplined and have an acceptance of authority (if i'm wrong please correct me, i was never in the military). Also, given your example of a checkpoint search, it seems like a lot of your contacts are under circumstances that already have reasonable suspicion built in for you, circumstances that are rare in civilian police work. Also, how many officers do you usually have with you at a checkpoint? Without sounding disrespectful, how much experience have you had in actually forming and articulating your own independent reasonable suspicion on a quintessential Terry stop?

I've already said that I don't articulate to a detainee reasonable suspicion because it compromises officer safety. I'll TELL them that I have reasonable suspicion but i won't explain at the point of initial detention. I strongly disagree with your point that if an officer can't or is unwilling to articulate reasonable suspicion on the spot that it is safe to assume he has none. I'll also add that while a detainee might infer that i don't actually have reasonable suspicion to detain if i don't explain it to him, quite frankly that's irrelevant to me and i'm not overly concerned. The only opinion that matters to me is the court's, and i'm not aware of any case law that implies or suggests that an officer's lack of articulation at the time of detention somehow influences the grounds of the reasonable suspicion itself. You suggest that explaining reasonable suspicion makes for good PR. I would counter your point to say that it compromises officer safety, and in my book, officer safety trumps good PR 100% of the time. It's also what's taught in police academies. Victim officers are more focused on customer service instead of tactics.

I won't comment about techniques for consensual encounters because that varies too much between different officers' styles. My rule is if you have enough for a detention, approach the stop at the level, that way there is no confusion for the detainee, as well as the DA or public defender reviewing the case later, about the nature of the contact. Not to say you need to be rude, but there is a certain level of command presence that an officer needs to have during a detention. I think a lot of citizens equate command presence with being rude. I can understand why, but I'm not going to alter my level just because of their perception of me.

No, i haven't really come across the negative posts by LEOs that you refer to. I've only recently starting posting here. I'm sure if I did come across one I would have the same reaction you would. I don't have a problem with you "not toeing the party line", quite frankly i don't know what the party line is. You seem to advocate your policing techniques and experiences as being universally effective in law enforcement. I disagree. I see what you did as an MP to be pretty different than what I do as a civilian cop. I know of a lot of MPs who fail out of FTO in a civilian LEA. Like some civilians, I think you have a hard time seeing things from our perspective because,with no disrespect intended, you may not have done a lot of the things that we do on a day to day basis.

What concerns me, as I think it concerns 55chevypost, is that you are "teaching" about police work to non-LEOs based on your experiences as an MP without addressing the differences between our two jobs. I don't think you should take offense to 55chevypost's comments. He has a valid point and I really don't think he is trying to insult you, nor does he comes across to me as lacking basic interpersonal skills.

From my personal viewpoint, we are all adults here, many of us here are seasoned and experienced police officers, we all come here to a public internet forum to discuss issues in a relatively civil atmosphere. This isn't your classroom. So when someone comes here and claims to "teach" me about my own profession, it comes across as pontificating and it really leaves a bad taste, even if the comment wasn't directed at me personally. I won't claim to teach you anything. I will just share my opinion with you in a respectful way, which i think i've done. Again, everything stated with no disrespect intended.

[Samuelx]

What RV so eloquently said!

[retiredAFcop]

We obviously disagree about explaining reasonable suspicion to a detainee.

If what you do works for you, that's great.

It's been nice discussing things with you and some others here, who are able to explain why they are happy with the techniques they use, and the outcomes. I just wonder whether those outcomes are really what you desire, since they can sometimes create a chilling of relations with the public.

There are many LEOs on CG who are unhappy about how other CG members and members of the public feel about LE. This is a situation I find unfortunate.

[Notorious]

If what you do works for you, that's great.

It's been nice discussing things with you and some others here, who are able to explain why they are happy with the techniques they use, and the outcomes. I just wonder whether those outcomes are really what you desire, since they can sometimes create a chilling of relations with the public.

There are many LEOs on CG who are unhappy about how other CG members and members of the public feel about LE. This is a situation I find unfortunate.

Then don't perpetuate it.

[RedVines]

I just wonder whether those outcomes are really what you desire, since they can sometimes create a chilling of relations with the public.

Like they told me in the academy, "you want to be liked by the public? go be a firefighter".