I would not say that. What I would say is that the applicable quote is a demonstration of speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

So which is it?

A)

or

B)

;)


Very good. Normative statements and positive statements should not be confused with one another.

It very well could be either, depending on the LEO you come into contact with. As I stated before, If I personally stop and question you I will most likely have engough PC to arrest you, although other LEOs may not. I don't waste my time dealing with people I don't have to.

Other LEO my decide to read you the "riot act" and have no intentions of arresting you. (although your actions during the stop could cause you arrest)So if you did nothing wrong you will be on your way. It all depends on the circumstances and the LEO that you are dealing with.

We've had to delete a half-dozen posts in this thread in the last 24 hours and issue some warnings via PM.
Let's keep this thread on topic and stay away from personal comments and attacks.
Otherwise the thread will have to be closed.
Thanks for your cooperation.

_____________________________________

Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum

Did someone spike the Kool-Aid today, cuz this thread is very nearly unhinged as you can tell by the number of deleted and edited posts today.

Please folks, stay on topic. It's threads like this that spawn like threads, which may result in the suspension of this forum altogether, ala OMNI last year.

Okey dokey, Smokey?

Thanks.

----------
essxjay
FT TS/S moderator

Did ya get that off of the movie, "Crystal"?

"No growy the dopey without the Snake's okey dokey, okey dokey?"

Your posts and positions seem to indicate - as they should - that there is proper respect paid to those trying to do their jobs. I might suggest you as well extend the practice of professionalism to our volunteers as well.

The volunteer is trying to help our members keep this thread on topic and I'm not sure that Crystal and FAM are going together.

Thanking all of you in advance....

No disrespect intended.

essxjay and cholula both helped me today and by no means was my post intended to be anything other than joke about a line in the movie "Crystal" starring Billy Bob Thorten.

Allow me to help steer things back on course (I used to sail alot :) ). So based on what you're saying above...if I am stopped, which is a form of detainment, and I follow Bruce's suggestion about repeating "Am I under arrest", "Am I free to go", instead of answering questions, are you going to arrest me because I am not cooperating, even through I am exercising my legal rights?

If I am exercising my legal rights, while stopped by a FAM or any other LEO, and that person throws a fit because of my lack of interest in going along with things, and arrests me for it, then that action would just end up in court - because obviously someone who is going to take that stand for their rights (regardless if you see it as being difficult) is going to take you to court if you lose your cool over it and arrest them.

Well, what should happen and what will happen are two different things. 24th ID knows I'm rather particular about that. :D

well, if what should happen doesnt happen, and what shouldn't happen does, then I would be going to court and my new car or condo downpayment would be courtesy of the office having jurisdiction over that particular LEO.

the LEO might have control over things on the street, but after the incident is over, and lawyers get involved, their actions can come back to haunt....

Yes. ^^

If I stop and detain you and based on my experience I feel that you have committed some sort of crime and you continually refuse to ID yourself, or state repeatedly "Am I under arrest" or "Am I free to go", you can be arrested. I am conducting a investigative stop while preforming a criminal investigation and your failure to comply and answer simple questions could be impeding my investigation.


http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Ci...ingJustice.htm
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0----000-.html

Your second paragraph is warped. You can paint the picture of the poor civilian being harrassed by government officials, cops or whatever pleases you. I am stopping you for a reason, not just to talk about the weather and the length of the flight.

The same rights you are hollering about having are the same rights that I have sworn to protect.

I fully understand the law states I must identify myself to law enforcement (although no such law to my knowledge compels me to hand over identification documents). Once I have identified myself, you must either arrest me or let me go, if I resist being detained. You can't make me answer questions or 'go down to the station' involuntarily without arresting me. If you arrest me, you must have probable cause for the arrest. If you arrest me because I am exercising my rights (which include avoiding false detainment and exercising my right to remain silent), and my lawyer can demonstrate a lack of real probable cause, I can sue for damages.

In a practical world, I am not going to be a jerk, and I am going to analyze the situation with the officer just as he/she analyzes me...I am not out there to be beligerant, but if I feel he/she is going where they don't need to, then I am going to stop talking...simple as that. Then, it's upto them to arrest me or let me go. If they arrest me without good probable cause just because I stopped talking (which is my right), then I will be calling my lawyer.

A good example: something I witnessed last year at a FLL security checkpoint where a Broward Sherrif deputy was going through someone's personal papers and documents - if he tried that with me, then I would be arrested for sure...and he would be sued for sure.

Regarding the two links which define obstruction of justice...nothing in those definitions (and rightfully so) link the right to remain silent to the act of obstructing justice - if that were so, then the code being cited would be unconstitutional.

If a LEO is conducting a "Terry stop" or "voluntary" interview, it's extremely unlikely that there is "probable cause" to arrest. If the LEO believed that there was probable cause, the LEO probably would have arrested the suspect and conducted an interrogation in a more coercive, private environment.

Assuming for the sake of argument that a LEO has "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a Terry stop, the suspect will need to identify himself. Beyond that, asserting his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning could not possibly elevate the level of suspicion to probable cause supporting an arrest. It obviously is not illegal to assert constitutional rights, irrespective of whether the LEO subjectively believes that the suspect is impeding the investigation. Under these circumstances, an arrest for "obstruction," etc. would be an illegal arrest, since a suspect in a criminal investigation has no legally enforceable duty to cooperate in this manner.

Lying to the LEO is a completely different matter. Ask Scooter Libby.

All this seems pretty clear. The LEO here is saying that he won't stop anyone until he is already prepared to arrest them. In that case, not speaking to him is a good strategy because - as he states - he is only looking for something to use against the person stopped.

If the stop is not a proper one, i.e. there is no good reason for it, then the person stopped is still not compelled to answer questions.

What people to do is a matter of thier own choosing. If I was approached politely and respectfully, I would likely cooperate. If I did not understand why I was being stopped. I would ask. If the answer was not clear, I might just say nothing and ask to be arrested or allowed to move on.

Given that the questions the LEO present might ask are - by his own definition - geared to substantiating a case he has in mind to make - I would be very careful about joining in that process unless I was very, very sure that my answers would tend to free me from suspicion rather than to corroborate whatever the LEO thinks is going on.

LEO's may or may not be reasonable individuals. They may or may not be interested in the truth rather than comfirming their suspicions. I do not take it for granted that they are my friend or the opposite.