This is in response to a question asked on my other thread......
sanctioned-suicide.net
Original question : "basically i'm wondering: if a person is approached and questioned by police out in public, what should they do? if i don't respond to their questions, or if i'm terse in my responses, i might piss them off or make them suspicious of me, which increases the risk that they will escalate the situation. but if i freely give them information, they might use it against me.
for context, i live in a big city in the US. there were a few times where my friends and I were minding our business, not causing any trouble, but the police approached us. they asked what are we doing, why are we here, what are our names, where are our ids, stuff like that. (my state doesn't have a stop and identify statute.) this happened at a festival, at a protest, and walking down the street. i see advice online that says that you should never say anything to the cops without a lawyer present. the problem is that if we don't respond to their questions, the cops get suspicious and frustrated and sometimes they escalate the situation. so i don't know what i should do to reduce the risk of conflict or arrest."
I felt its important enough information to warrant its own thread because its something the general public always asked me about.
So let me start off by saying there are three levels or "tiers" of police encounters.
Tier 1- Consensual encounter. It means that a cop has approached you for zero reason. It could be to ask questions about a crime that occurred in the area, looking for witnesses, talk about the weather, comment on your new shoes, whatever but there is no evidence or suspicion of any crime. Because its a consensual encounter, you have to right to not speak or leave. In this instance your not detained in any way. Example, your at the mall walking around and cop walks up to you and asks you if youve seen someone wearing whatever and looking like whatever because they are a suspect for a bunch of car break ins. Or maybe the cop just asks you where you bought the hoodie your wearing because he thinks it looks cool. In either scenerio its your right to talk, not talk, or leave.
Tier 2- ARS (Terry)stop. ARS stands for articulable reasonable suspicion. It means the cop has approached you because they have observed or received information that a crime has occurred, is currently occurring, or is about to occur involving you. Its pretty much they arn't sure a crime is occurred but they are allowed to detain you while they investigate it. Now its not just any cop can come investigate you looking to see if your committing a crime, there has to be circumstances or observations that give suspicion as to a crime. During a tier 2 encounter you are legally detained and can be for a reasonable time while a brief investigation is conducted. You can receive a terry frisk and can be detained in handcuffs. Its legal. A few examples.....so you are walking around a park and randomly a cop stops you and begins asking what your doing and for your ID and stuff. He then tells you that you match the description of someone who broke into a house in the area and a witness saw the offender run in the direction of the park. You are detained while maybe he gets some information or someone drives the witness by to look at you, whatever. After a brief time, usually the not dick thing to do is apologize and thank someone for their cooperation but sometimes cops are assholes but the important part is you are released and free to go. Example 2, maybe your hanging out in front of a store with friends and a cop comes up demanding your ID's and stuff. You weren't doing anything but standing there talking. Well some places have loitering and trespassing laws/ordinances so the cops ARS is that you may have been violating something like that. Usually they run peoples ID's and tell them to move on. Again, the detainment can be in handcuffs, include a terry frisk, and you are not free to leave. Usually grounds for an obstruction or failure to obey charge.
Tier 3- Probable Cause stop/arrest. This is the easiest to understand. A cop has probable cause that you have committed a crime and your arrested. IE there are facts or circumstances the would make a reasonable and prudent person believe a crime has been or is being committed. A traffic stop you are technically under arrest but are released upon signing the ticket and agreeing to show up to court. A cop observes you punch someone in the face, your under arrest and go to jail. You are detained (arrested) and are not free to leave, you are handcuffed, and you are able to be fully searched. Usually the search only happens if your going to jail but on some criminal matters like some places with shoplifting, an offender may be detained in handcuffs, fully searched, but later released on a citation. I never once searched someone for speeding lol.
Note, the above are my dumbass plain explanations. There's much fancier language and better examples but this is what I came up with tonight.
What should you do if a cop "encounters" you? Well its hard to say, it depends on a lot of circumstances but if you don't want to talk to them, then don't. Anything you say before your placed under arrest and read Miranda can be used against you. I'll do a thing on Miranda below. If you are, are going to, or have just committed a crime then shut your fucking mouth. Say nothing until handcuffs are applied and your arrested at which time you answer ALL of their questions with "I would like an attorney." If you don't think youve committed a crime and you don't want to talk or feel uncomfortable then politely tell them that and ask what tier the encounter is. You can also ask if your being detained, if yes I wouldn't speak. Generally its a bad idea to talk to the cops.
Now, just like some people bait cops, cops will bait you so if your acting like a dick they will bait you into doing or saying something that they can take you to jail for. Its called POP for short, pissin off the police. POTP doesn't have the same ring to it. I strongly recommend you record the encounter in a discrete way like a camera or voice note app left in with the phone sticking out of a pocket. I also strongly recommend you keep your cool and don't yell. Be polite, be friendly, be controlled because if there is later court action whether criminal or civil it looks wayyyyyyyy better in court than someone who's a dick and fights.
One big thing that leads to trouble for a lot of people.....for a tier 2 the cops are allowed to demand your ID. Notice I said demand and not ask. So while you may think or even know your not doing anything illegal, if the encounter is a tier 2 then the cop can get your ID. If you fail to give it or your name and DOB then a lot of places have laws like obstruction or failure to identify that allow your arrest.
So what do you do if the cops talk to you? I can say that all law enforcement and lawyers agree its best to limit what you say or not speak at all. My personal recommendation is to be nice and polite, ask what tier encounter it is, ask if your detained, advise the cop/s that you wish to not speak with them if that is your choice, and make sure you do nothing to obstruct them or their investigation. Not speaking is your right and you absolutely have the right to not incriminate yourself. Me personally, I usually talked to the cops (before I was a cop) because I knew my rights (literally knew them not pretended I did like a lot of people), I knew whatever I was doing wasn't illegal, and knew generally they would leave me alone faster if I was cooperative. I once went from being at gun point in my own driveway to being released 5 minutes later because I was cooperative and they were able to figure out I wasn't who they were searching for, faster. Cops are generally more friendly when your fully cooperative and talk to them but they are also always fishing for information to lock someone up on. To each their own but KNOW YOUR RIGHTS and KNOW YOUR LAWS AND ORDNANCES.
The courts literally say ignorance is no excuse for anything regarding the law. This is for all facets and the burden is always on you to know what's legal or not, how to deal legally with things, etc. Just saying, I literally heard judges say that in court so many times.
Below is some random case laws related kinda. I hope it all wasn't too boring but again, state laws and elements for crimes differ from state to state. Every state has their laws available somewhere online. I personally like justia.com . Also research your own case law by state, Federal Court of Appeals Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the US for specifics on things. Never trust anything you read on a forum as fact, especially the law. See it with your own eyes and read it. I said before, its actually fascinating once you start or atleast it is for me.
Hope you all have a wonderful day/night.
Some notes:
* Google gave me a good description of a terry stop so here it is.....
"A Terry stop is a brief, temporary police detention of a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Originating from the landmark 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, it allows officers to stop and pat down outer clothing for weapons if they believe the person is armed and dangerous.
Legal Standards and Rules
Reasonable suspicion: Officers must have specific, articulable facts that lead to a rational inference of criminal behavior, which is a lower legal standard than probable cause.
Not an arrest: A Terry stop is a temporary seizure under the Fourth Amendment, but it is not a formal arrest.
Limited frisk: The external pat-down must be strictly limited to finding weapons, not a general search for evidence or contraband unless plain touch immediately identifies it.
Time limits: The detention must be brief and last only as long as necessary to confirm or dispel the officer's suspicion.
Criticisms and Controversy
Civil liberties: Critics argue that reasonable suspicion is subjective and can lead to arbitrary detentions.
Racial profiling: Statistical studies and civil rights groups note that stop-and-frisk practices disproportionately target minority communities."
* Miranda Notice front GOogle.....
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling stating that police must inform suspects in custody of their constitutional rights before questioning them. If police fail to give these "Miranda warnings," any self-incriminating statements or confessions made during the interrogation cannot be used as evidence in court.
The Case Background
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963 for kidnapping and rape.
Police interrogated him for two hours without telling him he had a right to a lawyer or a right to remain silent.
Miranda signed a written confession.
The court used this confession at his trial, and a jury found him guilty.
Miranda appealed, stating the police forced him to incriminate himself.
The Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court voted 5–4 in favor of Miranda on June 13, 1966.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination during police custody.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel.
The Court ruled that police must use specific procedural safeguards to protect these rights.
The Miranda Warning
Police must clearly state these rights to a person in custody before an interrogation:
The right to remain silent
That anything said can be used in court
The right to have an attorney present
The right to a free attorney if one cannot afford it
Also know!!!! A cop doesn't have to read you Miranda after your arrested. A cop only has to read you Miranda after your arrested IF the cop is going to question you regarding the crime/s your arrested for. So if the cop isn't going to question you, no Miranda needs to be given and ANYTHING you say after that is considered a "Spontaneous utterance" and legal to be used in court.
* Cops legally can order you out of the vehicle during a traffic stop....
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police officers can safely and lawfully order a driver out of a vehicle during a routine, lawful traffic stop without needing any specific suspicion of criminal activity or danger.
Case Background
The Stop: Philadelphia police officers pulled over Harry Mimms for driving a car with an expired license plate.
The Order: An officer asked Mimms to step out of the vehicle, which was standard department practice.
The Discovery: As Mimms stepped out, the officer noticed a large bulge under his jacket, performed a pat-down frisk, and found a loaded .38-caliber revolver.
The Conflict: Mimms was convicted of carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the exit order was an unconstitutional "seizure" because officers lacked individual suspicion before making him step out.
The Supreme Court Ruling
The Decision: In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the state court ruling and upheld the conviction.
The Balancing Test: The Court weighed the minimal intrusion on a driver's personal liberty (described as a de minimis or minor inconvenience) against the very real, heightened interest in officer safety.
The Frisk: Because the exit order was valid, seeing the jacket bulge gave the officer reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective pat-down under Terry v. Ohio.
Subsequent Expansion to Passengers
Later, in Maryland v. Wilson (1997), the Supreme Court extended this rule to passengers as well, allowing officers to order any occupant out of a lawfully stopped car for safety reasons.
And for passengers Maryland V. Wilson.....
In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers can order passengers to get out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop without needing any independent reasonable suspicion.
Case Background
A Maryland state trooper pulled over a speeding car with a temporary rental car tag.
Jerry Lee Wilson was a passenger in the vehicle.
Noting Wilson's nervousness, the trooper ordered him to step out of the car.
As Wilson exited, cocaine fell to the ground, and he was arrested for drug possession with intent to distribute.
Wilson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that ordering a mere passenger out of the car violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Legal Ruling and Reasoning
In an 8–1 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings and extended its prior decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (which allowed officers to order drivers out of cars) to passengers.
Officer Safety: The Court reasoned that the danger to police officers is just as high during traffic stops involving passengers as it is with drivers alone.
Minimal Intrusion: The additional imposition on a passenger's personal liberty is minor because the vehicle is already lawfully stopped.
@bagel12
Law Enforcement and involuntary commitments, welfare checks, and other miscellaneous stuff in US. Warning, very long
Howdy Kiddo's, Its time for another installment of “Random $#!7 from COP2CON." In all seriousness, this is in response to this thread...... https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/be-careful-with-the-personal-information-you-post-here.51112/page-4 I didn't want to half ass a response but...
sanctioned-suicide.net
Original question : "basically i'm wondering: if a person is approached and questioned by police out in public, what should they do? if i don't respond to their questions, or if i'm terse in my responses, i might piss them off or make them suspicious of me, which increases the risk that they will escalate the situation. but if i freely give them information, they might use it against me.
for context, i live in a big city in the US. there were a few times where my friends and I were minding our business, not causing any trouble, but the police approached us. they asked what are we doing, why are we here, what are our names, where are our ids, stuff like that. (my state doesn't have a stop and identify statute.) this happened at a festival, at a protest, and walking down the street. i see advice online that says that you should never say anything to the cops without a lawyer present. the problem is that if we don't respond to their questions, the cops get suspicious and frustrated and sometimes they escalate the situation. so i don't know what i should do to reduce the risk of conflict or arrest."
I felt its important enough information to warrant its own thread because its something the general public always asked me about.
So let me start off by saying there are three levels or "tiers" of police encounters.
Tier 1- Consensual encounter. It means that a cop has approached you for zero reason. It could be to ask questions about a crime that occurred in the area, looking for witnesses, talk about the weather, comment on your new shoes, whatever but there is no evidence or suspicion of any crime. Because its a consensual encounter, you have to right to not speak or leave. In this instance your not detained in any way. Example, your at the mall walking around and cop walks up to you and asks you if youve seen someone wearing whatever and looking like whatever because they are a suspect for a bunch of car break ins. Or maybe the cop just asks you where you bought the hoodie your wearing because he thinks it looks cool. In either scenerio its your right to talk, not talk, or leave.
Tier 2- ARS (Terry)stop. ARS stands for articulable reasonable suspicion. It means the cop has approached you because they have observed or received information that a crime has occurred, is currently occurring, or is about to occur involving you. Its pretty much they arn't sure a crime is occurred but they are allowed to detain you while they investigate it. Now its not just any cop can come investigate you looking to see if your committing a crime, there has to be circumstances or observations that give suspicion as to a crime. During a tier 2 encounter you are legally detained and can be for a reasonable time while a brief investigation is conducted. You can receive a terry frisk and can be detained in handcuffs. Its legal. A few examples.....so you are walking around a park and randomly a cop stops you and begins asking what your doing and for your ID and stuff. He then tells you that you match the description of someone who broke into a house in the area and a witness saw the offender run in the direction of the park. You are detained while maybe he gets some information or someone drives the witness by to look at you, whatever. After a brief time, usually the not dick thing to do is apologize and thank someone for their cooperation but sometimes cops are assholes but the important part is you are released and free to go. Example 2, maybe your hanging out in front of a store with friends and a cop comes up demanding your ID's and stuff. You weren't doing anything but standing there talking. Well some places have loitering and trespassing laws/ordinances so the cops ARS is that you may have been violating something like that. Usually they run peoples ID's and tell them to move on. Again, the detainment can be in handcuffs, include a terry frisk, and you are not free to leave. Usually grounds for an obstruction or failure to obey charge.
Tier 3- Probable Cause stop/arrest. This is the easiest to understand. A cop has probable cause that you have committed a crime and your arrested. IE there are facts or circumstances the would make a reasonable and prudent person believe a crime has been or is being committed. A traffic stop you are technically under arrest but are released upon signing the ticket and agreeing to show up to court. A cop observes you punch someone in the face, your under arrest and go to jail. You are detained (arrested) and are not free to leave, you are handcuffed, and you are able to be fully searched. Usually the search only happens if your going to jail but on some criminal matters like some places with shoplifting, an offender may be detained in handcuffs, fully searched, but later released on a citation. I never once searched someone for speeding lol.
Note, the above are my dumbass plain explanations. There's much fancier language and better examples but this is what I came up with tonight.
What should you do if a cop "encounters" you? Well its hard to say, it depends on a lot of circumstances but if you don't want to talk to them, then don't. Anything you say before your placed under arrest and read Miranda can be used against you. I'll do a thing on Miranda below. If you are, are going to, or have just committed a crime then shut your fucking mouth. Say nothing until handcuffs are applied and your arrested at which time you answer ALL of their questions with "I would like an attorney." If you don't think youve committed a crime and you don't want to talk or feel uncomfortable then politely tell them that and ask what tier the encounter is. You can also ask if your being detained, if yes I wouldn't speak. Generally its a bad idea to talk to the cops.
Now, just like some people bait cops, cops will bait you so if your acting like a dick they will bait you into doing or saying something that they can take you to jail for. Its called POP for short, pissin off the police. POTP doesn't have the same ring to it. I strongly recommend you record the encounter in a discrete way like a camera or voice note app left in with the phone sticking out of a pocket. I also strongly recommend you keep your cool and don't yell. Be polite, be friendly, be controlled because if there is later court action whether criminal or civil it looks wayyyyyyyy better in court than someone who's a dick and fights.
One big thing that leads to trouble for a lot of people.....for a tier 2 the cops are allowed to demand your ID. Notice I said demand and not ask. So while you may think or even know your not doing anything illegal, if the encounter is a tier 2 then the cop can get your ID. If you fail to give it or your name and DOB then a lot of places have laws like obstruction or failure to identify that allow your arrest.
So what do you do if the cops talk to you? I can say that all law enforcement and lawyers agree its best to limit what you say or not speak at all. My personal recommendation is to be nice and polite, ask what tier encounter it is, ask if your detained, advise the cop/s that you wish to not speak with them if that is your choice, and make sure you do nothing to obstruct them or their investigation. Not speaking is your right and you absolutely have the right to not incriminate yourself. Me personally, I usually talked to the cops (before I was a cop) because I knew my rights (literally knew them not pretended I did like a lot of people), I knew whatever I was doing wasn't illegal, and knew generally they would leave me alone faster if I was cooperative. I once went from being at gun point in my own driveway to being released 5 minutes later because I was cooperative and they were able to figure out I wasn't who they were searching for, faster. Cops are generally more friendly when your fully cooperative and talk to them but they are also always fishing for information to lock someone up on. To each their own but KNOW YOUR RIGHTS and KNOW YOUR LAWS AND ORDNANCES.
The courts literally say ignorance is no excuse for anything regarding the law. This is for all facets and the burden is always on you to know what's legal or not, how to deal legally with things, etc. Just saying, I literally heard judges say that in court so many times.
Below is some random case laws related kinda. I hope it all wasn't too boring but again, state laws and elements for crimes differ from state to state. Every state has their laws available somewhere online. I personally like justia.com . Also research your own case law by state, Federal Court of Appeals Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the US for specifics on things. Never trust anything you read on a forum as fact, especially the law. See it with your own eyes and read it. I said before, its actually fascinating once you start or atleast it is for me.
Hope you all have a wonderful day/night.
Some notes:
* Google gave me a good description of a terry stop so here it is.....
"A Terry stop is a brief, temporary police detention of a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Originating from the landmark 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, it allows officers to stop and pat down outer clothing for weapons if they believe the person is armed and dangerous.
Legal Standards and Rules
Reasonable suspicion: Officers must have specific, articulable facts that lead to a rational inference of criminal behavior, which is a lower legal standard than probable cause.
Not an arrest: A Terry stop is a temporary seizure under the Fourth Amendment, but it is not a formal arrest.
Limited frisk: The external pat-down must be strictly limited to finding weapons, not a general search for evidence or contraband unless plain touch immediately identifies it.
Time limits: The detention must be brief and last only as long as necessary to confirm or dispel the officer's suspicion.
Criticisms and Controversy
Civil liberties: Critics argue that reasonable suspicion is subjective and can lead to arbitrary detentions.
Racial profiling: Statistical studies and civil rights groups note that stop-and-frisk practices disproportionately target minority communities."
* Miranda Notice front GOogle.....
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling stating that police must inform suspects in custody of their constitutional rights before questioning them. If police fail to give these "Miranda warnings," any self-incriminating statements or confessions made during the interrogation cannot be used as evidence in court.
The Case Background
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963 for kidnapping and rape.
Police interrogated him for two hours without telling him he had a right to a lawyer or a right to remain silent.
Miranda signed a written confession.
The court used this confession at his trial, and a jury found him guilty.
Miranda appealed, stating the police forced him to incriminate himself.
The Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court voted 5–4 in favor of Miranda on June 13, 1966.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination during police custody.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel.
The Court ruled that police must use specific procedural safeguards to protect these rights.
The Miranda Warning
Police must clearly state these rights to a person in custody before an interrogation:
The right to remain silent
That anything said can be used in court
The right to have an attorney present
The right to a free attorney if one cannot afford it
Also know!!!! A cop doesn't have to read you Miranda after your arrested. A cop only has to read you Miranda after your arrested IF the cop is going to question you regarding the crime/s your arrested for. So if the cop isn't going to question you, no Miranda needs to be given and ANYTHING you say after that is considered a "Spontaneous utterance" and legal to be used in court.
* Cops legally can order you out of the vehicle during a traffic stop....
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police officers can safely and lawfully order a driver out of a vehicle during a routine, lawful traffic stop without needing any specific suspicion of criminal activity or danger.
Case Background
The Stop: Philadelphia police officers pulled over Harry Mimms for driving a car with an expired license plate.
The Order: An officer asked Mimms to step out of the vehicle, which was standard department practice.
The Discovery: As Mimms stepped out, the officer noticed a large bulge under his jacket, performed a pat-down frisk, and found a loaded .38-caliber revolver.
The Conflict: Mimms was convicted of carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the exit order was an unconstitutional "seizure" because officers lacked individual suspicion before making him step out.
The Supreme Court Ruling
The Decision: In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the state court ruling and upheld the conviction.
The Balancing Test: The Court weighed the minimal intrusion on a driver's personal liberty (described as a de minimis or minor inconvenience) against the very real, heightened interest in officer safety.
The Frisk: Because the exit order was valid, seeing the jacket bulge gave the officer reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective pat-down under Terry v. Ohio.
Subsequent Expansion to Passengers
Later, in Maryland v. Wilson (1997), the Supreme Court extended this rule to passengers as well, allowing officers to order any occupant out of a lawfully stopped car for safety reasons.
And for passengers Maryland V. Wilson.....
In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers can order passengers to get out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop without needing any independent reasonable suspicion.
Case Background
A Maryland state trooper pulled over a speeding car with a temporary rental car tag.
Jerry Lee Wilson was a passenger in the vehicle.
Noting Wilson's nervousness, the trooper ordered him to step out of the car.
As Wilson exited, cocaine fell to the ground, and he was arrested for drug possession with intent to distribute.
Wilson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that ordering a mere passenger out of the car violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Legal Ruling and Reasoning
In an 8–1 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings and extended its prior decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (which allowed officers to order drivers out of cars) to passengers.
Officer Safety: The Court reasoned that the danger to police officers is just as high during traffic stops involving passengers as it is with drivers alone.
Minimal Intrusion: The additional imposition on a passenger's personal liberty is minor because the vehicle is already lawfully stopped.
@bagel12
Last edited:
