Providing LE With Identification

[RedVines]

I'm mystified by your position that the modus operandi of detaining pedestrian citizens at your pleasure is legally suppportable. The decision in Terry did not grant LEOs unbridled discretion to detain and demand ID of such law abiding citizens. Yes, Terry did reduce the threshold for such stops from probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed to a reasonable suspicion but Terry specifically enunciated that in order to be reasonable, the suspicion can't be a conveniently manufactured hunch, but must be predicated on specific and articulable facts.

You have nothing to be mystified about. I never said anything about "at my pleasure" or "manufactured hunch". Don't know where you gathered that from. Everything you state is fundamentally true. But I don't know how you would infer from what i wrote that my modus operandi, as you put it, is stopping citizens at my pleasure. Each Terry stop in and of itself must be justifiable, that in and of itself means my modus operandi of conducting as many Terry stops as I can is also, by definition, justifiable.

Yes, a hunch is not reasonable suspicion. *Yes an officer must provide specific and articulable facts to form his reasonable suspicion. *I am fully aware of what is acceptable for forming reasonable suspicion and what is not. *I'm just trying to communicate to others that just because they don't see relevant "objective manifestations" from their perspective doesn't mean that they don't exist from the officer's perspective.

Perhaps you think that every pedestrian citizen stopped by an officer is "at his pleasure", but as long as that officer forms reasonable suspicion upon which his detention is based upon, whether or not the stop is the officer's pleasure is frankly irrelevant. In fact you can infer that every piece of police action is taken "at the officer's pleasure" because, well, the officer is the one doing it. It sounds like you have a difficult time accepting the fact that conducting Terry stops on people, suspects and citizens alike, is a fundamental part of police work. And I don't expect you to understand.

[RedVines]

You've stated the law here both accurately and succinctly. But you've quit after the easy part. The hard part is agreeing on what standard is appropriately applied to determining what constitutes a "reasonable" suspicion. Is it subjective or objective? Is a hunch good enough? A guess? A distant recollection? Does reasonable suspicion arise simply because someone vaguely fits a fleeting and hurried description provided by someone else? And in a close call, in our legal system, who should get the benefit of the doubt?

I think you're confusing court room procedure with reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is always evaluated from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the officer's position. So the litmus test isn't comparing an officer's perspective vs the detainee's perspective, it's whether or not the officer was reasonable in his detention given the totality of the circumstances he is faced with. Therefore, there really isn't an issue of "who should get the benefit of the doubt".

And to answer the questions you've posed in the order you've put them.
1) Reasonable suspicion is objective
2) Hunch is not good enough.
3) A guess is just that. A guess. Will not fly.
4) A distant recollection of what? If it's something along the lines of "i think that might be so and so who robbed the 7-11 last year but i'm not sure", then I would say that in and of itself is not enough. But coupled with some other fact it might be.
5) It depends. Did the crime just occur and how far away from the crime scene was the person stopped? I can't stop every hipster i see because someone told me "i was robbed by a white guy in skinny jeans and a mustache last week".

It depends. It always depends.

[IA300]

I think you're confusing court room procedure with reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is always evaluated from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the officer's position. So the litmus test isn't comparing an officer's perspective vs the detainee's perspective, it's whether or not the officer was reasonable in his detention given the totality of the circumstances he is faced with. Therefore, there really isn't an issue of "who should get the benefit of the doubt".

Well put, I would only add that reasonablness is that officer's perspective as it relates to others with "similar training and experience."
Once the arrest is made and the case goes to the DA's office, one of the things they look for, before filing, is was the stop/detention reasonable and would they argue it in court...

[Jet Setter]

Nosey neighbor/home owner probably got nervous and called for assistance.

[P5Ret]

Easily most of these incidents would not see the light of day or be of any question if the officer/deputy explained the reason for the contact in the first place. "Sir one of the neighbors saw you sitting in the car and called they are concerned about recent burglaries in the area". I was told long ago by a fto that it is much easier to sell yourself and the reason then it is to force someone to do something, or something like that.

[CBR_rider]

And this discussion proves just how much of a tangled web we LEO's have to navigate while going about our daily assignments. If I had more time I would post the numerous court cases all having various definitions of the phrase "probable cause." As for reasonable suspicion, that seems to have also been explained. Here is a recent example of just how low the threshold is for a LEO to make a detention.

United States v. Smith (9th Cir. 2011) 633 F.3d 889, Unprovoked flight from an officer in a high crime area justifies detention and pat down. "A person's headlong, unprovoked flight upon seeing a police officer, when it occurs in a high-crime neighborhood, is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity."

[Steveo8]

And this discussion proves just how much of a tangled web we LEO's have to navigate while going about our daily assignments. If I had more time I would post the numerous court cases all having various definitions of the phrase "probable cause." As for reasonable suspicion, that seems to have also been explained. Here is a recent example of just how low the threshold is for a LEO to make a detention.

United States v. Smith (9th Cir. 2011) 633 F.3d 889, Unprovoked flight from an officer in a high crime area justifies detention and pat down. "A person's headlong, unprovoked flight upon seeing a police officer, when it occurs in a high-crime neighborhood, is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity."

See this makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't is the exact opposite, simply walking through a high crime neighborhood should not justify a detention and pat down.

[RedVines]

See this makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't is the exact opposite, simply walking through a high crime neighborhood should not justify a detention and pat down.

Nobody is saying it does. But walking through a high crime area coupled with some other objective circumstance may justify a detention and pat down.

[55chevypost]

IMO, Redvines has a great grasp of the law and police work, and did an outstanding job explaining.

[CBR_rider]

As Redvines has said, no LEO here is saying that you will be detained and patted down simply because you are walking around a neighborhood. Again, as previously mentioned, couple that walking around with a few other observations that can be articulated and Voila! The officer has grounds for a detention.

[Steveo8]

IMO, Redvines has a great grasp of the law and police work, and did an outstanding job explaining.

As a non LEO I have to agree with very much and this has been a very enlightening thread by all the have participated.

[RedVines]

IMO, Redvines has a great grasp of the law and police work, and did an outstanding job explaining.

Thank you for the kind words.

[retiredAFcop]

It's up the the officer to articulate that though. No where does it say that an officer has to explain himself to a subject he detains.

There's a logical fallacy there. The officer must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion at that time in order to prove that he/she has an articulable reasonable suspicion at that time.

If the officer can't articulate (explain) his/her reasonable suspicion to the subject, then the subject has reasonable cause to believe that the officer is exceeding his/her authority and violating the subject's rights. And this is where the trouble begins.

And why is the officer thinking of the minimum level of communication that is technically required, rather than the optimal level of communication that will result in a positive, consensual encounter with the subject?

If the officer was unable (or unwilling) to articulate a reasonable suspicion at the time of the incident, it seems reasonable to assume that the officer had no articulable reasonable suspicion at that time, and simple made one up later, with coaching from friends. This is the kind of loose end that allows a crafty defense attorney to exclude evidence and unravel an otherwise good case.

This was explained to me multiple times in training, in refresher training, and in "best practices" training.

Isn't it much simpler to not act unless you can explain the reasonableness of your actions to the subject? In many (most?) cases, being able to explain yourself is the best way to get cooperation, and have the encounter go smoothly. Even if the subject does not agree, you have done what professionalism requires, and can then decide how you want to proceed.

Let's look at an example based on an incident from my real life:

I was new to a neighborhood, and was out walking with my dog in the late evening (just got home from a swing shift and was still a bit hyped up from some drama at work). A patrol car pulled up by me, and the officer asked me how I'm doing this evening, etc. My response was something like "Fine, how are you? Can I help you with something?" He told me that he hasn't seen me in the neighborhood before, and is concerned about seeing someone walking through the neighborhood at night - an unusual occurrence - due to a recent increase in burglaries, and he hadn't seen my dog (who was sniffing at some bushes when he drove up). I was happy to tell him I just moved in to the the apartments on the next block, and may even have offered to show him my ID before he even asked. At the end of the encounter, I was thinking "Wow, what a conscientious patrolman my neighborhood has - he really knows the people and the routines here. I feel pretty safe about this neighborhood, even though there have apparently been some burglaries. I'm guessing they've stepped up patrols to make it safer.", and I thanked him for checking in with me - pretty sure we were on a first name basis by then. Talking to my neighbor that weekend, I commented on how professional our local police were. When this officer would see me walking my dog on other nights, we'd wave to each other, and sometimes he'd pull over and we'd exchange some conversation about the day. Once he even asked me to be watchful for people meeting a certain description, who had been seen loitering in the neighborhood near a house that was later vandalized, and I kept my eyes peeled. I know this sounds pretty "Mayberry", but it was a smaller city - and things do still work like this in smaller cities and distinct neighborhood communities (also shows the benefits of "community policing").

If he had spotlighted me in the face and opened the encounter by demanding to see my ID, and then refused to tell me why he wanted it, I would not have reacted as well, and not have been as cooperative. It would immediately have become a non-consensual detention, and I would be wondering what kind of neighborhood I had just moved to that the cops stop everyone for walking their dog on the public street. I would then have likely complained to my neighbors about what jerks the local cops are.

Which outcome do you desire? What choices can you make that will help you to get to that outcome? As the LEO, you are the one driving/controlling the situation.

Sure there will be times when you aren't going to be able to explain things - but if we aren't talking about some sort of extreme threat situation, there's always time for courteous and professional communication.

The officer sets the tone, and generally has the power to escalate or de-escalate the level of drama in the situation. Why be stingy with an explanation, when a few words can be the difference between a supporter of your department, and a person who thinks cops are bullies?

[Samuelx]

There's a logical fallacy there. The officer must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion at that time in order to prove that he/she has an articulable reasonable suspicion at that time.

If the officer can't articulate (explain) his/her reasonable suspicion to the subject, then the subject has reasonable cause to believe that the officer is exceeding his/her authority and violating the subject's rights. And this is where the trouble begins.

And why is the officer thinking of the minimum level of communication that is technically required, rather than the optimal level of communication that will result in a positive, consensual encounter with the subject?

If the officer was unable (or unwilling) to articulate a reasonable suspicion at the time of the incident, it seems reasonable to assume that the officer had no articulable reasonable suspicion at that time, and simple made one up later, with coaching from friends. This is the kind of loose end that allows a crafty defense attorney to exclude evidence and unravel an otherwise good case.

This was explained to me multiple times in training, in refresher training, and in "best practices" training.

Isn't it much simpler to not act unless you can explain the reasonableness of your actions to the subject? In many (most?) cases, being able to explain yourself is the best way to get cooperation, and have the encounter go smoothly. Even if the subject does not agree, you have done what professionalism requires, and can then decide how you want to proceed.

Let's look at an example based on an incident from my real life:

I was new to a neighborhood, and was out walking with my dog in the late evening (just got home from a swing shift and was still a bit hyped up from some drama at work). A patrol car pulled up by me, and the officer asked me how I'm doing this evening, etc. My response was something like "Fine, how are you? Can I help you with something?" He told me that he hasn't seen me in the neighborhood before, and is concerned about seeing someone walking through the neighborhood at night - an unusual occurrence - due to a recent increase in burglaries, and he hadn't seen my dog (who was sniffing at some bushes when he drove up). I was happy to tell him I just moved in to the the apartments on the next block, and may even have offered to show him my ID before he even asked. At the end of the encounter, I was thinking "Wow, what a conscientious patrolman my neighborhood has - he really knows the people and the routines here. I feel pretty safe about this neighborhood, even though there have apparently been some burglaries. I'm guessing they've stepped up patrols to make it safer.", and I thanked him for checking in with me - pretty sure we were on a first name basis by then. Talking to my neighbor that weekend, I commented on how professional our local police were. When this officer would see me walking my dog on other nights, we'd wave to each other, and sometimes he'd pull over and we'd exchange some conversation about the day. Once he even asked me to be watchful for people meeting a certain description, who had been seen loitering in the neighborhood near a house that was later vandalized, and I kept my eyes peeled. I know this sounds pretty "Mayberry", but it was a smaller city - and things do still work like this in smaller cities and distinct neighborhood communities (also shows the benefits of "community policing").

If he had spotlighted me in the face and opened the encounter by demanding to see my ID, and then refused to tell me why he wanted it, I would not have reacted as well, and not have been as cooperative. It would immediately have become a non-consensual detention, and I would be wondering what kind of neighborhood I had just moved to that the cops stop everyone for walking their dog on the public street. I would then have likely *****ed to my neighbors about what *******s the local cops are.

Which outcome do you desire? What choices can you make that will help you to get to that outcome? As the LEO, you are the one driving/controlling the situation.

Sure there will be times when you aren't going to be able to explain things - but if we aren't talking about some sort of extreme threat situation, there's always time for courteous and professional communication.

The officer sets the tone, and generally has the power to escalate or de-escalate the level of drama in the situation. Why be stingy with an explanation, when a few words can be the difference between a supporter of your department, and a person who thinks cops are bullies?

Wrong. I don't have to articulate anything to a subject right then and there in order to gain his/her compliance or to prove to him/her that I have a legitimate reason to detain him/her. It can also be entirely reasonable that I search, handcuff, And detain a subject in the back of my car before explaining anything. That being said, most of the time, I would explain while detaining or right after safely detaining someone. Once I establish that a subject is likely not a threat and/or is in a more difficult position to present a threat, I can start relaxing with him/her/them. Btw, FWIW, I can't recall a time when I didn't make the effort to explain Why or What...

[Samuelx]

And this discussion proves just how much of a tangled web we LEO's have to navigate while going about our daily assignments. If I had more time I would post the numerous court cases all having various definitions of the phrase "probable cause." As for reasonable suspicion, that seems to have also been explained. Here is a recent example of just how low the threshold is for a LEO to make a detention.

United States v. Smith (9th Cir. 2011) 633 F.3d 889, Unprovoked flight from an officer in a high crime area justifies detention and pat down. "A person's headlong, unprovoked flight upon seeing a police officer, when it occurs in a high-crime neighborhood, is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity."

Wardlow v Illinois (SCOTUS - 2000) too