Sir, I do not mean this disrespectfully in anyway but this is exactly what I am talking about in my above post. The amount of information you think you know is going to get you in a lot of trouble. I will do the research for you. However, the information you think you have is incorrect. In most states, (not all I will check Florida) a certified law enforcement officer has authority in the entire state not just in the town, city, or county that they work in. Most will not exercise that authority outside of town, city or county that they work in because it makes attending court very difficult.

I will say it again the concept of reasonable suspicion vs probable cause is very important. You are operating with a misunderstanding of these concepts. Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed for a car stop. It doesn't matter if it is for a traditional violation or an immigration violation. Absent consent probable cause is needed to search the vehicle. The officer has no legal obligation to inform you what the probable cause is or if he even has probable cause. If the officer has probable cause to search your vehicle he is not going to ask for access to your car. He is going to give you a lawful order to exit the vehicle and the search will take place. The other thing you have to understand that standard that these concepts are measured against in court is a reasonable officer not a reasonable civilian without training. The problem with the hypothetical’s that get posted is that the totality of circumstances is also used when talking about these topics. That can include location; time of day, vehicle, number of occupants, officer's experience, a vast number of variables including believe it or not the number of keys on your keying.

The thing that concerns me the most is the concept of I am not going to cooperate. What does that mean? What is that going to look like? Especially troubling is that your basis of non-cooperation could be incorrect. Keep in mind in many states it is illegal to resist even an unlawful order from a law enforcement officer. It is this way to keep citizens from harm. I will say it again because it is worth repeating the place for this argument is in a courtroom NOT on the side of the ROAD. If this takes place on the side of the road the outcome will not be favorable for anyone concerned.

FB

That's the law here in Oregon.

I had this very same conversation with a friend who is a FBI agent - he was very clear on the rules. A cop in one jurisdiction has authority anywhere in the state ONLY when he/she sees a felony being committed, or has probable cause to believe someone has, is or will commit a felony. The only additional exception is when someone's actions might cause harm to another - hence my reference to reckless endangerment.

In addition, when talking about reckless endangerment, he specifically said an out of jurisdiction cop was only allowed to hold such a person for a reasonable time until local cops could show up and then the out of jurisdiction cop could act as a witness and tell the local cop what he/she saw. The specific example here was speeding - if I'm doing 85 in a 65 zone, the out of jurisdiction cop can do nothing. If I'm doing 100 and weaving in and out of traffic and obviously endangering others, he can pull me over and hold me for local cops.

If it's a felony crime, he/she can arrest me - but then again, I can do that to another person as a citizen anyway.

IWhile I cannot speak for every state, most states in which I have resided allow any certified LEO within that state, including Feds in those states that grant Fed LEOs state LEO status, to arrest an individual for a misdeameanor committed in his/her presence. However, Feds rarely get involved for enforcing a state violation unless it is a crime of violence. As a prior local copper, I made several arrests for misdeameanors committed in my presence outside of my jurisdiction but still within the state.

Not exactly...one LEO can pass PC to another, so in the case of your speeding example, assuming the observing LEO had a radar unit, LIDAR, certified speedometer, etc., even if he was outside of his jurisdiction, could pass on PC to a local. Is this done for a simple speeding violation...unlikely, but still within the authority granted by most states to officers certified within that state. This is often done for DWIs and I myself have done this as a Fed (detained individual until local units arrived on the scene and passed on my PC for stop).

I've never resided in Florida, so they may well be a "different animal" when it comes to authorites granted to LEOs outside of their primary jurisdiction than those states in which I've resided.

TB

Inquiring minds want to know
 

I have to admit, now you've got my interest really aroused. Could you provide a hypothetical example of how the number of keys on my keyring indicates anything other than a few or a lot of keys?

I've actually got 3 key rings, one for vehicles, one for house key, office key, my mom's house, etc, and one for the youth sports facility where I am a volunteer. Would my amount of "reasonable suspicion-ness" actually change if I combined all 3 rings onto one big one? My current house has all exterior doors keyed to the same key. My previous one had a separate key for the front door, the back door and the garage door. How would that factor in to the suspicion equation?

This is not a frivolous question. I really would like to understand the thinking that would attach suspicion to a person, or not,based on how many keys were on his key ring.

It seems to me that in many of the posts on this topic people who work in LE and those who do not are "talking past each other" where each group has a lack of "cultural awareness" of the other that makes communication difficult. The "keyring" comment seems to be a perfect example of that. Obviously, you think that that could be significant. To me it signifies nothing. I'd really like to understand why "key count" is a meaningful datum.

Your FBI Agent friend is incorrect. Federal rules and regulations are very different from local and state. When I have time later I will post the statues. In most states certified, sworn law enforcement officers have authority in the entire state. I know for a fact that New Jersey and New Mexico are that way. I will check Florida when I have time hopefully tonight. This is exactly what I am talking about you have information you think is correct but is flawed. If you try to assert your "right" based upon this incorrect information things will go very badly for you.

FB

I did not say you had complete immunity. What I meant was that qualified immunity is a huge barrier to overcome. Besides, as somebody pointed out, the taxpayers usually end up footing the bill.

What other occupation uses a tool specifically designed to kill?

Can this be due to the fact that there is at least certain amount of bigotry and racism in the LE community? Otherwise, where did the expression "driving while black" come from?

When a person has to undergo an operation, most, if not all of the risks, are known ahead of time. A surgeon will go a great length to discuss the procedure and answer all the questions. A pilot or train engineer bears the same risks as the passengers and is just as likley to die as a result of an error. Also, I decide when I board a train or an aircraft to bear this risk, including the risk of a human error.

Futhermore, if a lawyer makes a mistake, there is a recourse. If I am not mistaken, ineffective assistance from counsel can be grounds for appeal. Lawyers, please correct me if I am wrong.

None of the above applies in an encounter with an LEO. If a person is dead or maimed, it is irreversible. And, unlike the example with a surgeon, a pilot, or a train engineer, the victim did know or assume any of the risk.

Let me conclude bay saying that I am not against law enforcement. I believe that most officers do their job honorably. However, there are enough of them outside of this "most" to give me a cause for concern since I do not know ahead of time which one I might encounter on my next cross country trip.

If I am the drug king pin moving drugs or aliens into the United States I am not going to do it myself. I am going to hire someone else to do the smuggling for me. I am going to provide him the transportation to do that. Either a rental or a car that I don't care if it gets seized if he gets caught. I give him the car and the keys. It is usually only the key to the car on the ring. The actual smuggler doesn't use his own keys and usually doesn't think to add keys to the ring. The average person has more than a single key on their ring. They may have a house key, gym, bike lock, the block buster tag, but very rarely only the single key to the car. This is why the reasonable standard is measured against a reasonable officer and not a reasonable civilian.

FB

I'm curious to see the statutes, but he was pretty adamant about the rules here in FL - and I see people here slow down near cop cars, but upon seeing they are out of their jurisdiction, they take off and speed up again - so it's not like I'm the only one who knows this. And yes, when I see a cop car out of its jurisdiction, I resume my 'normal' speed again as well.

You just are not understanding me. It really doesn't matter what the occupation is. When the doctor or lawyer etc make a mistake it doesn't matter how you informed were it is assumed that it was human error rightfully so. Law Enforcement makes and error and it is automatically assumed that the error was on purpose and was an abuse, or racism, or fill in the blank. Just like your experience with law enforcement shapes your perception, (in my opinion wrongfully), my experience with the public reaction to an officers error shapes my perception ( I am guessing in your opinion wrongfully).

A lawyer’s error could take 16 years to fix. Do you want to sit the 16 years in prison why his error is fixed?

There are just way to many misconceptions that are taken as fact. You say I have unlimited power with respect to my firearm. The reality is the circumstances that I that the authority to use deadly force is very very limited. You have no idea how much justification, and review (rightfully so) that goes into a deadly use of force.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in this country. The level of racism and bigotry just does not exist at the levels you believe they do. Unfortunately, when a case appears that does involve racism it is sensationalized by the media for the sake of ratings and circulation to the point when an honest mistake is made the assumption is it can't possibly just been an error. Throw in the fact that many times the public doesn't understand the rules or doesn't recognize the appropriate threat level because they don't have the same experience and training it becomes a no win situation for the law enforcement officer in the court of public opinion. When that lawyer, doctor etc I mentioned earlier make a mistake it is not mentioned in the media. Heck, when the media makes a mistake if you can get the retraction at all it will be on page 25 below the fold.

The inherent problem with law enforcement is people. People don't like to be told they can't do something. Much of a law enforcement officer's career is spent tell people they can't do what they want to do. It really is as simple as that. There is a saying in Law Enforcement if you want to be liked become a firefighter. As my screen name implies before a changed careers I was a firefighter, I can say for a fact this is true.

FB

The chances of an officer anywhere in the country making a stop just for speeding outside of the town, city, county that he works is very slim. Not because he doesn't have the authority to do it. It is because the logistics for court. His town will have to give him the time to attend court somewhere else. His boss will not be happy about that at all because of the time lost.

FB

Well, let's agree to disagree.

When something like this happens, is it also not an error of the "justice" (or should I say, "injustce") system?

I believe there have been a few instances of cover-up and "testlying" to make me question the effectiveness of this. However, since I do not have first-hand knowledge, we can, again, agree to disagree.

Then how do you explain the issue of "driving while black"?

This part I agree with except that it is not "as simple as that". I did not want to be told by the Soviet authorities what I could or could not read, think, or believe. So, I left the USSR. I believe in appropriate laws appropriate ways of "telling people what they can or cannot do". I have a couple of times thanked an officer who pulled me over and gave me a "fix-it" ticket for a busted tail light.

I take back my statement. I checked with my counterparts in Florida. I am the one who is incorrect in the regards to Florida. I apologize profusely. Please remember that though we are living in one country the laws can vary greatly state to state as this has illustrated. In Jersey, Vermont, New Mexico, all the places I have lived a police officer has state wide authority. I found it interesting that as a Fed living and working in Florida I would have more authority in state crimes than a municipal officer. That is very unusual.

FB

Thank you for the explanation. I can easily understand your reasoning and must agree that it makes sense and that the "drug courier" scenario could be one explanation for why a person had only one key on a ring. May I suggest a few others?

1. I am renting a car for a legitimate purpose,
2. My car is in the shop and I am driving a loaner,
3. My family has more drivers than vehicles, thus the keys for each vehicle are kept separate from each driver's "personal" keyring.
4. I use valet parking often and, being cautious, do not want to give the valet a key to everything I've got, just a key to my vehicle.

It seems to me that each of the above would be a more likely explanation for a single key than "I am a drug courier." I know that #1 and #4 are true for me almost every time I fly on business. I use an airport parking location that offers valet service and almost always rent a car at my location. Rationale #3 applied to me for many years both when I was a teenager living at home and when my children were teenagers.

Should the concept of "reasonable suspicion" involve not just an explanation of what could be the case but also factor in what is likely to be the case? If not then almost anything could be used to justify "reasonable suspicion". ("Your honor, he had a shovel in the back of his pickup. He could have used it to bury a body, therefore my stop was justified."

In almost all circumstances, reasonable suspicion isn't going to be based on one factor but will instead be based upon a number of articulable factors. You may have misunderstood FireBug, but that was what I understood to be the gist of his post.

Tb

I carry my house key, my car key and my office security key on separate rings. I do this to keep things more organized and show less of a bulge in my pockets. Nice to know that a LEO would assume that a single key on a ring is a harbinger of nefarious action by the key holder. :rolleyes: